"I just wonder if they will ever tell us the truth." - Harold Casey, Louisville, KY, October 2004.
President Bush chose to use his Veterans Day speech on Friday to try to shore up support for his disastrous Iraq War by trying to demonize the critics of the war: President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror White House Web site 11/11/05.
But I was struck in reading the text of the speech that he laid out his own version of the jihadist ideology. The partisan faithful out there lapping up the wisdom of that "national treaure" (Bush's description), the junkie bigot Rush Limbaugh, are ready to accuse anyone who talks about the effects of American policy on the jihadist movement of making excuses for the terrorists, or something more sinister.
But Bush actually is articulating an image of the jihadist ideology that is not simply, "they're evil, evil, evil". He said:
Yet, while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology -- a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.
Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; and still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Hindus and Jews - and against Muslims, themselves, who do not share their radical vision.
Bush's Christian Right base grumbles about his saying anything good about Islam as a religion. They insist that Islam itself is evil. But they would presumably be responsive to his casting the jihadists in the role of the Communist Threat that they were so used to hating and fearing: "This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom." Substitute "Marxism" for "Islam", and you've got Cold War boilerplate. Christian Rightists must have really missed the Evil Empire after 1991. And now Bush gives them a substitute.
In good Baptist preacher fashion, Bush described the Communist Islamic menace with a basic three points:
First, these Communists extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Communists Muslims to dedicate, their "resources, their sons and money to driving the capitalists infidels out of our lands." The tactics of al Qaeda and other Communists Islamic extremists have been consistent for a quarter of a century: They hit us, and expect us to run.
A quarter century. Let's see, that would be when Reagan with the full approval of Old Man Bush pumped aid to the brave freedom-fighters, the heroic mujahadeen of Afghanistan, the particular conflict from which the current jihadist ideology grew and which provided very practical experience. And the jihadists, like all the Commies before them, know that it's all a testosterone contest:
Last month, the world learned of a letter written by al Qaeda's number two leader, a guy named Zawahiri. And he wrote this letter to his chief deputy in Iraq - the Communist terrorist Zarqawi. In it, Zawahiri points to the Vietnam War as a model for al Qaeda. This is what he said: "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam - and how they ran and left their agents - is noteworthy." The Communists terrorists witnessed a similar response after the attacks on American troops in Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993. They believe that America can be made to run again - only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.
This is a noteworthy instance in which Bush and his supporters are citing a (supposed) statement by an Al Qaeda leader that conveniently provides a mirror image of the Bushies' own ideology.
Second, the Communist militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country - a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-Communist non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, Communists radicals have specifically targeted Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. And now they've set their sights on Iraq. In his recent letter, Zawahiri writes that the Kremlin al Qaeda views Iraq as, "the place for the greatest battle." The Communists terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the Communists terrorists.
For those who haven't been granted the Republican gift to constantly re-create reality so that it fits the slogan of the day, it's hard not to wonder: gee, just what was it that made Iraq sound like a credible target for a "terrorist" takeover? Oh, yeah, Bush's war based on lies, warmongering hysteria and forged documents.
Out here in the reality-based world, it seems unlikely in the extreme that even a victory by the Iraqi insurgents would lead to a government headed by jihadists, since the core of the Sunni insurgency is more of a Baathist secular-nationalist movement. But at the moment, thanks to Bush's great Mesopotamian crusade, Iraq is currently a "failed state" that provides a haven and training ground for jihadists.
Third, these Communists militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a Communist radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. Zawahiri writes that the Communists terrorists, "must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq." He goes on to say: "[T]he jihad ... requires several incremental goals. ... Expel the Americans from Iraq. ... Establish a Communist an Islamic authority over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraqo Extend the Communist revolution jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq."
With the greater economic, military and political power they seek, the Communists terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction; to destroy Israel; to intimidate Europe; to assault the American people; and to blackmail our government into isolation.
Well, I suppose that the liklihood of the jihadists establishing a renewed caliphate from Spain to Indonesia is at least as urgent a threat to the United States as Saddam's intention to someday have some programs that might produce WMDs that he might give to some terrorist group that maybe possibly could use them against the United States sometime someday.
I wonder if anyone has checked the dates and signatures on those Al Qaeda statements he quoted ...
It's notable that Bush actually described the jihadists as having actual political goals, which is worth reminding the zealots of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders from time to time when they insist that the correct Party line is just that The Terrorists are evil evil evil.
But Bush goes on to rhetorically link the Iraq War with the 9/11 attacks - which he just can't seem to break himself from doing.
And he dismisses any realistic assessment of the current issues that the jihadists exploit to gather supporters and sympathizers to their cause:
Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence: the Israeli presence on the West Bank, the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of killers - and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder. On the contrary, they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence.
And the solution? We gotta show 'em that our God is bigger than their God:
Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, we will never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)
The flaw in this, of course, is that while the leaders of jihadist groups may be incorrigible fanatics who can't be satisfied with any feasible concession, that's a very different matter from recognizing that there are indeed policies of the US and Israel and various Arab governments that generate a base of sympathy and support for the extremist groups. Not to mention affecting the attitudes of non-jihadist Muslims toward American policy. The Palestinians' situation, exclusive Israeli control of Jerusalem, Indian control of Kashmir, the Russian wars in Chechnya, now the Anglo-American war in Iraq - these do have real effects on Muslim public opinion. And there are ways that new policies in those areas could drastically affect the ability of the jihadists to recruit activists and sympathizers.
It's even unrealistic to assume that leaders of terrorist groups are hardcore killers that can never change no matter what. Some of them like Bin Laden may be such types. But the truth of it is that people who are terrorists at one point in their lives may become conventional political leaders late in their careers, Israel's Menachim Begin being one of the most famous examples.
"Wars are easy to get into, but hard as hell to get out of." - George McGovern and Jim McGovern 06/06/05
2 comments:
Your post strikes me as inconsistent. You are willing to see the problems of Iraq and Islamist terror as multidimensional, but you seem to prefer seeing the current administration as solely and completely one-dimensional. Having worked within that Administration, I do not find that to be the case.
The Middle East is, as you note, complicated by an array of problems. Dictatorial governments, lack of political freedom, historical wrongs and affronts, regional issues that echo across the globe.
For better or worse, this Administration believes that while some believers in a cause--radical Islamism or neo-Salafism--have goals that cannot be met in the real world, others have more modest desires. Those desires include freedoms, economic security, universal human rights, and the like. The best way of achieving those realizable goals is through the promotion of democratic values. This is being done, with mixed results.
I blog about reforms in Saudi Arabia on <a href="http://www.xrdarabiaorg/blog"> Crossroads Arabia</a>. While not a "confrontation state," it is very much one of concern to the US. Because change is happening there, a war is not necessary.
Nor do I find the war in Iraq "disasterous." It sure hasn't been as easy as some, particularly in the Pentagon, expected. But Iraqis are, for the first time in their history, taking part in fair electoral governance. That is no small thing, nor is it a failure.
Thanks for stopping by to comment, jfb1138. Could you post the address to your Saudi Arabia blog again? I wasn't able to get to it from the link in your comment.
My concern about the view of the jihadists that Bush laid out in that speech is not so much that it's oversimplistic. No one expects a full-blown academic analysis from a presidential speech like that one.
What is worrisome is the insistence that American policies have nothing to do with the jihadist hostility to the United States. It's just not realistic. A decent settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be a major benefit in depriving the radical Salafists of one of their most potent issues, even if it is to a large extent an "irrational" one for Muslims outside of Israel and Palestine.
I agree with your observation that the promotion of democratic values is meeting with mixed results, so far. It's simply not a desirable or even realistic policy for the US to try to spread democracy in the Middle East by wars of liberation, as the administration still tries to picture the Iraq War. I hope that the net result in the end will be a more free Iraq.
But it's also true that more democracy in Middle Eastern countries might work against American interests in the short run. That's one reason it's so important to have a much more aggressive energy-conservation program, and not one that relies on tax cuts for oil companies and other such means of extremely dubious value. Value for conservation, that is. They are certainly valuable to the executives of the energy corporations.
The official goal of the war was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. That was already a success without the war. And so far, the various election and other political milestones have not brought peace to Iraq. Nor is there any early prospect under the current policies of an early exit from Iraq for US forces. - Bru
Post a Comment