The time for commemoration lies very far in the future. War memorials are erected when the war is won. At the moment, anyone who insists on the primacy of September 11, 2001, is very likely to be accused–not just overseas but in this country also–of making or at least of implying a “partisan” point. I debate with the “antiwar” types almost every day, either in print or on the air or on the podium, and I can tell you that they have been “war-weary” ever since the sun first set on the wreckage of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and on the noble debris of United Airlines 93. These clever critics are waiting, some of them gleefully, for the moment that is not far off: the moment when the number of American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq will match or exceed the number of civilians of all nationalities who were slaughtered five years ago today. But to the bored, cynical neutrals, it also comes naturally to say that it is “the war” that has taken, and is taking, the lives of tens of thousands of other civilians. In other words, homicidal nihilism is produced only by the resistance to it! If these hacks were honest, and conceded the simple truth that it is the forces of the Taliban and of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia that are conducting a Saturnalia of murder and destruction, they would have to hide their faces and admit that they were not “antiwar” at all.
Hitchens has always been a strident opponent of religion, and the fundamentalist varieties of religion in particular. He has always been an opponent of dictators and a champion of self-determination for ethnic groups, such as the Kurds. He is most insistent that we are in a long-war against a murderous ideology, and that we must rise to this challenge, not duck it. In this, he is in-line with the neo-conservatives and commonly echoes the vapid, and mostly empty rhetoric of Rove’s talking points.
Hitchens, however, is fully capable of nuance, and he does have the capacity to differentiate between the thugs from the Sunni triangle (not especially religious), the thugs of Moqtada al-Sadr (ostensibly religious), the thugs of Iran and Hezbollah (overtly religious), the PLO (secular), Hamas (religious), the Muslim Brotherhood (religious), Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda (puritanical), etc.
All throughout Islam there are resistance movements. Some of the resistance is to the ruling regimes. In Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt we have puritanical resistance to the U.S. allied regimes. In Syria we have Sunni resistance to the Alawite government. In Jordan there is a more mainstream religious and secular opposition to the monarchy and their relations with the U.S. and Israel. In Iran there is a secular and pro-Western resistance to the Mullahocracy. In Afghanistan their is a resurgence of the puritanical Taliban.
The question then arises: who are our natural allies, if any, and what kind of threat do our enemies pose to our security? And it is in finding the answers to these questions that we begin to butt up against some painful answers.
For it is precisely in those countries that are our enemies where the resistance is more secular and in those countries that are our allies where the resistance is more religious and puritanical. And, therefore, the solution does not lie in stamping out resistance movements in Syria and Iran, but in stamping them out in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. We cannot solve this problem by regime change. Regime change would only bring the bad guys to power. The same truth holds for free elections. Elections in Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia would sweep those leaders from power just as elections in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq brought results inimical to disempowering Hamas, Hizbollah, and Shi’a Revolutionary Theology.
If we cannot afford free elections and we cannot stamp out the movements through attacking our enemies, then what can we do?
Many realists supported attacking Iraq because the status quo was perceived as unsustainable and was leading to a growing threat. They had a point. And that point is true a thousand times over when it comes to our relations with Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. They are not democratic regimes. They are breeding grounds for the worst type of Islamic radicalism and terrorism. Far worse than the broken states of Afghanistan, Sudan, and Somalia, our allies are the true pro-genitors of terrorism.
But there is another issue. What is the threat? The American most responsible for creating mujahideen warriors, Zbigniew_Brzezinski was not all that concerned back in 1998:
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Today is the five year anniversary of “some stirred-up Moslems” launching a very effective attack on our nation and making us feel some pain for what Brzezinski initiated. Carter and Reagan, with ideological and monetary support from the House of Saud, created a beast that turned around a bit the hand that fed them. Israel experienced the same thing when the Hamas they nurtured as an answer to the secular and pampered PLO exiles began utilizing Tamil Tiger tactics against them.
It’s too late to engage in a blame game here. We cannot make the country or the world more secure by refighting old ideological battles. No one cares that Donald Rumsfeld went to Baghdad and schmoozed with Saddam, or that the United States sent several strains of anthrax to Iraq back in the eighties. The questions remain, how do we deal with the threats and how big is the threat?
If the answer lies in democratizing the middle east, then we must face the stark reality that there are preconditions that must be met before free elections can be held in countries allied with us. If we do not meet those pre-conditions, then the elections will formerly end our alliances and lead to global and regional instability and economic disruption.
And there is no precondition more vital than a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on terms that are broadly acceptable to the Muslim world. Without that, no regime that is allied with us will be popular and no free government will ally themselves with us.
Neo-conservatives are fond of saying that we “must drain the swamp that breeds terrorism”. The swamp consists of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and the pro-U.S. nations that are supposed to exert leadership in the Arab world, but do nothing to help the Palestinians. Add in a totalitarian police-state government, incredible opulence and graft in the face of internal poverty, and you have new terrorists born each day.
The only factor comparable to the Palestinian question is another occupation. Our occupation of Iraq is also a breeding (and training) ground for terrorists. We must leave Iraq.
Hitchens may see this solution, ending the dual occupations, as some kind of retreat. But it is not a retreat. It is the only sane way forward. Our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that we cannot kill more terrorists than we create, nor can we afford this strategy.
Will they come kill us here, if we stop killing them there? With a resolution of the Palestinian question, they will have less motivation. Their regimes will have more legitimacy and be less vulnerable to the wrath of the people, should they be allowed to express their opinion.
It’s the only way forward.
What? Didn’t you get the “Islamofascism is the new Commienazism” memo?
Get with the program, Boo!
i labeled that memo: return to sender.
I would probably agree with Hitchens that religion is a huge part of the problem, specifically militant Islam. Whenever a religion is so widely interpreted as sanctioning people to murder others, it is dangerous. Militant Jewish and Christian fundamentalists are no less dangerous than Islamic ones, they are just usually less prevalent and much more marginalized in their home nations. In most Middle Eastern nations, public opinion would give the jihadists and other violent fundamentalists much more legitimacy than their western Christian counterparts would enjoy.
That being said, this should be an issue of containment, not of ideological change. There is absolutely no way that an American military operation will bring democracy and secularism to the Middle East. Ironically enough, Saddam’s regime was far more secular than any post-Saddam regime is going to be.
Islamic radicalism is a LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUE, not a military one. Secure the air and sea ports. Keep tabs on vistors from countries known to breed terrorists. Use covert operations and targeted strikes to destroy terrorist training camps abroad. Use domestic police tools to break up homegrown terror cells. The war on terror is such an unbelievable farce.
Islamic radicalism is a LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUE, not a military one. Secure the air and sea ports. Keep tabs on visitors from countries known to breed terrorists. Use covert operations and targeted strikes to destroy terrorist training camps abroad. Use domestic police tools to break up homegrown terror cells. The war on terror is such an unbelievable farce.
Well said, and I agree. If it were otherwise, we would then also be at war with the Tim Mcveighs in America, but we aren’t! How come nobody talks about that kind of ?terrorism anymore????????????????????????????????????
The anthrax attackers also haven’t been caught which should trouble all Americans. They still don’t have any idea who perpetrated the attacks or why those attacks happened.
Hitchens is such a strange and unpredictable member of the pundit class that I can’t help taking him more seriously than I do the likes of Friedman, Brooks, etc. Plus I pretty much agree with his view of priestly religion and, especially, its fundie perversion.
He makes me wonder if I’m wrong about the things I agree with because he’s so transparently irrational, so determinedly in denial about the most obvious facts, such as Saddam being the most anti-fundie/alQaida national leader in the Middle East. And that the Iraq occupation has served Osama’s stated goals far more effectively than it has enhanced US security.
How can Hitchens see so clearly through the posturings of fundamentalism yet fall like a preteen fanboy for the lies and assaults on fact and reason that underlie Bush’s foreign aggresssion and domestic subversion? I can understand somewhat the argument that even though the Iraq invasion was a mistake, getting out now, or soon, would make things worse. I think it’s an entirely wrongheaded fantasy view, but I can understand why somebody might choose to believe it. But Hitchens doesn’t seem to take that view. Instead he launches coulterish attacks on his ideological opponents and blithely, blindly, babbles incoherent contradictions as if they made some kind of sense.
Boo, anybody, if you have an insight on what Hitchens is about, it would be most interesting to hear. Me, I’m baffled, and the obvious conclusion, that he’s just nuts, isn’t satisfying.
hitchens is about hitchens, i think it’s that simple. my grad school advisor was a friend of his, and basically chalked hitchens’ switch to the dark side little more than the desire to ride the wave of a rising fashion in order to be more prominent on the lecture circuit. and surprise, it worked.
like so many of the neocons, ego and vanity trump logic and reason, every time.
He could have phrased this a lot better.
I don’t know of many people here on Booman or elsewhere who are actually gleefull of a large amount of people dying in order to make their point. Especially when that point is that people are dying for a silly war. Chris must run with a very scary crowd of ‘liberals.’
Maybe it’s projection…
If we cannot afford free elections and we cannot stamp out the movements through attacking our enemies, then what can we do?
We cannot afford “free elections” in other countries?!
We cannot stamp out movements through attacking our enemies in other countries?!
The U.S. has the right to manipulate the governments of other countries? And this manipulation is motivated by what is best for the U.S.?
Is it possible that what is “best” for the U.S. is not what is “best” for the citizens of the country?
What would the U.S.’ foreign involvement or interaction look like if it was based on ethical and humane principles?
“We cannot afford “free elections” in other countries?!”
This is a deep sentence and I’m glad you picked up on it. It does, indeed, carry a lot of presumption. But, then, we are an empire for good or ill, and we make tremendous sacrifices in treasure and risk in order to provide a secure framework in the Middle East that will allow for the provision of energy supplies that are needed to fuel the international economy.
This is the origin of the terrorist threat. This and the Palestinian conflict. The sad truth, as can be seen plainly in Iraq, is that aside from Egypt, the countries of the Middle East are not logical or stable enough to endure free elections without becoming destabilized. This isn’t about anything to do with the Muslim religion, it has to do with the ethnic, sectarian, and tribal rivalries and the fact that even Islam is not a powerful enough organizing principle to keep these nations internally at peace. We saw this in Yugoslavia.
As a result, if Saudi Arabia were to have free elections tomorrow it would likely result in a government that was just as unable to govern as the one in Iraq. But the consequences to the world economy of SA turning into Iraq could be catastrophic. We literally cannot afford for that to happen. Yet, we cannot curtail the appeal of terrorism originating from Saudi Arabia if we do not change our relationship with them.
This conundrum is what is fueling the paralysis of Western foreign policy in the region.
It isn’t as simple as getting out of Iraq and minding our own business. Leaving Iraq is desirable. But leaving Saudi Arabia is not. Not if you value the world economy and the millions of jobs that could disappear over night all over the globe.
This is another example of why the US is indeed exceptional. Not in the sense that we are uniquely good, but in the sense that we are uniquely indispensable.
Bush’s view is overly simplistic. He thinks Democracy can magically transform the region, but it fails for two reasons. First, it fails because we have been a tradionally anti-Democratic force in the region and have not provided self-determination for the Palestinians. And second, because the countries are only held together by force. And force and coercion are not consistent with electoral systems.
So, how do we get out of this mess? Obviously, the most important thing to do is to find another way to protect the world economy. We need new and more diverse energy sources. That will give us, and China, and Russia, and Europe a freer hand to tolerate risk and upheaval in the Middle East. We also simply have to hammer out a solution to the Palestinian question. We can assure Israel’s safety if they make the painful concessions that will be needed.
Beyond that, we just have to hope for the best.
What right do we have to manipulate the governments of other nations? That is a difficult question. I am not sure you can find a ‘right’ for it. But, if we are going to do it, we do need to do it according to ethical principles. If you go back and look at the Camp David Accords I think you’ll find that Carter bought off Egypt, took them out of the Soviet column and into the Allied column, but did so by assuring that Sadat (later Mubarak) would never need to worry about elections. We would give them billions and train their praetorian guard, and they would reciprocate by buying American military equipment and recognizing Israel. That’s a mixture of realpolitik, militarization, diplomacy, peacemaking, and investing in stability.
What right did Carter have to do it? I don’t know that he had a right. He had an opportunity.
BooMan – thanks for your response.
I have a difficult time with viewing the world through an economic perspective. Empire can be defined as: a large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group. Is that what the U.S. government is about?
You write: But, then, we are an empire for good or ill, and we make tremendous sacrifices in treasure and risk in order to provide a secure framework in the Middle East that will allow for the provision of energy supplies that are needed to fuel the international economy.
Stability can be a “good thing,” but it is important to examine the foundations. What is this international economy built on? Cheap energy? Cheap labor? What are the human costs?
CocaCola is building a plant in Afghanistan. There will be jobs and people will be paid. Will they buy soda pop? In a country that women are feeding their crying babies opium cause they haven’t enough food couldn’t, there be a better way to produce food and jobs? And the water, presumably clean, couldn’t it be used directly by people? Instead it will be carbonized, colored, and sweetened to produce a product that has no nutritional value, causes teeth to rot and bones to lose calcium.
You write: It isn’t as simple as getting out of Iraq and minding our own business. Leaving Iraq is desirable. But leaving Saudi Arabia is not. Not if you value the world economy and the millions of jobs that could disappear over night all over the globe.
This is another example of why the US is indeed exceptional. Not in the sense that we are uniquely good, but in the sense that we are uniquely indispensable.
If my family and I are suffering and dying as part of the “fuel for the international economy,” I doubt if I would view the U.S. as “indispensable.”
I think it was sometime in the ’50s or maybe early ’60s that the head of GM said, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the U.S.A.” Not true, is it?
Anyway, I appreciate all you have given me to think about. 😉
Stability vs. non-stability.
If you the chaos in Iraq as primarily a result of American troops you will miss the lesson of this whole thing. Countries that do not have a strong sense of nationhood tend to require strongarm governments. Fascism arose in new European nation states that were made up of previously autonomous subunits. So, Germany united Prussia with Saxony and Rhineland-Palatinate and other principalities. Italy united Venice and Naples and the Papal States. Spain united Grenada, Castille, the Basque region.
Add in the biggest or second biggest oil reserves in the world and you have no reason for compromise.
Iraq is an ungovernable place and it can hardly be argued that it was a worse place under Saddam.
I wasn’t thinking of the stability of Iraq or the ME but the dependence of the “international economy” on access to cheap energy and cheap labor – a weak foundation for economic empire – so vulnerable, that the only way to sustain it is with a military presence of one kind or another?
Are “business ethics” different from “ethics?”
And I would add a third problem with Bush’s theory: that the government’s elected will vehemently oppose US policy in the region – or be too weak to matter. I guess that dovetails with your second point. But its worth noting that a free election in Egypt – which is a coherent nation-state – would bring to power the Muslim Brotherhood.