Islam Assessed Honestly

Much discussion takes place on the clash between Islam and the West. This clash takes place on many fronts: between American soldiers and the Iraqi insurgents, between European Muslims and the larger culture, and during terror attacks against Western targets. The occasional terror attack is bloody enough, but atomic warfare could take such violence to an entirely new plane. With the increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons, the threat of Islamic fundamentalism is a significant threat. Accordingly, much publicity has been given to regimes such as that of the fanatical Iranian President Ahmadinejad and strongman Saddam Hussein. Yet when discussing the threat posed by Islamic or Middle Eastern regimes, it is important to assess accurately the strength and capabilities of such unfriendly regimes. Media sources have a vested interest in sensationalism and exaggeration. Proper foreign policy requires sober analysis.

Any regime with nuclear weapons will pose a threat if it gives those weapons to terror groups. At the same time, countries which are small in size and economic production will almost inevitably lose any war which followed a nuclear terror attack on the West. Caution concerning the Muslim world is prudent; a distorted sense of their power is not.

When assessing the threat posed by Muslim regimes, a useful starting point is the economy. One method for assessing the size of an economy is purchasing power parity. Economic strength assessed by GDP fails to take into account currency fluctuations; purchasing power parity (PPP) gives perhaps a more accurate view. After all, exchange rates rise and fall, but in time of war, it is the machinery of production which a nation calls on to feed and arm itself. And based on such a measure, one thing is immediately evident. The majority of our enemy states don't have anywhere near the economic capacity of the major Western nations. According to the CIA Factbook, the PPP of Iran is 570 billion dollars American. The PPP of Syria is 71 billion. Egypt comes in at 304 billion. The United States meanwhile is at 12 .3 trillion dollars. Adding these three major Middle Eastern states together, the U.S. economy is 13 times larger in size. And in some ways, this comparison understates the difference in economic force. The U.S. economy is not only much larger; it is also much more innovative and adaptive. In the time of a World War Three between the U.S. and a group of Islamic regimes, it would be much harder for an impoversihed Egyptian to shift his farm into war production than it would be for an American firm to transition from stereo equipment to radar devices.During a comparatively limited conflict like the Iraq War, it is possible for insurgents to do damage. However, the fear that Islam will overtake and destroy the Western world involves a scenario of total war. And as economic figures demonstrate, there is a massive differential in basic economic strength between the West and its rivals.

The media loves to display conflict and controversy. However, the frequent comparisons between men like Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler should be made with caution. Hitler led an economic and industrial superpower. Germany was a world leader in science and technology. The rhetoric of the pundits aside, the dictators of backwaters like Egypt and Syria bear little in common with a dictator reigning over a powerhouse like mid-century Germany. Radical Islam is a danger. Caution and preparation will reduce the chances of future tragedy. However poor analogies and ignorance will not serve our best interests. Our interventions overseas must be based on reason, not fear.