August 22, 2005

CAN'T WIN, CAN THEY SURVIVE?:

The demographics of radical Islam (Spengler, 8/23/05, Asia Times)

General staffs before World War I began war planning with demographic tables, calculating how many men of military age they might feed to the machine guns. France preferred an early war because its stagnant population would not produce enough soldiers a generation hence to fight Germany. Only Israel’s general staff looks at demographic tables today, to draw prospective boundaries that will enclose a future Jewish majority.

Demographics still provide vital strategic information, albeit in quite a different fashion. Today’s Islamists think like the French general staff in 1914. Islam has one generation in which to establish a global theocracy before hitting a demographic barrier. Islam has enough young men - the pool of unemployed Arabs is expected to reach 25 million by 2010 - to fight a war during the next 30 years. Because of mass migration to Western Europe, the worst of the war might be fought on European soil.

Although the Muslim birth rate today is the world’s second highest (after sub-Saharan Africa), it is falling faster than the birth rate of any other culture. By 2050, according to the latest UN projections, the population growth rate of the Muslim world will converge on that of the United States (although it will be much higher than Europe's or China's).


No one truly believes the Islamicist vision could prevail, but the really interesting question is whether Islam generally, or more likely Shi'ism specifically, will be able to avoid the fate of most of the West, which has been unable to stop such demographic decline at some kind of equilibrium point. Only Christian America has managed the feat, but the similarities of Shi'ism to Christianity afford some hope that those nations will duplicate it.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 22, 2005 6:56 AM
Comments

What I'd like to know is how trustworthy is this demographic data? We now know that the data being used to extrapolate the dominance of the Soviet Union went through several layers of fantasy (including a final one at the CIA), and I see no reason to trust the tyrranies of the Middle East to be any more honest.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 22, 2005 11:20 AM

Would the French have any scruples about bombing Mecca and Medina, should a major Islamist war start within her borders? Probably not.

Not quite what the force du frappe was intended for, but c'est la vie, non?

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 22, 2005 11:26 AM

A fascinating article about Muslim inbreeding in the Jersusalem Post. This may speed up the decline in the birthrate.

Posted by: erp at August 22, 2005 11:45 AM

Spengler is ususally a little better than this.

Wars are not fought with pitchforks. Numbers are an inpediment now. All numbers do is increase the size the logistic tail and make it more vulnerable to technology.

As a veteran of the cold war I am puzzled by what looks like a lack of moral fiber when it comes fighting Islam as opposed to that shown in fighting Communism. Are they cuter and fuzzier than Russians?

Posted by: Lou Gots at August 22, 2005 12:56 PM

Spengler is ususally a little better than this.

Wars are not fought with pitchforks. Numbers are an inpediment now. All numbers do is increase the size the logistic tail and make it more vulnerable to technology.

As a veteran of the cold war I am puzzled by what looks like a lack of moral fiber when it comes fighting Islam as opposed to that shown in fighting Communism. Are they cuter and fuzzier than Russians?

Posted by: Lou Gots at August 22, 2005 12:56 PM

Lou:

We didn't fight the Russians either.

Posted by: oj at August 22, 2005 1:01 PM

The article is just nonsense. A traditional war? It takes more than AK-47s and IEDs to fight a real war. 25 million soldiers? How could such an army be organized, trained and equipped? Who would lead it? Even the weak armies of Western Europe would slaughter this arab "army".

Posted by: Bob at August 22, 2005 1:42 PM

Well, not the Europeans, but us the Israelis and the Indians certainly.

Posted by: oj at August 22, 2005 1:49 PM

This from the inbreeding article linked above:

After lowering infant mortality rates among Arabs in western Galilee through the reduction of neonatal infections, early detection and encouraging abortions of fetuses with major and lethal congenital defects

So how do you lower mortality by aborting fetuses?

Posted by: Robert Duquette at August 22, 2005 2:16 PM

You're the Rationalist--you just treat them as if they aren't human.

Posted by: oj at August 22, 2005 2:20 PM

Infant mortality means babies who are born. Unborn babies who are aborted are not counted in these statistics.

Posted by: erp at August 22, 2005 3:13 PM

While it's true that an army of two million no longer has an automatic advantage over an army of one million, the size of a nation's military does matter.

The U.S. has a fairly robust military now, but we are seeking to expand its numbers by 10%.

Although, as Bob points out, bigger is only better if they can all be trained and equipped, which is why North Korea's non-nuclear military is a dark joke.

They could kill a lot of people in a fairly short period, but they couldn't win a war of aggression against any of their neighbors.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 22, 2005 4:18 PM

What about demographic decline (which you're always harping about) puts a bug in your beard OJ? The world isn't too much with us, we need more people?

Posted by: Margot at August 22, 2005 4:35 PM

Margot:

Yes, I'm pro-human.

Posted by: oj at August 22, 2005 4:56 PM

Shia, Sunni or whatever, the only reason Islam as a "ism" was less successful than the following "isms", Lenism, Maoism and Hitlerism, in killing innocents would be the demographics of the times, fewer people, fewer deaths.


A belief system in which, not only personal responsibilty, but free will is denied cannot ever be part of any liberal democracy!
Since there is absolutely nothing in the history of Islam which could possibly lead anyone to believe it's anything other than another 'believe or die" ism I'm appalled at those who would believe it's anything but another excuse to kill those who don't fit.
Just ask the Christian Egyptians who, at the point of an Islamic sword either converted, accepted slavery or died.
And yes, oj, I re-read your 9/17/03 post re: THE THIRD GREAT FOUNDATION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY:
I still totally disagree with it, history just does not support the post's conclusions.
mike

Posted by: Mike Daley at August 22, 2005 11:35 PM

Where are the Iranian death camps? The one truly exterminationist regime in the region was Saddam's secular rationalist Ba'athist one.

Posted by: oj at August 22, 2005 11:44 PM
« REMEMBER WHEN THEY TOLD YOU ABOUT SANTA? | Main | A GREAT IDEA: »