Iraq and Afghanistan

For the first few chapters I thought that Anonymous was just another self-important spook who wanted to tell the world how musch he knew and how wrong everyone else is. On, finishing the book I conclude that he is that, but that he is also much else. His thesis is wrong-headed in many respects, but it deserves being taken seriously.

A principal contention is that we are in a war with the Islamic world led by Ussama Bin Ladin. We need to recognize that this is a war and fight it with no holds barred. To Scheuer, this means a Sherman to the sea approach. We failed in Afghanistan evidently because we did not kill enough Afghanis. Only if we are absolutely unconcerned with the death of Americans and Muslims will we succeed in this bitter fight. To do otherwise, is to succumb to the weakneed pacifistic, internationalist lobby that enervates the country. This is a position that we must all understand, but reject. It is also a position many Americans hold, and that the interrogators that flaut the Geneva Conventions clearly hold.

He also argues that Bin Ladin should not thought of as a terrorist. He is a military and spiritual leader who has made clear his goals. he is not out to destroy our freedoms. he couldn’t care less. He made a consistent list of demands, including especially get out of the Middle East and stop supporting Israel as well as the non-Islamic tyrants that rule over Muslims in the area. He believes that Ussama is right that we have carried out an anti-slamic policy in the region and that we have been foolish to continue in this direction. But he says, we are a democracy, we can decide what policies our leaders folly in the area. Therefore, we are as a people behind the policies that both bin Ladin and Scheuer find abhorrent. In a sense, in his eyes, he is justified in attacking the twin towers, just as we would be justified in bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age (assuming it was not there already). This a position that I can agree with to a limited degree: our policies are a major case of what bin Ladin is attacking. In today’s news, for example, a new tape has bin Ladin calling for attacks on the Saudi leaders and the destruction of the oil fields in Saudi Arabia.

Where Anonymous goes most seriously wrong in where he believes himself to be most knowledgable: his understanding of Islam. He sees us loosing the war with Islam in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact he sees Iraq as the greatest of gifts to bin Ladin. For it reinforces the idea that the “Crusaders” are out to destroy Islam. He notes that Bin Ladin refer continually to the responsibility of every Muslim to fight for God against the oppressor. He notes that Muslims cannot accept or understand the idea of a separation of the tate and church because in Islam they are the same. This is a correct reading of Islamic texts, but a misreading of history. In the year and a half I spent studying Islam I came to realize the great gulf between the theoretical Islamic world and the real Islamic world. It is commonly supposed that the Ayatollah Khomeini was reestablishing a true Islamic state with his concept of the “Faqih” as the true ruler of the ‘Umma. However, what is remarkable in Islam is that Khomeini had almost no historical precedent. The mixed group of secular strong men, princes, and military leaders ruling Islamic countries today is much closer to the historical record of Islam. Islamic theorists have always reiled against the people in power as unislamic and they have had almost no effect. Regardless of how bloody minded the Muslim extremists are, and they also have had historical precendents such as the Assassins of the Middle Ages, they have seldom been able to win over the general population —
and it is quite likely they will fail again. For a fuller discussion of Scheuer’s book see the accompanying review.