Whilst it is true as what RS said in 'Islamic extremism - the unedited blame list' (Aug 22), ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim's rise coincided with the rise of Islamic Revivalism that itself was contributed by many factors and not just Anwar, it is however pertinent to ask what is likely to be the platform of Anwar's political struggle now in the future.

The fact that 'Turmoil in Malaysia' by Amy Ridenour was published by the Washington Times that is owned by Unification Church, in turn led by Reverand Sung Myung Moon does not necessarily discredit its contents in terms of facts or analysis.

Going back to the contents of Ridenour's article and judging them strictly on their merits without concern as to who owns Washington Times and whether Ridenour of The National Center for Public Policy Research is as non-partisan as it claims or is otherwise pro-Republican, are the contents reasonably accurate and fair?

As RS summarised it, Ridenour's article basically warned the US government that "it would be dangerous to be fooled again" by supporting former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim, after being burnt twice before in backing Iran and Afghanistan (of fundamentalist ideology) which subsequently turned against the US.

The underlying assumption here is Anwar Ibrahim's fundamentalist links and agenda. Let's evaluate Ridenour's assumption.

Whatever Anwar's links in the early years, he joined the government, took a moderate stance, and lent his Islamic credentials to assuage Muslim outrage when the government clamped down on certain extremist fringe such as Al-Arqam.

He also authored the Asian Renaissance and spoke of the 'civil society'. He is in the good books of western diplomats. The then US vice-president Gore came to his defence when he was in Kuala Lumpur on Apec business summit. The ex-US ambassador Malott is, as a private citizen, still his advocate. From these perspectives, Anwar in his Italian suit hardly fits the image of a Mujahidin with fundamentalist zeal.

Notwithstanding the above, Ridenour's observations that Anwar played a leading role in founding Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia, or Abim, the Malaysian fundamentalist youth movement and subsequently travelled in the 1980s to Teheran to meet with Iran's newly installed leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, are factually correct.

The fact that Anwar launched his reformasi movement from the venue of mosques was perhaps not coincidental but suggestive of the same shared norms and ideological link with fundamentalist PAS that was prepared to accept Anwar as prime minister if the Barisan Alternatif won. It should be noted that until now Keadilan has not unequivocally rejected PAS' notion of the Islamic theocratic state nor taken the side of the DAP in its on-going controversy with PAS over this issue.

Ridenour's comments are also right that in spite of the anti-western rhetoric, the Mahathir administration is not inimical to at least American economic interest considering that "Malaysia is America's 12th largest trading partner and its 17th largest export market; US trade with Malaysia exceeds US trade with India, Indonesia and Russia combined".

Ridenour is also right that according to American perception, many fundamentalist regimes are anti-democratic, anti-Western, and anti-American.

So what other conclusions can Ridenour otherwise have come to in the article?

Much depend on the circumstances. What happens if (say) for example, unlikely though it may well be, Anwar's conviction is later quashed, and he is rehabilitated and reinstated within Umno fully to his former position in the government? What will his stance be in relation to fundamentalist PAS? Anybody's guess again!

However, for Ridenour to compare the hostility of fundamentalist Iran and Afghanistan to the US with that of PAS is a trifle too far fetched, at least for the present moment.

Iran is no Malaysia. In Iran, the Americans supported the Shah with arms and training of his secret police against the fundamentalist Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini. In Malaysia's case, the US' partiality reposes more in Anwar than his nemesis.

Neither is the policy of fundamentalist PAS as implemented in Kelantan and Terengganu up to this present time as extreme as that of the Taliban in Afghanistan - one dramatic example is that they even destroyed statutes of Buddha in central Bamiyan province, and the Taliban certainly would not work in a coalition with an infidel party like DAP! Nor will their leader (unlike PAS' Fadzil Noor) get invited to Australia or the UK.

Though non-Muslim Malaysians and even moderate Muslims may have strong reservations, with justification from the domestic angle, about PAS' theocratic Islamic state agenda, there is no immediate indication however that PAS' political dominance nor Anwar's fundamentalist links are presently inimical at all to American interest as Ridenour appears to suggest.

There is also no evidence as at todate that PAS is implicated in militancy in the universities or the recent suspected arson in Univeriti Malaya though it does not preclude militants from being drawn to support PAS.

Unless one takes a longer term view of how PAS fundamentalist ideology will evolve to that which eventually is hostile to Western values and civilisation as the case of Afghanistan, Iran under Khomeini, Iraq and Libya etc.

Ridenour is however entitled to question why fundamentalist PAS should be any different eventually in the longer run from those fundamentalist regimes in West Asia that are anti-democratic and aggressive, anti-Semitic, anti-Western, and anti-American.

In that sense, Ridenour takes the position that as far as the US is concerned, the devil you know is probably safer than one you don't know.