Saturday, December 18, 2004
The Challenge of Michael Scheuer (Anonymous)
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.
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.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Steady Movement Toward Elections in Iraq
In Spite of everything, movement toward the January election seems inexorable. I heard a military expert in Iraq today decrying the state of the war effort. Yet when asked whether the elections would take place, he said that they would take place on time, and suggested in passing that in 14 of 18 provinces there would be no serious problems. December 15 was the date on which the campaigning was to begin. The final registration tallied 3500 candidates organized in 230 political groups that were themselves organized in nine alliances. All are competing for 275 seats in the national assembly to draft a final constitution. Allawi himself registered his alliance of six parties, the “Iraqi List” at the last minute. It is a secular Shiite-Sunni group composed of former Baath party members that is not expected to win many votes. It is remarkable that in an election run by Allawi with American backing, the expected outcome will not be his victory, as is the case in most such arrangements, but a parliament in which he will represent a marginal group, if represented at all. He was not able to combine his forces with those of Adnan Pachachi who registered separately as “the Iraqi Democratic Gathering”, again a secular group of Sunnis and Shi’as. Of course, the group overwhelmingly favored to win the most seats is the 22 party United Iraqi Alliance that brings together most of the Shiite groups. The old communist party, shattered by Saddam, has come together again with other leftist parties in a “Union of the People”. At the last minute, the United Nations is sending more people to help with the election. I note that Senator Bayh of Indiana, who is otherwise very critical of what is going on, is quite taken with the ability and optimism of the United Nations personnel.
There is a curious disjunction between much of the reporting on Iraq that concentrates on violence and the impossibility of having a meaningful election under these conditions and what seems to be happening regardless of the violence. Every day another Iraqi leader is attacked, often fatally, and more national guardsmen or police are killed. The most recent horror was in Karbala, in the heart of the relatively peaceful Shi’a area. It is almost as if Iraqis have become so inured to the violence and threat of violence that nothing can phase them. Of course, it is remarked that it is not expected that large campaign rallies can be a part of the process. More likely, campaigning will be through the use of the media, especially television. The extent to which television will be fairly available to the different factions is yet to be seen.
There is a curious disjunction between much of the reporting on Iraq that concentrates on violence and the impossibility of having a meaningful election under these conditions and what seems to be happening regardless of the violence. Every day another Iraqi leader is attacked, often fatally, and more national guardsmen or police are killed. The most recent horror was in Karbala, in the heart of the relatively peaceful Shi’a area. It is almost as if Iraqis have become so inured to the violence and threat of violence that nothing can phase them. Of course, it is remarked that it is not expected that large campaign rallies can be a part of the process. More likely, campaigning will be through the use of the media, especially television. The extent to which television will be fairly available to the different factions is yet to be seen.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Revolutionary Guards and the Future of Iran
Two experts in the American security community, apparently with Iranian backgrounds, offer in today's Times an appraisal of the growing role of the Revolutionary Guards in the Iranian power structure. (Ironically, the Revolutionary Guards seem to have developed in parallel with the Republican Guards of Saddam Hussein. They serve much the same purpose: an elite military force with special responsibility for preserving the regime in power — in this case the ruling clergy of Iran.) Over the last fifteen years the Guards have gradually increased in number and equipment, and now have even their own navy. Making up about a third of the numbers of the regular army, they appear to be the most formidable force in the country. The Guards control the development of the missile programs and it is thought that the Guards are the ones guiding the development of nuclear weapons and opposing anything that would restrict this development. Their political power has been growing in tandem. Former members make up a third of the parliament elected this year. One of their leaders may run for President in the up-coming May election. And they oppose further development of the regular army. And like many armies in the less developed world, they have considerable business interests.
The conclusion of the analysts is that there are real and potential fissures between the Guards and their one-time creators, the establishment clergy, as well as between the Guards and the other armed services. They advise the United States to develop a "nuanced policy" that exploit these and other potential rifts.
The conclusion of the analysts is that there are real and potential fissures between the Guards and their one-time creators, the establishment clergy, as well as between the Guards and the other armed services. They advise the United States to develop a "nuanced policy" that exploit these and other potential rifts.
