David Brooks despoils his own argument when hes say ISIL–a “movement” he calls it–is strong in “spiritual purity,” a position condemned and challenged by Imans worldwide, including the high Egyptian leader. To wit: “The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Shawki Allam, said the extremists violate all Islamic principles and laws and described the group as a danger to Islam as a whole.”
Also, a terrorist group with $2 billion in funding, seizing oil production facilities and vital resources, controlling towns and territory in two states seems like more than a “medium” threat.
In a changing world–accurately predicted down to the intra-country aspects of violence and the problems of refugees across borders–the detail-laden Nobel speech by President Obama was forward and prescient. It was not tied to an old school approach. Nor did it divide the world into the “energetic” and the “tired,” as Brooks does.
And how is it he can speak of governments not organizing “inner lives” and ignore the three century global travesty of Western slavery, which captured, purchased, transported, sold, regulated, and brutalized a group visible in democratic societies expressly for the economic benefit of others while closely controlling the songs sung and the beats played–along with marriage, family, movement, meals, work tasks, in an environment at best of benign fear? It’s entire justification purpose was to exercise control over the inner lives of its captives for profit–and their carefully regimented “uplift.”
Or closer to home, how could he not cite the government control of central choices in the lives of women in red states?
I often disagree with the logic of David Brooks’ columns. Today, he has strayed so far from the facts, that we lack any hope of common accord.