Where Is The OIC?

Considering the most prevalent form of violent death for Muslims today is that of being killed by another Muslim, one might be forgiven for thinking that the Organization of the Islamic Council (OIC), which is the world's largest agglutination of Muslim majority states, would be taking action.  Not merely expressing concern or regret but taking collective and forceful action to stop the killing.

It is not that the OIC lacks the means.  Among the member states are the great oil kingdoms and theocracies of the Mideast and Persian Gulf.  Turkey, which provided the current jefe grande of the outfit, has one of the largest armed forces in the world.  Pakistan, another leading and ever-so-vocal member, is no slouch in the big army department.  Saudi Arabia has one of the most well equipped armed forces on the planet.  In short, the OIC has within its number the ways and means of imposing peace.

The OIC obviously lacks the political will to take action.  Usually the OIC has political will dripping out its collective ying-yang.  No problem attaining consensus on a UN measure which would gut Western norms and values regarding free inquiry and expression.  No problem achieving unanimity for condemning Israel about anything and everything.  There isn't ever a problem in gaining a majority for any proposal which would cast the US in the designated role of villain.

So, what's the problem?

One contributory factor is simply that Muslims have no particular hostility to the notion of Muslims killing Muslims.  As events in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have demonstrated beyond any doubt, Muslims have an unlimited capacity for outrage when an "infidel" kills a Muslim--even a Muslim gunslinger who has a fine record of killing his co-religionists.  When the inevitable happens, a civilian non-combatant is killed, the Muslims go utterly ballistic accusing the "infidels" of "waging war on Islam," intentionally "murdering" the "innocent" and being motivated by some strange syndrome known as "Islamophobia."

Should non-Muslims kill Muslims as was the case in Bosnia the reaction from the Muslim community is to condemn any failure on the part of the "infidel" West to intervene immediately on the side of the endangered Muslims.  If, again as in the case of Bosnia, there is any delay in intervening, Muslims and Muslim groups, including the OIC, will charge "Islamophobia" loudly, stridently, and repeatedly.  Muslim spokesmen, once more including the OIC, will not tolerate any debate, admit that national political processes take time or that the "infidel" states may have interests not served by intervening.  No.  There is and can be no reason for an "infidel" country not to leap to the rescue of some purportedly threatened Muslim community beyond fear of and loathing for Islam.

When Muslims kill Muslims the reaction of the Ummah typically is a large, collective yawn.  If the killing goes on long enough or involves a sufficiently large number of victims, the default response of massive indifference shifts to one of denunciation.  Not denunciation of the Muslim killers.  Oh no, that would be, shall we say, divisive.  At this point it is worth recalling that one of the supreme duties placed upon all believers is the eschewing of any sort of division within the great nation of all Muslims.

Events in Libya have brought the three alternatives into sharp relief.  The insurgents have made it clear that they do not want "infidel" combatants to enter the war on their side.  At the same time they have demanded the "infidels" use air attacks against Gaddafi's forces even though this would mean Muslim deaths.  And, most recently, the insurgents and their supporters have been alleging the West--particularly the US--has been delaying taking action because the people of the West are unconcerned by Muslims slaughtering Muslims.  It's that old devil "Islamophobia" striking again.

Of course should an air campaign result in non-combatant fatalities, the same voices will scream (literally) bloody murder.  Bloody murder because of--you guessed it--"Islamophobia."  Return of the Crusaders and all that rot.

There is only one reason for the US or any Western country to intervene in any manner in Libya.  That is to prevent a Gaddafi victory.  Gaddafi staying in power after crushing the insurgency will mean a world of hurt for the West.  Even if the combination of sanctions and isolation weakens the Gaddafi hold on power, that process will take time.  Time which Gaddafi can and will use to hurt his antagonists to the greatest extent possible.

Yes, other, less pragmatic, less national interest oriented, reasons can be adduced for intervention.  But the power of these reasons is attenuated severely by the inevitable, negative reactions of Muslims, including Libyan Muslims, to the unfortunate fact that "infidel" weapons will kill Muslims.  The repercussions of this aspect of military reality will echo widely and for some time.  They will be amplified by entities and states hostile to the West.  Muslims dead as the result of even the most well-intentioned Western interventions will become part of the narrative holding that the West is waging war on Islam and kills Muslims because of "Islamophobia."

Unless the national interest of assuring it is rid of Gaddafi for once and all prevails, no Western state should intervene in the Libyan insurgency.  The full consequences will prove far more negative than positive.  This may well mean watching Benghazi turned into a slaughterhouse of Biblical proportions.

When and if that happens there will be no need for Western guilt feelings.  There will be no requirement for self-recrimination.  The responsibility will rest not with the US or the West, but with the Arab League, and, even more, the OIC.  The latter group should be the upholder of humanitarian considerations, the staunch supporter of the gentle virtues contained within the Koran, the maintainer of community unity.  The OIC is the collective representative of the Ummah in international politics.  Let it act in the best interests of threatened Muslims rather than seeking to offload the burden and the blame to the "infidels."

The OIC has been surpassingly solicitous of Muslim sensibilities as it has sought the UN imposition of a global gag order on any mention of Islam that is other than uniformly laudatory.  It has been lovingly concerned with the wellbeing of Muslims living in fear of persecution due to "Islamophobia."  Is it not time the OIC show some consideration for Libyan Muslims facing extermination at the hands of the Gaddafi Killers?

As push-comes-to-shove time has occurred in Libya, the statesmen of the West might consider publicly tossing the ball to the OIC.  The Arab League has already taken a half-way measure toward an All Muslim solution with its support of a no-fly zone.  The almost certain failure of the UN Security Council to act in a timely and appropriate way backs the notion of handing over the problem presented by the Libyan insurgency to the OIC.

Should the OIC not pick up the ball and run, hard and fast, to the goal line, then it will have demonstrated to the entire world not only its institutional bankruptcy but also the sheer fraudulence of the Great Muslim Ummah.  If the OIC does act quickly and effectively to end the Muslim on Muslim killing in Libya, it will have provided a genuine service not only to that country but established the important precedent of serving as an All Muslim peace imposition force suitable for conflicts in any Muslim majority state.

Either outcome would constitute a major diplomatic success for the West generally and the US in particular.  So, Deep Thinkers, why not give it a test spin?