The Nightmare before Cheney and Bush leave office

On to Iran, my pretties! Mephisto in the Air (1828) by Eugène Delacroix

I remember sometime in the early/mid 1980s hearing Jerry Brown mention in a speech that everyone recognized that the fall of the Soviet bloc had huge repercussions for the politics of Europe. But that no one seemed to expect that the end of the Cold War could also have momentous consequences for American politics. As he often does, Brown was seeing currents of change in a way that few others were conceiving them at the time.

John Esposito wrote in the 1998 edition of his book The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?:

With the triumph of the democratization movement in Eastern Europe and the breakup of the Soviet empire, Islam constitutes the most pervasive and powerful transnational force in the world, with one billion adherents spread out across the globe. Muslims are a majority in some 56 countries ranging from Africa to Southeast Asia, and they exist in growing and significant numbers in the United States, the former Soviet Union, and Europe. For a Western world long accustomed to a global vision and foreign policy predicated upon superpower rivalry for global influence if not dominance - a U.S.-Soviet conflict often portrayed as a struggle between good and evil, capitalism and communism - it has been all too tempting to identify another global ideological menace to fill the "threat vacuum" created by the demise of communism. (my emphasis)

Islam became a convenient enemy for many, though it took the 9/11 attacks for it to become credible to enough people so that those interested in threat inflation could use it as the central justification for an American military establishment that spends half or more of the military spending of the entire world.

But the convenient enemy becomes more and more inconvenient when it requires hot war after hot war after hot war, each of them leaving behind military commitments that could linger for a decade or longer. Gareth Porter reminds us that For Neocons, Iran War Aim Is Still Regime Change Inter Press Service 10/30/07.

But the costs and benefits are spread unevently. Robert Scheer writes in his weekly column about the real existing military industrial complex, Cashing In on Terror Truthdig.com 10/30/07. War is profitable for some companies. And while we hear endless references to "Munich" and "appeasement" and "1938" whenever somebody is agitating to start a war with yet another country, we hear and read very, very little about the how during the fabled Good War the United States imposed an excess profits tax and both Congress and the Executive actively regulated and investigated companies making money from war business.

Still, actual shooting wars threaten the cozy position of companies raking in profits from military business. The billions being poured down the ratholes represented by boondoggles like the ongoing Star War scam can go on for years without causing much of a public stir. But when something like the Iraq War exposes how deeply flawed many aspect of our military culture in general really are, it tends to raise embarassing questions. And to make more people pay attention to them.

Robert Dreyfuss blogs today on a Zogby poll with discouraging results: Americans favor bombing Iran 10/31/07. Dreyfuss also quotes Philip Gordon of the Brookings Institute in a panel presentation on Tuesday:

I can envision a scenario in which, sometime next year, the intelligence community is against a war, telling the White House it doesn't know enough; the military is against it, saying that they're bogged down in Iraq; the State Department is against it, saying that there won't be any allies for a war with Iran; and the political people tell the White House that Congress won't support it - and still, the president and the vice president decide to go to war anyway.

Still, I would hate to see a sense of inevitability arise around this. Because expanding the Iraq War to Iran is a bad, bad idea.

It would certainly help if our Democratic Presidential candidates would show some real leadership on this. Because the Establishment press certainly is not going to. From the excerpts I've heard from Tuesday's Democratic debate, Chris Dodd sounds the best on this issue to me.

Tags: gareth porter, iran war, jerry brown, john esposito, robert dreyfuss, robert scheer

Civil wars can create long-lasting messes

Kashmir

I just came across a concisely stated summary of what can happen in the wake of decolonization and civil war. It's from John Esposito's 2002 Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam:

The creation of India and Pakistan resulted in communal warfare that left millions dead. Tens of thousands of Hindus and Muslims were forced to emigrate, Hindus to India and Muslims to Pakistan. Pakistan proved equally fragile. East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) and West Pakistan were separated by 1,000 miles of Indian territory. The difficulty of establishing a strong sense of nationalism in countries with such enormous ethnic, tribal, linguistic, and cultural diversity can be deduced from the fact that in both India and Pakistan the vast majority of the citizens in each country could not speak their national language (Hindi and Urdu respectively). The bloody results of colonial map making and nation creation were evident yet again in the brutal 1971 Pakistan civil war which led to the creation of Bangladesh, and in the bloody ethnic clashes that have threatened the stability of Pakistan to the present day. In Kashmir, the creation of a Muslim majority state within India resulted in wars between India and Pakistan in 1947 and 1965. Since 1987, Kashmiri separatists have been locked in a struggle against India's rule that has brought as many as 750,000 Indian troops to Kashmir to carry out a brutal war. To the present day, Kashmir continues to be a major incendiary issue in relations between India and Pakistan. (my emphasis)

Both of which are nuclear powers, I might add.

With the Iraq War in mind, the above is a reminder of (1) the unpredictability of civil wars; and, (2) the danger in outside powers coming in and stirring up a godawful mess in the first place.

In some of the worst troubles of the world today, we have the "civilizing" mission of the British Empire to thank. It was Britain with help from their imperial partner and sometime rival France that carved up the Middle East after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the wake of the First World War. That particular conflict, which was largely a mindless slaughter than the European leaders should have had the decency and good sense to avoid, also brought an end to the Russian, Austro-Hungarian and German Empires.

War can also have wildly unpredictable outcomes. Yet another reason to make it the "last, last, last resort" to solving conflicts, in Wesley Clark's words.

In a real sense, the ethnic/religious conflicts now shaking Iraq are in significant part due to the British schemes for divvying up the Ottoman Empire. Britain tried to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq, too. They finally got tired of the colonial war there and left. (Until that pathetic Tony Blair followed Cheney and Bush back in.)

And, of course, it was during that time that British statesmen in their wisdom made conflicting promises to the Arab and Jewish residents of Palestine. That was a major step toward the post-Second World War decision that the British made, when they finally got tired of fighting Zionist guerrillas/terrorists and left Palestine to the United Nations to solve.

We can speculate that the creation of Israel would have severely antagonized Muslims in any case. But it was Britain who largely shaped the particular form in which that conflict began after Israel was established. Now, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is s deeply-felt grievance for Muslims all over the world. We can say that's irrational. But of course it's irrational. It's religion. And emotion. And it has real effects in the world, rational or not.

Kashmir, the problem that emerged from the post-British shakeout in what are now India and Pakistan is also a major issue for Muslims, though it's virtually unknown in the United States, it seems.

I'm getting more hesitant all the time about drawing "lessons from history". I can't help but observe that Iraq War supporters would use this bit of history about India, Pakistan and Kashmir as a reason to continue the Iraq War indefinitely. Assuming that FOX News explains some version of it to them, that is.

But the real risk and great likelihood that civil conflict in Iraq will intensify for some period of time after the US leaves isn't in itself reason to stay. We also have to look at the effects of staying. And only in the dream-world of Maverick McCain and like-minded war fans is everything coming up roses in Iraq thanks to The Surge,aka, the McCain escalation.

I wish our Republican zealots had stopped to think about the risk of invading and occupying Iraq before we invaded.

God save us from the worshippers of war.

Tags: british empire, india, iraq war, john esposito, kashmir, pakistan

Democracy and Islam

John Esposito, one of the leading scholars on Islam and editor of The Oxford History of Islam, addressed the question of Practice and Theory in the Boston Review Apr/May 2003. He was writing as part of a forum which was structured around the essay, Islam and the Challenge of Democracy by Khaled Abou El Fadl in the same issue.
Esposito writes:

So, are Islam and democracy compatible?

In addressing this question, we need to start with a general observation: religious traditions are a combination of text and context - revelation and human interpretation within a specific socio-historical context. All religious traditions demonstrate dynamism and diversity, which is why there are conservative as well as modernist or progressive elements in all religions. Judaism and Christianity, the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, have been used to legitimize monarchies and feudalism in the past, and democracy and capitalism, as well as socialism in the present. The Gospels and Christianity have been used to legitimize the accumulation of wealth and market capitalism as well as religio-social movements like those of Francis of Assisi and in the twentieth century Dorothy Day’s Catholic Worker Movement and Liberation Theology in Latin and Central America. Moreover, democracy itself has meant different things to different peoples at different times, from ancient Greece to modern Europe, from direct to indirect democracy, from majority rule to majority vote. Can Islam travel a similar path?

Generally speaking, the answer seems to be "yes." Islam throughout history has proven dynamic and diverse. It adapted to support the movement from the city-state of Medina to empires and sultanates, it was able to encompass diverse schools of theology, law, and philosophy as well as different Sunni and Shi‘i branches, and has been used to support both extremism and conservative orthodoxy. Islam continues today to lend itself to multiple interpretations of government; it is used to support limited democracy and dictatorship, republicanism and monarchy. Like other religions, Islam possesses intellectual and ideological resources that can provide the justification for a wide range of political models. (my emphasis)

Given our current foreign policy, and the secular and religious polemics against Islam in general that it has generated, it's probably appropriate to say that arguing that democracy and Islam are compatable is not the same as arguing that it's necessary or good for the United States to try to impose democracy on Islamic countries by bombs, bullets and torture.

But that argument does constitute one reason that it would be unrealistic and badly misleading for the United States to assume that Islam is some generally hostile ideology. A faith-based foreign policy gave us the Iraq War. The sooner we get back to a reality-based approach, the better off we'll all be. (Except maybe for Halliburton and Bechtel executives.)

Tags: islam, john esposito

Varieties of Islamist experience

John Esposito addresses the "why do they hate us?" question (or doesn't anyone even ask that any more?) in It's the Policy, Stupid: Political Islam and US Foreign Policy Harvard International Review 11/02/06. He reminds us that there are various forms of "political Islam", most of them not violent jihadist. (Don't tell Danny Goldhagen!)

Esposito writes:

History demonstrates that political Islam is both extremist and mainstream. On the one hand, Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran, the Taliban’s Afghanistan, and Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda as well as terrorists from Morocco to Indonesia have espoused a revolutionary Islam that relies on violence and terror. On the other, many Islamist social and political movements across the Muslim world have worked within the political system.

Since the late 20th century Islamically-oriented candidates and political parties in Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia have opted for ballots, not bullets. They have successfully contested and won municipal and parliamentary seats, held cabinet positions, and served in senior positions such as prime minister of Turkey and Iraq and president of Indonesia. (my emphasis)

Now, this doesn't mean that these are necessarily nice people running these parties or that their policies are all good and constructive. They aren't. But it does mean that there are varieties of "political Islam" or "Islamists" out there in the world who don't have as their main goal in life killing Americans because "they hate our freedoms".

A lot of Esposito's article discusses opinion polling results on various attitudes toward the United States, many of which may seem surprising.

And a big issue affecting those attitudes is US support for Israel and its policies in the occupied territories. Referring specifically to the effect of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, he writes:

The administration’s responses in Gaza and in Lebanon undercut both the president’s credibility and the war on terrorism. The United States turned a blind eye to Israel’s launching of two wars in which civilians were the primary casualties. The United States failed to support UN mediation in the face of clear violations of international law, refused to heed calls for a ceasefire and UN intervention, and continued to provide military assistance to Israel. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s criticism of the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon as an "excessive use of force" was countered the next day by the New York Times headline United States speeds up bomb delivery for the Israelis.

America’s unconditional support of Israel cast it in the eyes of many as a partner, not simply in military action against HAMAS or Hizbollah militants, but in a war against the democratically elected Palestinian government in Gaza and the government of Lebanon, a long-time US ally. The primary victims in Gaza and Lebanon were hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, not terrorists. In Lebanon, more than 500 were killed, 2,000 wounded, and 800,000 displaced. Israeli’s military destroyed the civilian infrastructures of both Gaza and Lebanon. International organizations like the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have criticized Israel for violating international law. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch has specifically cited the use of collective punishment and war crimes. The regional blowback from the approach that the United States has taken will be enormous and enduring.

Esposito's article doesn't go into great detail about how to untangle that nest of difficult issues. What he says here is reasonable:

A more recent and complex challenge is dealing with resistance movements like HAMAS and Hizbollah. Both are elected political parties with a popular base. At the same time they are resistance movements whose militias have fought Israeli occupation and whom Israel, the United States, and Europe have labeled as terrorist organizations. There are established precedents for dealing with such groups, such as the ANC in South Africa and Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA in Ireland, groups with which we've had to come to terms. The United States and others need to deal with the democratically elected officials, while also strongly condemning any acts of terrorism by their militias. Diplomacy, economic incentives, and sanctions should be emphasized, with military action taken as a last resort. However, overuse of economic sanctions by the Clinton and Bush administrations has reduced US negotiating leverage with countries like Iran and Sudan.

Equally difficult, the United States, while affirming its enduring support for Israel’s existence and security, must clearly demonstrate that this support has clear limits. The United States should condemn Israel’s disproportionate use of force, collective punishment, and other violations of international law. Finally, most fundamental and important is the recognition that widespread anti-Americanism among mainstream Muslims and Islamists results from what the United States does - its policies and actions - not its way of life, culture, or religion. (my emphasis)

Of course, it's not that hard to come up with general comments that sound sensible. Getting the actual arrangements in place is normally incredibly difficult in that situation.

Esposito makes an important point about economic sanctions. They have become widely accepted by both Democrats and Republicans as a peaceful alternative to military coercion and threats. But their results are not always optimal. And laying on economic sanctions can also lead to further, less peaceful involvement. Especially if the goal, as with the neocons and the Cheney-Bush administration in Iran, is changing the country's regime rather than the regime's behavior.

Another huge problem with US policy in the Middle East right now is the Cheneyite view that negotiating with a country is some kind of reward rather than a means of resolving problems and disputes. Until we can get beyond that, it's hard to see how much diplomatic progress in the Middle East will be possible.

Tags: muslim views of the usa, john esposito