메뉴 보기
이 실험적 분석의 결론은 정부의 중심정책과 완전히 달랐다. 분석 결과 다음 사실이 확인되었다. 공산주의 이념을 따르는 소련은 미국과 서방을 확실하게 패배시키고 세계를 지배하겠다는 뜻을 품고 있었다. 따라서 데탕트 정책은 성공 가능성이 없을 뿐만 아니라 미국의 대소 안보정책이 국가를 위험에 빠뜨리고 있었다.
 |
| R 제임스 울시 前 美 중앙정보국장 |
로널드 레이건은 이 연구 결과에 특히 공감하여 포드 및 카터 정권의 데탕트 정책에 도전하는 데 이용했을 뿐만 아니라 나중에 ‘악의 제국’을 타도하는 전략을 세우는 데 활용했다.
오늘날 미국은 그와 비슷한 이념적 위협에 직면해 있다. 이슬람주의자들이 성전 즉 지하드를 벌이도록 선동하는 독재적인 원칙인 샤리아의 위협을 받고 있다. 길을 의미하는 ‘도’라고 번역되는 샤리아는 인생의 모든 분야를 지배하기 위해 고안된 이념체계다. 부분적으로 정신적 요소가 가미되기는 했으나 샤리아를 서방적 의미의 ‘종교적’ 율법으로 간주하는 것은 틀린 생각이다. 왜냐하면 샤리아는 경제, 사회, 군사, 사법, 정치 등 세속적인 인간 활동의 모든 분야를 규제하는 목적을 지니고 있기 때문이다.
샤리아의 규제는 압제적이고 차별적이며 미국의 헌법으로 보장된 자유의 핵심 개념에 적대적일 뿐만 아니라 법으로 보장된 평등을 파괴하려 한다. 특히 여성의 평등권을 파괴한다.
필자는 안보정책 전문가들과 분석가들에게 의뢰하여 샤리아 이념과 추종세력에 관한 ‘팀 B’ 식 연구를 실시했다. 연구 결과는, 테러에 반대한다고 주장하는 현행 미국 정책의 바탕이 되는 가정과 큰 차이를 보인다. 이 정책에 따라, 폭력에 반대한다고 말하는 일부 샤리아 지지자들을 ‘온건파’로 분류하는 것은 잘못이다. 왜냐하면 이들은 정치적 영향력 행사, 파괴공작 등을 통해 그들의 온건하지 않은 계획을 성사시키려 하기 때문이다.
샤리아는 이슬람의 내부 투쟁에서 중요한 경계선을 이룬다. 한쪽에는 무슬림 개혁자들과 진정한 온건파가 있다. 그들은 이성을 존중하고 정신세계와 속세를 구분한다. 또 샤리아를 다원적 사회에 일률적으로 강요하는 체제가 아니라 무슬림의 개인적 행동의 규범으로 본다.
반대편은 이슬람이 우월하다고 믿는 ‘이슬람주의자’들이 지배한다. 테러와 여타 암수에 의존하는 이들은 과거 공산주의 및 나치주의 추종자들처럼 세계적인 신정 독재통치 체제의 구축을 추구한다. 그들에게 샤리아 준수는 의무다. 즉 무슬림들은 지하드의 명령에 따라 성전을 벌여 나머지 세계를 정복해야 한다.
그들은 서방을 공존해야 할 문화 및 문명으로 간주하지 않는다. 즉 서방식의 정부 형태와 사법제도는 그들이 추구하는 이슬람 국가와 평화롭게 공존할 수 없다.
세계에는 대략 14억 명의 무슬림이 살고 있다. 그들의 종교관과 신앙 수행방법은 다양하다. 즉 단 하나의 ‘진정한 이슬람’은 존재하지 않는다. 그러나 이슬람 근본주의에 뿌리박은 샤리아가 일부 무슬림의 지지를 받고 있다는 점은 부인할 수 없다.
국제적인 이슬람 단체들 특히 이슬람형제단 같은 조직이 막대한 자금지원을 받아 포교활동을 해왔다. 사우디아라비아와 이란이 자금지원을 하는 대표적인 이슬람 국가들이다. 이슬람형제단의 미국 지부 간부가 1991년에 쓴 대외비 회람에 따르면, 서방 문명을 내부에서 파괴하는 것이 형제단의 사명이다.
서방세계는 샤리아의 정체를 올바로 이해해야 한다. 샤리아는 입헌 통치제도와 미국 사회를 거부한다. 정교분리 원칙에 따라 정부가 법을 제정하는 것도 반대한다. 개인의 자유, 표현의 자유, 경제적 자유, 평등의 권리도 부정한다.
R 제임스 울시 前 美 중앙정보국장
워싱턴 타임스·정리=오성환 외신전문위원
Second opinion needed on Shariah
By R. James Woolsey, Andrew C. McCarthy and Harry E. Soyster
It is time for a "Team B" approach to Islamist ideology. The strategy has worked before, against a similarly determined threat to freedom. In 1976, George H.W. Bush, then director of central intelligence, invited a group of known skeptics about the strategy of detente to review the classified intelligence regarding Soviet intentions and capabilities. The point was to provide an informed second opinion on U.S. policy toward the Kremlin.
The conclusions of this experimental Team B study differed sharply from the government's regnant theory. The skeptics found that, pursuant to its communist ideology, the Soviet Union was determined to secure the defeat of the United States and the West and to tyrannize the globe. Thus, not only was detente unlikely to succeed, but national-security policies undertaken in its pursuit exposed the nation to grave danger. The study was particularly persuasive to former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, who would use it not only to challenge the detentist policies of the Ford and Carter administrations but to build the strategy that ultimately brought down the "Evil Empire."
Today, the United States faces a similarly insidious ideological threat: Shariah, the authoritarian doctrine that animates the Islamists and their jihadism. Translated as "the path," Shariah is a comprehensive framework designed to govern all aspects of life. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of it as a "religious" code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere - economic, social, military, legal and political. That regulation is oppressive, discriminatory, utterly inimical to our core constitutional liberties and destructive of equal protection under the law, especially for women.
We consequently have joined a group of security-policy practitioners and analysts in subjecting this ideology and its adherents to a new Team B study. Our assessment challenges bedrock assumptions of current American policy on combating (and minimizing) what the government calls "extremism" and on engaging (and appeasing) Shariah proponents who claim to reject terrorism. These proponents are described, wrongly, as "moderates" because they appear content to achieve their patently immoderate designs through political-influence operations, "lawfare" and subversion. Participants in the study constitute a rich reservoir of national security experience drawn from military, intelligence, homeland security, law enforcement and academic backgrounds.
Our study does not perfectly replicate the Team B work of a generation ago. We have not been encouraged by our government, which, under administrations of both parties, has been immovably content to wear its blinders. Nor have we been invited to review classified information. These, however, have hardly been insuperable obstacles. What Americans need to know is ready to hand in the public record. The problem isn't access to information, it is coming to grips with what available information portends for our security.
Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam's internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates - figures like Abdurrahman Wahid, the late president of Indonesia and leader of the world's largest liberal Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama - who embrace the Enlightenment's veneration of reason and, in particular, its separation of the spiritual and secular realms. On that side of the divide, Shariah is defined as but a reference point for a Muslim's personal conduct, not a corpus to be imposed on the life of a pluralistic society.
The other side of the divide is dominated by "Islamists," who are Muslim supremacists. Like erstwhile proponents of communism and Nazism, these supremacists - some terrorists, others employing stealthier means - seek to impose a global theocratic and authoritarian regime, called a caliphate. On this side of the divide, Shariah is a compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to wage jihad to install and to which the rest of the world is required to submit.
For these ideologues, Shariah is not a private matter. They see the West as an infidel enemy to be conquered, not a culture and civilization to be embraced or at least tolerated. It is impossible, they maintain, for alternative legal systems and forms of government like ours to coexist peacefully with the end-state they seek.
It is not the burden of our study to broker competing claims about which side of the Shariah divide represents the "true Islam." There are approximately 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, and their understandings about their belief system, as well as their practices with respect to it, vary widely. There may not be a single "true Islam." If there is one, we do not presume to pronounce what it holds.
What cannot be denied credibly, however, is that Shariah is firmly rooted in Islam's doctrinal texts, and it is favored by influential Islamic commentators, institutions, traditions and academic centers. For more than a half-century, moreover, Shariah Islam has been financed lavishly and propagated by Islamic governmental entities (particularly Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Organization of the Islamic Conference) through the offices of disciplined international organizations, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. We know from an internal 1991 memorandum authored by one of the Brotherhood's U.S. leaders that its mission is a "grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house."
Consequently, we need to come to grips with Shariah. Whether pursued through violent jihad or the stealthier techniques the Brotherhood calls "civilization jihad" or dawa (the call to Islam), Shariah rejects fundamental premises of constitutional governance and American society: the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves irrespective of any theocratic code; the republican democracy guaranteed by the Constitution; freedom of conscience; individual liberty (including in matters of personal privacy and sexual preference); freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize theocratic codes and practices); economic liberty (including private property); equality (including equality of men and women and of Muslims and non-Muslims); freedom from cruel and unusual punishments; an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism (one that does not rationalize barbarity as legitimate "resistance"); and an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of federalism and democracy, not wanton violence.
Trial evidence has shown, most recently in the terrorism-financing prosecution against an ostensible Islamic "charity" known as the Holy Land Foundation, that Shariah adherents - including a network of Muslim Brotherhood-connected organizations operating in the United States - are seriously pursuing civilization jihad in this country. Their agenda is about power, not faith, and therefore must not be confused with a constitutionally protected form of religious practice. Shariah's ambitions transcend what American law recognizes as the sacrosanct realm of private conscience and belief. It seeks to supplant our Constitution with its own authoritarian framework.
Sometimes the Brotherhood and its friends are supportive of Islamist terrorism, particularly against Israel and against American operations in Islamic countries. Sometimes they strategically condemn terrorist methods (although they are careful to refrain from condemning specific terrorist groups and to blame America for their behavior). In either event, however, the endgame of Islamist ideology is the same whether pursued by terrorists or nonviolent activists: to extort American society into Shariah compliance.
It is vital to the national security of the United States that we do what we can to empower Islam's authentic moderates and reformers. That cannot be done by following the failed strategy of fictionalizing the state of Islam in the vain hope that reality will, at some point, catch up to the benign fable of a thriving moderate Islam beset by a mere handful of aberrant "extremists." Empowering the real moderates requires a candid recognition of the faux moderates and the strength of their Shariah agenda, just as defeat of 20th-century totalitarian ideologies required a gimlet-eyed appreciation of their malevolent capabilities.
The definition of "moderation" needs to be reset, to bore in on the Shariah fault line. Only by identifying those Muslims who wish to impose Shariah can we succeed in marginalizing them. As our study manifests, the Shariah system is utterly anti-American. Those obliged to defend the proposition that it should be adopted here will find few takers and, quite properly, be seen for what they are in the West: marginal and extremist figures. That, and only that, will strengthen true proponents of a moderate or reformist Islam that embraces freedom and equality.
Most important, we must protect our way of life regardless of the ultimate resolution of Islam's internal strife. We can do a far better job of empowering non-Shariah-adherent Muslims who are our natural allies, but we cannot win for them - they have to do that for themselves. Irrespective of whether they succeed in the herculean task of delegitimizing Shariah globally, we must face it down in the United States, throughout the West and wherever on Earth it launches violent or ideological offensives against us.
If we are to face down Shariah, however, we must understand what we are up against, not simply hope that dialogue and "engagement" will make the challenge go away. The brute fact is that Shariah adherents perforce support objectives that are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, the civil rights it guarantees and the representative government it authorizes. Our security depends on confronting them, not sitting silent as they gradually efface our liberties.
Team B:70년대 CIA가 소련의 위협을 파악하기 위해 의뢰한 경합적 분석 regnant:지배하는, 우세한 internecine:동일 조직 내에서 벌어지는 투쟁의
