October 27, 2007


Neocons Embrace Islamic Terror Group (Danny Postel, October 27, 2007, Common Sense)

The U.S. State Department officially considers the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) a Foreign Terrorist Organization. While those honors date back to 1994, they've been renewed during the Bush years. Indeed in 2003 Foggy Bottom went further, including the National Council of Resistance of Iran -- an MEK alias -- under the terrorist designation. (The MEK is also known as the People's Mujahedeen.) [...]

Here you have virtually everything the Right claims to oppose all rolled into one: Islamism, Marxism, terrorism, and Saddam. Naturally, then, neoconservatives would utterly deplore the MEK and everything it stands for, right? The MEK would in fact make an ideal target for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week and Terrorism Awareness efforts, no?

Well, no. At least one of the carnival's acts, it turns out, is rather fond of the Islamo-Stalinist-terrorist cult group, and has repeatedly argued for the removal of the MEK from the State Department's list of terrorist groups and indeed urged the U.S. government to embrace it. Daniel Pipes, who will be speaking at Tufts on October 24th as part of the Horowitz high jinks, has made the MEK a recurring theme in his writings going back several years: here, here, and here.

Pipes has also gone to bat for the MEK right in the pages of Horowitz's house organ.

But Pipes is far from alone on the Right in championing the MEK. He co-authored the first piece linked to above with Patrick Clawson of the right-wing Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Right-wing commentator Max Boot has argued not merely for the removal of the MEK from the terrorist list but for funding and unleashing it to do battle with Iranian forces -- this while casually acknowledging that it is a "political cult."

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 27, 2007 7:29 AM

One of the symptoms of advanced BDS is total inability to grasp nuances of the Great Game.

For example, the enemies domestic bitterly excoriated us for attacking THE FORMER IRAQ, on the grounds that we had given help to that particular enemy foreign in the past.

Well, it so happens that at that time, and under those circumstances it had been in our interest to help one enemy kill another. World War II had presented one such opportunity, which we seized--two, if our analysis may be sufficiently objective.

Confusion to the enemy, don't you know. You want stability? See the world after Germany, Russia, Japan and China have chewed one another up, And I shall show you stability. This is how the clash of civlizations is won.

Nothing wrong, then, with playing one element of the spiritual jailhouse against another. Just kick back and break out the popcorn.

Posted by: Lou Gots at October 27, 2007 8:55 AM

The realists forgot: enemy of my enemy ...

Posted by: ic at October 27, 2007 1:40 PM

First they're quite secular, so not Islamist. They
are as Marxist as Talabani & Kanan Makiya are trotskyite; in other words not very. When faced with militant Twelver Shiasm or WAhhabism, they are almost old shoe.

Posted by: narciso at October 27, 2007 5:05 PM