A Dire Dream of Dhimmitude [UPDATED]

Yesterday, Meade sent me the link to this lengthy fantasy by Dan Simmons. I don't have time to quote it artfully, but here's a taste:

"Civil liberties. In 2006 you still fear yourselves and your own institutions first, out of old habit. A not unworthy – if fatally misguided and terminally masochistic – paranoia. I will tell you right now, and this is not a prediction but a history lesson, some of your grandchildren will live in dhimmitude.” [ . . . ]

"[G]et off your ass and Google it,” said the Time Traveler, his one working eye glinting with something like fury. “Dhimmitude. You can also look up the word dhimmi, because that’s what two of your three grandchildren will be called. Dhimmis. Dhimmitude is the system of separate and subordinate laws and rules they will live under. Look up the word sharia while you’re Googling dhimmi because that is the only law they will answer to as dhimmis, the only justice they can hope for . . . they and tens and hundreds of millions more now who are worried in your time about invisible abridgements of their ‘civil liberties’ by their ‘oppressive’ American and European democratically elected governments.” [ . . . ]

“Ahmadenijad,” he said softly. “Natanz. Arak. Bushehr. Ishafan. Bonab. Ramsar.” [ . . . ]

"Are you talking about . . . what? . . . the next fifteen or twenty years?” I said.

“I’m talking about the next fifteen or twenty months from your now,” he said softly. [ . . . ]

“General Seyed Reza Pardis,” intoned the Time Traveler. “Shehab-one, Shehab-two, Shehab-three. Tel Aviv. Baghdad International Airport, Al Salem U.S. airbase in Kuwait, Camp Dawhah U.S. Army base in Kuwait, al Seeb U.S. airbase in Oman, al Udeid U.S. Army and Air Force base in Qatar. Haifa. Beir-Shiva. Dimona.”

Read the whole thing. Then come back and clear your palate with the following antidote -- from a Muslim, Ali Eteraz:

As to whether there is an age of empire amongst Muslims? There is. But not all Muslims. A few here and there. Plus, I don't know whether calling it an 'age' is appropriate since there isn't even anyone who is capable of acquiring an empire. Who's going to do it? Pakistan? They hve a hard time maintaing straight lines at weddings. Are you suggesting they can march into Poland? They'll probably take a wrong turn in Oman and end up at Euro-Disney. Seriously, let's not give 'credit' (if you want to call it that) where none is deserving. 99% of Muslim nations are failed states. The only empire they have right now is over stagnance. Islam: Empire of Self-Flagellation. As someone who likes the Western status-quo, I'm very alarmed when we start trumpeting the emergence of an Islamic Empire. No! Please don't do that! Don't make the wackos think that we believe they are capable of anything. When Germany was kicking the shit out of its neighbors, it was also the home of the world's greatest scientists; German competed with English as the world's dominant tongue; and it had the greatest number of educated people in the world (not to mention Heidigger and Heisenberg). What do any of these Muslim states have? Have a long island iced tea instead of trying to answer that.

Discuss.

What I wrote back to Meade was approximately that while what Simmons wrote is one possible fantasy future, it's far from the likeliest, and it's not one we want to stoke and feed and give credence to.

First of all, as Ali Eteraz makes so refreshingly clear, it's giving our enemies too much credit; it's puffing them up with pride, telling them we fear them and take their threats and ambitions very seriously, when in fact they may have the determination but do not have the capability to carry out more than a small fraction of those ambitions. Can they hurt us? Sure, and they surely will. Can they reestablish the Caliphate? Raucous laughter. The only way they'd have a glimmer of a chance of that would be if the West allows itself to be as bluffed and intimidated as Simmons. Terrorism is a small man casting a large shadow. We mustn't be so intimidated by the harm we have suffered and wll still suffer that we, cringing, hand over the keys. We must be vigilant and proactive, and we must be brave. We will suffer wounds, but they won't be fatal unless we succumb to hypochondria.

Second of all, I don't trust the motives of people who propagate fantasies like this. I think they are eager to hustle us into some kind of premature martial law. We need security and tough precautions, but what we need most of all is utterly low-tech, has a zero dollar cost, and can be summed up in one word: COURAGE. We must not foolishly risk lives out of greed and shortsightedness, but at least as importantly, we must be ready to take casualties and not lose heart. What we have here, and what we must defend and preserve, is (for all its flaws) far bigger and more important than if you or I should die in a terrorist attack, and we should all write in our wills and tell our loved ones that if that ever happens, it's a drop in the bucket. Don't let it make you lose heart.

UPDATE: The 'sphere is seething over this story. Check out the comment threads at Dr. Sanity and, if you have a lot of time, at Little Green Footballs.

Comments

[Tom Strong]

Exactly.

He may be a well-regarded writer and all, but Simmons' story is delusional - the work of a sad and intimidated soul.

[SM Icepick]

Terrorism is a small man casting a large shadow.

Two quick points about that quote.

First, the fear for many isn't terrorism, it's Islam itself. Terrorism is merely a tool. (Huh, I wrote this before reading Dan Simmons story.)

Second, Napolean was also a small man that cast a large shadow.

[realpc]

"What do any of these Muslim states have?"

What do they have? Millions of desperate fanatics waiting for a chance to blow themselves up. What is courage against something like that?

We need something more than courage, but I don't know what it is. Force alone can't beat them. We need strong Muslim allies, and I guess that was the point of Iraq.

Maybe the answer is to convert them somehow. If they could afford to buy Nike sneakers and Ipods, they would start loving us. Don't you think?

[Tom Strong]

Also - his comparison of the current struggle against Islamic terrorism to the Peloponnesian War, of all things, strikes me as an early contender for Analogy Yoga Award of the Year.

I mean, come on. Athens as America - maybe, if you close your eyes real tight to think about it. But a passel of disorganized, third-world Islamic states and terrorist cells as Sparta? No f'n way!

Sparta was a top-down militarized city-state. Its military was every bit the equal of Athens, which was why the Peloponessian War was such a contest in the first place. It was highly hierarchical, efficient, and about as advanced as any non-Athens society could be in its age. Factors in common with above-mentioned passel of Islamic states and terror cells? None.

And Athens wasn't exactly razed to the ground at the war's end. Sparta took over, established an oligarchal system, which was then promptly overthrown in favor of democracy. Philip of Macedon showed up a few years later and made the whole thing moot.

[Tom Strong]

What do they have? Millions of desperate fanatics waiting for a chance to blow themselves up.

Yes, waiting - because they can't afford the bombs to blow themselves up with!

What is courage against something like that?

Oh, please. Amba's not saying that courage is enough to transform the middle east - but she is saying that it's enough to keep the Western World from crumbling against the mighty forces of the endlessly-forming Islamic End Times Brigade.

And really, not even courage is needed. Just a little common sense will do.

[SM Icepick]

Having fully read Dan Simmons' story now, I would add that what he has published is in fact a story! It is a piece of speculative fiction that shouldn't be taken so danged literally. It's what SF writers do, afterall.

But I do find it intersting that one of the key points of Simmons' story, that TGWOT represents a Category Error, was echoed by Amba in this post. Terrorism is just a tool, Amba, and not the enemy.

Finally, I would like to point out two cases of extremely improbable turn-arounds.

The first would be when Alexander strode out of Greece and concurred a large part of the world. Surely the Persians and Egyptians had no idea what was about to happen to them and their old proud civilizations.

The second is the ridiculously hard to believe rise of the Mongol Empire. From a small tribe on the edge of civilization to world conquerors in about three generations, with Ghengis himslef having done the heaviest lifting. Quite frankly impossible, but it happened.

So just because they seem backwards and weak now doesn't mean the Muslim lands will always be so inferior. Of course, I would have thought the history of Muhammad's life would be lesson enough there....

[meade]

Courage indeed.

Propaganda because it appeals to fears and emotions? I'm glad to prompt thought and discussion, Amba, but loath to be any sort of vector of propaganda. It's clearly a piece of fiction, let's keep in mind.

Mr. Simmons' discussion forum has some interesting comments. One by a commenter named Peter that I thought stood out: "...if we ignore it then it will go away. I do not believe so. There is a test that could be applied. Draw those sketches of Mohammed and get them published, under your own name. If after 30 days you are going about your business as normal, still breathing and neither in hiding nor under police guard, you win the argument."

[SM Icepick]

Tom Strong, you completely missed the point of Simmons's use of the Pelopponessian War as an example. The point wasn't to analogize the USA to Athens and the Islamic nations to Sparta. It was used as an example of what can happen when a nation it undertakes a war but does not fully committing itself to winning.

Athens undertook the Syracuse adventure thinking that the mere fact that they would show up would be enough.

To quote Thucydides: So thoroughly had the present prosperity persuaded the Athenians that nothing could withstand them, and that they could achieve what was possible and what was impracticable alike, with means ample or inadequate it mattered not. The reason for this was their general extraordinary success, which made them confuse their strengths with their hopes.”

That was the point, not some comparison of Sparta to Islam.

[Tom Strong]

SM Icepick,

You are correct, of course. I was overeager to give Simmons a smack-down, and forgot the original reason for his analogy.

*Sigh*. So much enjoyable vitriol, wasted again.

I still think the lesson of his fable is decidedly unsound - in large part, because he goes from the good observation that a "War on Terror" is misdiagnosed (and prevents us understanding what "winning" looks like), to the bad observation that what we really need is an all-out War on Islam.

And I reject the idea that, because it's a work of fiction, it shouldn't be judged on op-ed terms. It's pretty clear that Simmons is trying to make a point with his story here, rather than breathe life into his characters and situations. Unless it's actually some sort of satire, the story he's telling is a fable, and fables may be judged on the merits of their wisdom.

[SM Icepick]

*Sigh*. So much enjoyable vitriol, wasted again.

LOL, as long as you enjoyed it I don't know that it was a complete waste....

[geoduck2]

Unless it's actually some sort of satire, the story he's telling is a fable, and fables may be judged on the merits of their wisdom.

Yes, I agree. There's good Sci Fi and bad Sci Fi. This is bad Sci Fi. Louis McMaster Bujold and Issac Asimov are examples of good Sci Fi.

Sometimes I wonder if people in this country have lost their minds.

[geoduck2]

And - this goofball thinks that Melos was a good idea. Thucydides did not agree with that.

But it's a great idea if you want to strengthen the religous fundamentalism in the middle east.

The US is screwing up Iraq by making severe strategic mistakes. The troops are doing a great job, but the political leadership is failing us. Iraqis have been holding on in a horrible situation. I wish Bush would replace Rumsfeld with Gen. Zinni.

[Pooh]

Sometimes I wonder if people in this country have lost their minds.

I no longer wonder. I'm sure. The level of unreason currently acceptable is slightly, for lack of a better word, terrifying. The fact that absurd claims (pick one "the MSM is objectively pro-terror" or "Bush was in on 9/11" depending on your persuasion) are not considered instantly risible is staggering.

[SM Icepick]

Geoduck2, neither character in Simmons' story passes any judgement on Melos.

[SM Icepick]

Pooh, the thought that I find most risible is the idea that we must fight wars while doing nothing objectionable.

[geoduck2]

Geoduck2, neither character in Simmons' story passes any judgement on Melos.

The time traveler says that Athens forgot that it needed to be ruthless, as it was towards Melos:

The Time Traveler shook his head. “You’ve understood nothing I’ve said. Nothing. Athens failed in Syracuse – and doomed their democracy – not because they fought in the wrong place and at the wrong time, but because they weren’t ruthless enough. They had grown soft since their slaughter of every combat-age man and boy on the island of Melos, the enslavement of every woman and girl there. The democratic Athenians, in regards to Syracuse, thought that once engaged they could win without absolute commitment to winning, claim victory without being as ruthless and merciless as their Spartan and Syracusan enemies. The Athenians, once defeat loomed, turned against their own generals and political leaders – and their official soothsayers. If General Nicias or Demosthenes had survived their captivity and returned home, the people who sent them off with parades and strewn flower petals in their path would have ripped them limb from limb. They blamed their own leaders like a sun-maddened dog ripping and chewing at its own belly.”

I think Athens made big strategic mistakes with Syracuse. I don't think the Athenians decided to become "less ruthless" in their military planning. I do, however, think they made BIG strategic mistakes.

I think there is a historical lesson here: Don't make HUGE strategic blunders in your military planning. However, if leaders in Democracies make Huge Strategic Blunders, they should expect the citizens to get really, really mad at those in power.

[geoduck2]

oops - for some reason the italics didn't turn off. The last two paragraphs are my own rambling opinion.

[Pooh]

Pooh, the thought that I find most risible is the idea that we must fight wars while doing nothing objectionable.

That's a fair point, but objectionable acts should be a neccesary by product rather than a end. (I assume we are revisting torture for the xth time.)

[Tom Strong]

Fixed?

[Tom Strong]

Ah, so.

[Pooh]

ick sorry.

[SM Icepick]

Pooh. there is far more than torture to be discussed. How about the extent and meaning civil liberties in wartime, both for citizens and non-citizens? Torture is merely a subset of that larger question.

[Tom Strong]

Icepick,

How would you define a "win," in the GWOT, or whatever it is that we're engaging in?

[Pooh]

Pick, I agree, but that presupposes actual as opposed to metaphorical "war". And also implicates the scope of said "war", assuming it exists. War of Independance ≠ Civil War ≠ WWII ≠ GWOT/GSAVE/"Long War", and there has to be some coalignment of democratically decided ends and the means chosen. I'd posit that plenary 'Unitary Executive' powers are not appropriate for the current situation, though a stronger case could have been made in some of the other examples.

[eteraz]

Those wont to liken Muslims to Mongols. By the way, let's recall that it was the Muslim civilization which suffered the brunt of Mongol fire. Also, it was the Muslim civilization which stopped the Mongols at the doorstep to Europe.

But my point was this: within two generations after the Mongol 'invasion' most Mongols had accepted Islam and then went onto create Muslim empires. How did this happen? They realized that being in a palace, having observatories, and doing science (both physical and sexual) was better than sitting on your horse.

In other words, we must engage in maintaining, and improving our civilization so that it is found appealing to the 'barbarian' (this is assuming that Muslims are barbarians).

Which I reject.

There are not "millions" of Muslims ready to blow themselves up. Muslims around the world are people. They like living. Suicide is an entrenched ideology in two or three places: Palestine and Iraq. It hasn't caught on anywhere else.

Second, have you ever noticed what a large amount of Muslims hate their governments? Germany was able to brainwash its people and make them a tool for collective suicide because Germans had this little thing Nietzsche keeps ranting about: German Pride. Muslims, because they hate their governments, usually don't have Pakistani pride, or Egyptian pride. The Turks and the Iranians are the only ones with that kind of nationalistic pride. Except Turkey is quasi-secular and Iran is a failed state on the brink of collapse. I've said it before: please look at the Japanese and German economies in 1939. They had massive industry, massive massive industry and massive infrastructure. Iran has none of those things. In that sense, Iran is like North Korea. A blustering fool at the helm and millions of malnourished 'warriors' (warriors? yeah right).

[GN]

SF is a little heady for me ... but it is definitely a fantasy story ... given the proclivity to compare the current situation with any number of historical empire crashes, I choose to view the terrorists in a much simpler fashion ... maybe too simple, but it works for me, so...

Think of the world as a 1960's public school playground .... there are kids who wish to play ball, jump rope, monkey bars, kick ball ... there are needlers (teasers of little girls and meek little boys in harmless fun) ... and there are BULLIES .... A certain number of the kids will ignore the bully in hopes that he will go away (or pick on someone else) ... there are a certain number of kids who migrate to the bully because in supporting the bully they nearly guarantee that they are safe ... there are a certain number of kids who are avoided BY the bully because the bully knows that they will take no sh*t .. THEN there is the quiet, non-assuming kid who stands up to the bully, un-afraid(or at least willing to take what comes)and stares the bully down, neither taking the first aggression nor shying away .... sometimes the bully recognizes something in that kids' eyes and moves on ... sometimes not ... a fight ensues ... one wins and one loses .. but that kid is done with the bully because most bullies don't like to actually fight, but rather get others to do it for them if they can't strike terror with threats ....
and therein lies the "courage" of which Amba speaks.

[Tom Strong]

Eteraz,

Reading your statement, I'm inclined to amend one of my own:

Courage is what is needed to transform the Middle East.

[Pooh]

GN, your analogy is an interesting one, especially since one can so often see international relations as school-yard conflict writ exceedingly large.

[Icepick]

Eteraz, I was not "wont to liken Muslims to Mongols." I simply pointed out that the rise of Islam and the rise of the Mongols are both examples of the meek and powerless becoming world beaters within the span of one to three generations. Why everyone thinks it can never happen again amazes me. It is the height of hubris.

As for Islam bearing the brunt of the "Mongol fire" I say this: Perhaps if the Muslim state of Khwarezmia hadn't been so goddamned blood-thirsty, they wouldn't have been put to the sword. Also, the peoples of what is now China might argue the point that Islam born the brunt of Mongol fire.

Lastly, Muslim civilization did not stop the Mongols. The hordes rolled right into Kievan Rus, and destroyed "the flower of European fighting men" in two days when they invaded Poland and Hungary. ("The flower of European fighting men" = the Knights Templar and the Teutonic Knights.) What stopped the Mongols from completely conquering Europe was that their commander, Subutai, was recalled due to the death of the Great Khan Ogedei. Before returning to his planned conquest of most of the rest of Europe, Subutai died, and the Mongols lost interest.

[GN]

Pooh,
It does not matter how deep or complicated or scholarly we discuss the topic ... al excercise of "civil liberties" begins on the playground.

What is acceptable behavior?

How far can you push boundaries?

Who will aquiesce to what behavior?

How do the group dynamics work?

Etc, Etc.

It all starts on the playground.
Makes you wonder what Rummy was like playing kickball, huh?
... and I'll bet that Cheney has quite a stack of marbles in a showbox somewhere.

[Icepick]

Tom, I can't tell you what the "victory conditions" are if you don't tell me what "game" we're playing. Which BTW was kind of the point of Simmons' story.

[eteraz]

This is the Mongol/Muslim battle I was talking about.

The Battle of Ain Jalut (or Ayn Jalut, in Arabic: عين جالوت, the "Eye of Goliath or the "Spring of Goliath") took place on September 3, 1260 between the Mameluks and the Mongols in Palestine. This battle is considered by many historians to be of great macrohistorical importance, as it marked the highwater of Mongol conquests, and the first time they had been decisively defeated; previously where they had been defeated, they had always returned and avenged the loss - this marked the first occasion they were unable to do so. Hulagu Khan never was able to advance into Egypt, and the Khanate he established in Persia was never able to defeat the Mamelukes.

Many historians argue that this defeat, and the subsequent defeats by the Japanese of invading Mongols, marked the beginning of the end of the Mongol Empire, though parts of it would last another 250 years. But Ain Jalut and the defeats near Iki Island by the Japanese marked the end of the aura of Mongol invincibilty.

The Battle of Ain Jalut ultimately decided who would rule the Holy Land for centuries, and began the breakup of the Mongol Empire by fostering the first Mongol on Mongol battle, after inflicting the first major defeat suffered by the Mongols since Ghenghis Khan began his push for world empire two generations easlier. The Mameluk Sultanate would rule the Middle East for 250 years until Selim the Grim and the Ottoman Empire put an end to their independence.

[Icepick]

Yes, and whoever rules the Holy Land rules the Holy Land, not Europe. The Battle of Legnica and the Battle of Mohi took place far from the Holy Land, and were decisive victories for the hordes. All that saved Europe was a lack of interest by the Khans.

[Tom Strong]

Icepick,

I can't tell you what game we're playing - except, very vaguely, the game to survive and thrive in a difficult world. Which, for all our troubles, we continue to do, more or less. But for that reason, I tend to be a little conservative in recommending major changes to our foreign policy, despite my uneasiness with its history.

I'd like to return to something you said earlier, however - the idea that the proud Persians and Egyptians had no idea what was about to hit them when Alexander rose.

The Persians at that time were Zoroastrians for the most part, and their religion taught of End Times and a Last Judgment. It stands to reason, then, that they probably were on the lookout for something that would destroy them, as any successful and rational nation would be. They just didn't see Alexander coming, because they weren't looking in that direction.

Like the Zoroastrians, America has a primary religion that teaches of End Times, and this has seeped into many aspects of our culture. And so we have many myths of destruction - from MAD to global warming to avian flu to Islamic jihad. And on that last one, we have focused our efforts and fixed our eyes for several years now.

We've looked and looked, but I just don't see our destruction there. Do you?

I see problems - terrorists, kleptocracies, angry young men, poverty, antisemitism, a few tyrants. I also see potential - democratic movements, trade interests, rich cultures, some terrific films since the mid-nineties. I even see a few threats. But nothing that justifies our current monomania on the region.

It is not hubris to gaze intently at a person or a region and to determine that we may need to focus our attention elsewhere. It is hubris to gaze so long that we never see what's coming from other directions.

[SM Icepick]

Tom, I was contemplating a longer response to your last post, but I've finally reached the breaking point. The USA a a representative democracy (liberal democracy, or whatever term you want to apply to it) is completely doomed, and there is no hope. In fact, it's pretty much over now. What we are witnessing internally is the struggle for the poils, nothing more. So I think I'll just bow out of this debate, interesting though it has been.

[Tom Strong]

Icepick,

I'm sorry to hear that, but I understand that even the best debates can grow pretty tiring after a while. Thank you for contributing your thoughtful perspective.

[SM Icepick]

Tom, I wasn't clear in my prior post. Nothing I have read here has led me to my rather dire statement. My prior comment is a thought that has been growing for some time, and various stuff I have read in the last day or two has finally broken my belief that the US has any long-term viability.

A theme in Simmons story that we really didn't discuss is the story's contention that in the coming years we will tear at ourselves with ever greater ferocity. I believe that is in fact happening now. There are many sides now, and no agreement on what a middle-ground can or should look like. There is no agreement on what the US is, much less on what it should do.

I believe the political class feels this in particular, which is now why one sees nothing but the most naked attempts by both sides to grab what they can for themselves, and the hell with the nation, its interests, and its citizenry.

[Pooh]

Pick, I'm curious as to what pushed you over the edge, so to speak.

[SM Icepick]

Thinking about: James K. Polk, my sister's high school graduation ceremony in 1973, the wit and wisdom of Calvin Coolidge. Couple that with the observation that there is too much talk of treason, and too little talk of nuclear power.

Good luck trying to foolow that thought train!

[helen of Troy]

Geoduck2-
Simmons is a science fiction writer, and a good one. Hyperion as a retelling of the Canterbury Tales- a very good read. He's also written horror (think Stephen King, or Clive Barker). He knows how to set up mood, to build the verbal equivalent of faint gibbering scratching noises that make you fear taking another step...

And thats the good and the bad of this story. He put all of his craft into his point. As an essay, it might not have been so powerful. But he used his craft to make this story sharp, prickly and unforgettable. Because his protagonist will lose his grandchildren, *you* will empathize and thus fear losing your grandchildren.

So as an emotional meme instead of an ordinary essay meme, this story is going to be spread wide.

To attempt to counter it with rational arguments won't work. The emotional-storyside of this, the fear, will make ordinary arguments bounce off.

Now if someone else can write how another country whispered lies to the US and the Middle East at the same time, so that each took the other out while the whisperer gained dominance (China, anyone?).. or how the Christian Reconstructionists took over the US (you think *Dhimmi* is bad? Go read Rushdooney before reading "The Handmaids Tale), that's the writing that can counter this essay.

But not that many writers can write horror- that's the point. Even if you don't like Simmons' conclusions, he crafted the mood very well. How do you undo a mood like that?

[ak suited]

isn't the whole point a nuclear one, though?

i mean, there's an obvious reason that the west doesn't want iran or other militant islamic countries to have nukes.. which is they would absolutely use them to their full force.

the point this article makes is obvious: if iran gets nukes we are seriously threatened..

are the three words "united states of eurabia?" i guess thats four words...

[amba]

helenoftroy and aksuited, good points. You could only "fight fiction with fiction." And this certainly is a chilling fantasy . . . though I still believe it is intended as propaganda. But stories are the most powerful.

ak, the point is dual: a) Iran, if and when it gets hold of nukes, can do some serious harm. It cannot reestablish the Caliphate; it will be fused glass before it gets a chance to try.

b) Iran will not be permitted to get that far.