What will be the results of the Arab Spring? Will it stabilize the Arab world or simply realign the forces that already and historically oppose the West? Are we truly involved in a clash of civilizations destined to be the West versus Islam in a war to the end of the age? Has the stage of Armageddon been set?
One of the main reasons we in the West have trouble dealing with the reality of Greater Islam is that we do not present a solid front, or world-view, in our global outlook and beliefs. I truly believe that Islam as a whole is not as cohesive as we are led to believe by the mullahs and ayatollahs who make pronouncements and issue decrees in the name of Islam, either. However, it is presented to the West as a cohesive world-view simply because there is no other means of communication within Greater Islam than through these religious leaders. Thus, the world-view of Greater Islam must be seen in a comparative light with that of the West. Therefore, when we address the clash of cultures between the West and Greater Islam, we must address it from two points of view; one secular and one religious. That comparison will tell us whether we are truly involved in a conflict of cultures precipitating a world war or are simply dealing with a matter of opinion.
When Islam is addressed by the West from a secular world-view, we immediately are required to recognize the views of France, Germany and continental Europe, then Great Britain as a bridge between continental Europe and the United States, the value-system of the developing countries of Central and South America, and finally, the secular view of the United States. Thus, there are at least four separate, secular world-views that must be considered in espousing a world-view of the West. This does not take into consideration Israel, middle-Africa or any of the ethnic Asian countries. A further variance to a Western world-view is added in that in the U.S., there is no separately distinguishable world-view that is uniquely American. The nature of our culture and the maturity of our freedom of expression is such that divergent groups within the US have equal opportunity to espouse their own separate world-view, and exercise those rights emphatically. Thus, to even develop a premise that there is in fact a world-view of the secular West strains the bounds of Western imagination. We do not see ourselves as cohesive; therefore, how can Greater Islam see a cohesive world-view from the West? In their world-view, what do we stand for and how do they determine that position?
We in the West are privileged to have the freedom to develop and express our positions and opinions openly and even on a large scale, depending on the forum we elect to use for expression, such as print media, television, internet or live audiences. The forum dictates the scope of distribution of the view point being expressed, be it wide, narrow or regional. Certainly, within the West, there are more recognizable sources of distribution of a world-view than others, such as the New York Times, the German and British daily newspapers, BBC, CNN and other major news outlets. All have the ability to project a world-view, although ideally we would hope they maintain a balanced and steady flow of factual observations. They do not, and thus we are faced with a multi-faceted, secular statement of the world-view of the West. Regardless of how divergent the views stated, however, the views are all seen as a Western View by Greater Islam.
To Greater Islam, the very strengths of our freedom of expression appear to show a weakness in our society, a lack of cohesion in our people and a tendency to be self-destructive in our actions. The old saying of, “We either hang together or we will surely hang separately.”, is seen by Islam as lack of focus, lack of commitment and lack of will in presenting a unified front to their opposing culture.
Further added to this discussion of world-view is that the society of Islamic countries is totally intertwined with the religion of Islam itself. Not only is Greater Islam mono-theistic, it is mono-cultural and a mono-cultural outlook is largely unable to recognize diversity to the extent known in the West. Rightly or wrongly, as perceived by the West, Islam presents a unified front. One reason for this is that any freedom of expression within the Islamic community outside the West is immature. By immature, I mean that freedom of expression is a new thing within Greater Islam. Without a doubt, the freedom of expression of Islamic national leaders from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and other Islamic countries has existed for decades, if not centuries. However, the freedom of expression of the populace to develop their own world-view separate from that of Islam is very new. In Egypt, for instance, in the past often considered a progressive Islamic country, such freedom is very fragile and freedom of expression is still finding its way there.
As perceived by the West, particularly the conservative West, there is very little secular self-expression in Greater Islam. While the reasons may be myriad, such as lack of the internet, lack of national and international media outlets, lack of education, lack of secular dialogue, the perception remains that there is no secular Greater Islamic world-view. Coupled with that lack from Greater Islam, the West is largely unable to differentiate between Sunni and Shia views, and makes few attempts to do so.
Arguably, with no cohesive Western world-view and no truly secular world-view from Greater Islam, logically addressing this clash of the West and Islam is simply not possible. We in the West are aware that we have divergent opinions and, while we may argue vehemently, we are mature enough in our freedoms to allow divergent opinions to exist without going to war over them. Greater Islam, on the other hand, does not have a secular world-view separate from Islam as a religion and thus cannot carry on a dialogue in the same rational, though heated, manner that we in the West are used to conducting.
That brings us to whether it is even proper to view Greater Islam from a secular world-view, and, if so, what we should expect from Greater Islam in return. We cannot deny the fact that all Western culture is derived from the Judeo-Christian ethic of right and wrong. Within some latitude, every Western nation condemns murder, unbridled violence and subjugation of one class or gender of people by another. Truly we in the West don’t always get it right, but culturally, we do see the main points of right and wrong in a single light based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. Greater Islam does not.
Each side of this debate has saddled itself with a theocratic world-view that is diametrically opposed to the world-view held by the other side. The West does not understand a culture that not only condones but encourages bombings of the World Trade Center, trains in Spain, British citizens, suicide bombers and rocket attacks against Israel. The West does not understand a culture whose theocratic holy book clearly states that it is acceptable to lie, cheat and steal in dealing with an unbeliever (of their religion).
On the other hand, Greater Islam does not understand a culture that allows self-expression even when that expression is contrary to the Judeo-Christian ethic. It does not understand a world-view that provides for freedom of expression, even when the majority opinion is contrary to the views expressed.
Thus, the only logical conclusion that we can reach is that we in fact are faced with a clash of cultures and a clash of civilizations. In such a conflict, our choices are limited. From the viewpoint of Greater Islam, they can compromise the very foundations of their faith and in their own eyes abandon the teachings of their religion, or they can stand up for their faith and fight the fight that is set before them in their holy book. From the viewpoint of the West, we can allow ourselves to be attacked, killed and eventually subjugated to the teachings of Greater Islam, or we can fight the fight that is set before us.
We have no choices other than these. Compromise of bedrock moral principals is simply not possible from the world-view of either Greater Islam or the West. From the world-view of either side, we must either fight or culturally die.
Greater Islam has already made its choice. What choice will we in the West make? Support for the so-called Arab Spring is actually support for strengthening the opposition that will ultimately turn on us and attack us at every opportunity.
libertybelle diaries 
On the large scale strategic plane (big picture), I think you’ve nailed it. The naive hope of our policymakers (clueless dupes, that would be Obama’s national security team, the same ones who have a “See no Islamist evil” mindset, even when it strikes us repeatedly) was upon hearing the word “democracy” in conjunction with throwing off the chains of dictatorial leaders jumped on board of the Arab Spring good intentions train headed toward a hell of a train wreck. . Alas, some will refuse to disembark before it’s too late, but I sure hope the US wakes up before it’s too late. It’s more misguided feel-good thinking, that ends up biting us in the butt further down the road, when we realize we weren’t as discriminating in our taste of political bedfellows as we ought to have been. The supreme irony of Obama/Hillary embracing installing Islamist dictators-in-the-making, is that they castigated the right for decades about how we shouldn’t’ prop up odious, tyrannical dictators and then they turn around and install ones, who show even more intolerant propensities than the ones they’ve replaced.
I can’t recall which foreign policy expert referred to it as “the international clamor for “world order” and its conjoined twin “humanitarian concerns”, but it usually blocks out the sound of calm, rational discussions on just what is our national interest in unfolding world crises. It’s the “we must do something” pathos, I attribute Christiane Amanpour with popularizing, – even when we have no national security dog in the particular fight or the combatants are of unknown breeds to us. Toss out the escalating numbers of casualties and we’re keener to jump into these dog fights than Michael Vick.
We certainly can’t ignore the ascendancy of strident Islamist trends in Muslim society, because a rather key component of their doctrine includes “attacking the Infidel” (us) and other key vital national security concerns makes it imperative that we must interact on their home turf. Without national energy independence, we still do rely on Mid-East oil and amazingly enough President Obama wants to subsidize the oil industry in Brazil, despite it’s close ties to Iran, while throwing the kabash on the Keystone Pipeline. This move alone emboldens powers hostile to us, because they realize we’re too weak to promote our own interests. And of course, the fate of Israel, our closest ally in the region, struggling in the midst of this virulent Islamist plague must be part of our national security dialogue. There again President Obama has sent so many mixed messages on Israel, that alas, “I was for it before I was against it” John Kerry seems like a perfect fit for this State Department to continue the muddled, misguided policies of the smartest woman in the world, Madame Secretary Clinton.
Certainly, we need to define some clearer strategic objectives beyond “hoping” for democracy in the Arab world and supporting bands of wild dogs who will turn on us rather quickly. No sheepdogs here.