David Isaac

[Editor’s note: Here is an example of “engagement” in action, what Kramer calls the “big new idea,” as the U.S. “engages” the Muslim Brotherhood.]

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” – Muslim Brotherhood

On July 25, The Wall Street Journal ran a front page article revealing that U.S. policymakers have been meeting with one of the most radical elements in the Arab world.

In this instance, the U.S. government has been holding regular meetings with a group controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood in the delusory hope that this will help bring democratic reform to Syria.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist organization whose credo is that the Koran is the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state." It seeks to create an Islamic theocracy throughout the Middle East and, ultimately, the world.

It established the terrorist group Hamas. It’s the spiritual father of Al Qaeda and, as The Wall Street Journal article points out, its intellectual leader inspired Osama bin Laden. With this sort of resume, one would not think that the administration’s first reaction would be, “Great. Let’s meet!”

It seems that our State Department and National Security Council has added a new ripple to Bush’s doctrine stated on Sept. 20, 2001 that, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Now there’s a third option. “If you are a founder of terrorist organizations, we may use you as a consultant for democratic change.”

To ask the Muslim Brotherhood to bring democracy to Syria would have been like asking Saddam Hussein to choose his own successor. We didn’t because the difference would have been negligible.

It’s almost comical to read about the assurances to U.S. diplomats by the Syrian Brotherhood that it has renounced violence. It’s no big deal to renounce violence when violence really isn’t an option.

At one point, the Syrian Brotherhood engaged in all kinds of violence against the Alawite regime, including an elaborate assassination campaign in the 1970s that culminated in an attempt on Syrian President Assad in 1980. The Brotherhood’s back was finally broken with the Syrian government’s massacre of 20,000 in the city of Hama.

Unable to establish a Syrian theocracy through violent means, the Syrian Brotherhood now “dedicates” itself to democratic means. Their reassurances seem to be enough to assuage U.S. officials. But means and goals are not the same thing and Sharia law imposed by ballots is no less merciless than one imposed by bullets. Democracy will never square with the Brotherhood’s core principle that the Koran rules all. For such a group, democracy can only mean one election, one time, one choice.

What the administration’s move really demonstrates is its desperation. In the nasty, brutish world of the Arab Middle East, they play for keeps, so moderate elements are scattered and powerless. The choices are harsh and harsher. Some may say that’s reason enough to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s realpolitik: the best of bad choices.

But there’s another way. Rather than deal with bad actors, deal in principles. We’ve stated that we are at war with terror. If Syria won’t respect Iraq’s borders and sends its terrorist proxies to attack our troops, then we won’t respect its borders either.

If a namby-pamby latte drinker like this writer can turn up the locations of Syria’s terror camps with a quick Google search, it shouldn’t be too difficult for our armed forces to do so as well. A few well-aimed Daisy Cutters would have a far more efficacious role in reducing Syria’s influence in the Middle East than endless meetings with a group which, if it ever gained power, would set up an Islamic state.

America has a long history working with the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That’s fine as far as it goes. We just have a habit of forgetting our new friend is still our enemy. Josef Stalin became Uncle Joe. Muslims battling the Soviets became freedom fighters. What we ended up with was the Iron Curtain and 9-11.

If the administration could assure us that it intends to break us of this habit, that after it helps the Muslim Brotherhood bring democracy to Syria, it would then be prepared to eliminate the Muslim Brotherhood should it go back on its democratic promises, that would be one thing.

Although this writer personally doesn’t have a terrorist resume, should the administration choose this course of action, he is prepared to meet with them as a consultant for democratic change.

David Isaac is a freelance writer in Los Angeles