12-14-2005, 12:10 AM
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version
VIEW: US imperialism in democracyâs name âYoginder Sikand
While the seriousness of religiously-inspired militancy and terror certainly cannot be downplayed, the authors of the RAND report seem to limit the phenomenon to Muslim groups alone, which, of course, is misleading. Religious radicalism is not a Muslim monopoly, and if we are serious about combating it our concern must extend to all such groups, Christian, Hindu, Jewish etc
âThree years After: Next Steps in the War on Terrorâ, is RAND Corporationâs latest document detailing American policies in the Middle East and suggesting suitable changes. A right-wing research organisation allied with the US government and the American defence and intelligence departments, RAND is notorious for its advocacy of American imperialist interests. RAND is one of the most influential neo-conservative and pro-Zionist âthink tanksâ in America, and its publications both reflect and help mould US government policies on key issues, including Americaâs âwar on terrorâ.
For anyone interested in understanding how the US establishment sees its âwar on terrorâ, this document, which presents itself as drawing on what it calls âthe results of several cutting-edge studiesâ, is essential reading. It is based, as even a cursory glance would suggest, on a warped understanding of the causes of terrorism. Hence, the solutions that it offers, by ignoring the root causes of terrorism, threaten to make the situation more, not less, complicated and intractable.
The various contributors to this volume, mostly self-styled âexpertsâ at RAND closely linked to US government departments, appear to argue that the only sort of âterrorismâ that merits concern is what the media routinely describes as âIslamicâ or âIslamistâ âterrorismâ. Ignoring other forms of terrorism, not to speak of American state terrorism as brutally displayed in Iraq today, the âexpertsâ appear to see âIslamic/Islamist terrorismâ as not just the sole form of terrorism but also as the principal challenge to American interests.
In their diagnosis of âIslamic/Islamist terrorismâ, too, RANDâs âexpertsâ display an unpardonable ignorance, to be charitable, or, as is more likely, deceit. Ignoring the economic, cultural, and political causes of discontent in many Muslim communities, including the American-backed Israeli occupation of Palestine and Americaâs support of ruthless client regimes in Muslim countries, the âexpertsâ see Islamist militancy as simply an ideological phenomenon.
As David Aaron, editor of the document, former US government official and currently senior fellow at RAND, says, Americaâs âwar on terrorâ is an âideological warâ, in which Islamic militancy has assumed the role that communism once occupied in the American imagination. It is as if the ideology of Islamism operates in a vacuum, unrelated to the social reality that produces and sustains it. Not surprisingly, the role of the United States in backing Islamist groups during the Cold War to battle against anti-imperialist and leftist forces is conveniently forgotten now that former friends have turned foes.
Rather than address the root causes of Muslim discontent, of which Islamist militancy is, to an extent, a product, the solutions that the contributors to this book offer are tailor-made to preserve American hegemony and Israeli interests. They assume that American policy is fundamentally correct, and see no need whatsoever for America to reconsider its policies towards the Muslim world as well as Israel.
There is no mention in the book of Israeli brutalities, of the American-imposed embargo on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands, the American bombing of Afghanistan, the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq and so on as possible factors for Muslim discontent. The latter is seen as simply an ideological perversion.
With such a warped perspective, the contributors to this book can only come up with two solutions to the problem: to ideologically combat radical Islamism with a counter-Islamic discourse, and to use force to destroy radical Islamists.
The first solution is spelled out by RAND âexpertâ, Cheryl Benard, wife of Zalmay Khalilzad, American ambassador to Iraq, in her paper titled âDemocracy and Islam: The Struggle in the Islamic World-Strategy for the United Statesâ.
This paper also operates on the same assumption that American policies have nothing to do with Muslim discontent or Islamist opposition, and that the root causes of radical Islamism lies solely in a certain understanding of Islam, or what it calls âthe struggle within Islamâ. Accordingly, Benard begins her essay by approvingly quoting George Bush as saying, âWe actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be called the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies, and who happen to use terror as a weaponâ.
Benard outlines an ambitious proposal, to promote a version of Islam that toes US dictates. She labels this sort of Islam âmodernistâ, by which she means an Islam that differs but little from Western Protestantism and is perfectly at ease with capitalism. Realising that, given their elitist moorings, the Islamic âmodernistsâ that she backs lack popular appeal and mass following, Benard urges that America should âbe prepared to subsidize the publication of their work in a variety of forms such as the Web, textbooks, pamphlets, and conferencesâ.
America should, she suggests, âpopularise modernists as role models and leaders, and provide venues and platforms to communicate their messageâ. Obviously, the âmodernistsâ Benard refers to would receive Western backing so long as their ire remains focused on the Islamists, but they would not be allowed to speak out against American brutality.
The second solution â military force â that the book advocates to deal with âterrorismâ is again based on the notion that American policies need no change, that America is perfectly innocent and that Islamist militancy is the result of warped or crazed religiosity. This is echoed in the presentation by Paul Wolfowtiz, former American deputy secretary of defence, and one of the chief architects of Americaâs invasion of Iraq. Blind to Americaâs brutal imperialist past, Wolfowitz piously proclaims that the âwar on terrorismâ and the invasion of Iraq is ânot for conquest, itâs not for imperial colonial plunderâ.
Rather, he says, it is for a principle that he claims has driven American history from the beginning of its history â âfreedom and democracyâ â for he says, âAmericans have always stood up to evilâ.
Refusing to recognise the obvious fact that American policies are, to a large extent, the cause of Muslim discontent, Wolfowitz predictably characterises the problem as one of âterrorist fanaticismâ. Accordingly, he blesses Americaâs invasion of Iraq and its âwar on terrorismâ in terms similar to those used by white Western colonialists to justify their invasion and subjugation of âprimitiveâ people â a sort of civilising mission. He calls it a project to build a âjust and peaceful worldâ, with America âoffer[ing] a vision of life and hope and freedom to counter the terroristsâ vision of tyranny, death and despairâ. He refers to Bushâs Iraq policy as âa story about the power of libertyâ.
Wolfowitz appears to insist that âdemocracyâ must be imposed on the Iraqis, and that, if they resist, they must be forced, on the pain of death, to accept it. He depicts the American invasion of Iraq as geared by an irrepressible zeal to spread âdemocracyâ, while remaining silent on Americaâs consistent support to the some of the most undemocratic regimes in the world.
Seeking to provide a âhuman faceâ to American occupying forces, he quotes an unnamed Iraqi woman, who allegedly met Bush at the White House while on a trip to see the functioning of a âdemocratic societyâ, as saying that âthere would have been no opportunity for Iraqi women to learn about democracy were it not for the sacrifice of American servicemen and womenâ. Wolfowitz waxes eloquent about the âgreatâ deeds of American soldiers in Iraq, whom he describes as setting up schools, getting people âback into their homesâ and even distributing bicycles worth âfive bucksâ each to Iraqi children. Not a single word is uttered about the thousands of Iraqis who have died and continue to die as a result of the American occupation.
It is not that the authors of the RAND report are as naïve and ignorant as they appear from their academic outpourings. Obviously, their diagnosis of the problem and the solutions that they suggest are carefully packaged to serve American and Zionist hegemonic designs and to counter any threat to American and Israeli interests. While the seriousness of religiously-inspired militancy and terror certainly cannot be downplayed, the authors of the RAND report seem to limit the phenomenon to Muslim groups alone, which, of course, is misleading.
Religious radicalism is not a Muslim monopoly, and if we are serious about combating it our concern must extend to all such groups, Christian, Hindu, Jewish etc, in addition to Muslim, that spread hatred and terror in the name of religion. Likewise, state terrorism, which the RAND report appears to bless in the name of the âwar on terrorâ, must be seen as an equally grave threat that needs to be combated.
In addition, religious radicalism cannot be seen, as the RAND report does, simply in ideological terms. Its complex underlying causes and factors, economic, cultural and political, must also be taken into account in the context of imperialism and the Western-dominated capitalist system. Only then will we be able to ask the right questions and come up with the appropriate responses.
The writer has done his Phd at the International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World, Leiden. He also edits a web-magazine called Qalandar, which can be accessed at www.islaminterfaith.org
<img src='http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/2005/12/14/20051214_yogi_sikand.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
VIEW: US imperialism in democracyâs name âYoginder Sikand
While the seriousness of religiously-inspired militancy and terror certainly cannot be downplayed, the authors of the RAND report seem to limit the phenomenon to Muslim groups alone, which, of course, is misleading. Religious radicalism is not a Muslim monopoly, and if we are serious about combating it our concern must extend to all such groups, Christian, Hindu, Jewish etc
âThree years After: Next Steps in the War on Terrorâ, is RAND Corporationâs latest document detailing American policies in the Middle East and suggesting suitable changes. A right-wing research organisation allied with the US government and the American defence and intelligence departments, RAND is notorious for its advocacy of American imperialist interests. RAND is one of the most influential neo-conservative and pro-Zionist âthink tanksâ in America, and its publications both reflect and help mould US government policies on key issues, including Americaâs âwar on terrorâ.
For anyone interested in understanding how the US establishment sees its âwar on terrorâ, this document, which presents itself as drawing on what it calls âthe results of several cutting-edge studiesâ, is essential reading. It is based, as even a cursory glance would suggest, on a warped understanding of the causes of terrorism. Hence, the solutions that it offers, by ignoring the root causes of terrorism, threaten to make the situation more, not less, complicated and intractable.
The various contributors to this volume, mostly self-styled âexpertsâ at RAND closely linked to US government departments, appear to argue that the only sort of âterrorismâ that merits concern is what the media routinely describes as âIslamicâ or âIslamistâ âterrorismâ. Ignoring other forms of terrorism, not to speak of American state terrorism as brutally displayed in Iraq today, the âexpertsâ appear to see âIslamic/Islamist terrorismâ as not just the sole form of terrorism but also as the principal challenge to American interests.
In their diagnosis of âIslamic/Islamist terrorismâ, too, RANDâs âexpertsâ display an unpardonable ignorance, to be charitable, or, as is more likely, deceit. Ignoring the economic, cultural, and political causes of discontent in many Muslim communities, including the American-backed Israeli occupation of Palestine and Americaâs support of ruthless client regimes in Muslim countries, the âexpertsâ see Islamist militancy as simply an ideological phenomenon.
As David Aaron, editor of the document, former US government official and currently senior fellow at RAND, says, Americaâs âwar on terrorâ is an âideological warâ, in which Islamic militancy has assumed the role that communism once occupied in the American imagination. It is as if the ideology of Islamism operates in a vacuum, unrelated to the social reality that produces and sustains it. Not surprisingly, the role of the United States in backing Islamist groups during the Cold War to battle against anti-imperialist and leftist forces is conveniently forgotten now that former friends have turned foes.
Rather than address the root causes of Muslim discontent, of which Islamist militancy is, to an extent, a product, the solutions that the contributors to this book offer are tailor-made to preserve American hegemony and Israeli interests. They assume that American policy is fundamentally correct, and see no need whatsoever for America to reconsider its policies towards the Muslim world as well as Israel.
There is no mention in the book of Israeli brutalities, of the American-imposed embargo on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands, the American bombing of Afghanistan, the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq and so on as possible factors for Muslim discontent. The latter is seen as simply an ideological perversion.
With such a warped perspective, the contributors to this book can only come up with two solutions to the problem: to ideologically combat radical Islamism with a counter-Islamic discourse, and to use force to destroy radical Islamists.
The first solution is spelled out by RAND âexpertâ, Cheryl Benard, wife of Zalmay Khalilzad, American ambassador to Iraq, in her paper titled âDemocracy and Islam: The Struggle in the Islamic World-Strategy for the United Statesâ.
This paper also operates on the same assumption that American policies have nothing to do with Muslim discontent or Islamist opposition, and that the root causes of radical Islamism lies solely in a certain understanding of Islam, or what it calls âthe struggle within Islamâ. Accordingly, Benard begins her essay by approvingly quoting George Bush as saying, âWe actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be called the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies, and who happen to use terror as a weaponâ.
Benard outlines an ambitious proposal, to promote a version of Islam that toes US dictates. She labels this sort of Islam âmodernistâ, by which she means an Islam that differs but little from Western Protestantism and is perfectly at ease with capitalism. Realising that, given their elitist moorings, the Islamic âmodernistsâ that she backs lack popular appeal and mass following, Benard urges that America should âbe prepared to subsidize the publication of their work in a variety of forms such as the Web, textbooks, pamphlets, and conferencesâ.
America should, she suggests, âpopularise modernists as role models and leaders, and provide venues and platforms to communicate their messageâ. Obviously, the âmodernistsâ Benard refers to would receive Western backing so long as their ire remains focused on the Islamists, but they would not be allowed to speak out against American brutality.
The second solution â military force â that the book advocates to deal with âterrorismâ is again based on the notion that American policies need no change, that America is perfectly innocent and that Islamist militancy is the result of warped or crazed religiosity. This is echoed in the presentation by Paul Wolfowtiz, former American deputy secretary of defence, and one of the chief architects of Americaâs invasion of Iraq. Blind to Americaâs brutal imperialist past, Wolfowitz piously proclaims that the âwar on terrorismâ and the invasion of Iraq is ânot for conquest, itâs not for imperial colonial plunderâ.
Rather, he says, it is for a principle that he claims has driven American history from the beginning of its history â âfreedom and democracyâ â for he says, âAmericans have always stood up to evilâ.
Refusing to recognise the obvious fact that American policies are, to a large extent, the cause of Muslim discontent, Wolfowitz predictably characterises the problem as one of âterrorist fanaticismâ. Accordingly, he blesses Americaâs invasion of Iraq and its âwar on terrorismâ in terms similar to those used by white Western colonialists to justify their invasion and subjugation of âprimitiveâ people â a sort of civilising mission. He calls it a project to build a âjust and peaceful worldâ, with America âoffer[ing] a vision of life and hope and freedom to counter the terroristsâ vision of tyranny, death and despairâ. He refers to Bushâs Iraq policy as âa story about the power of libertyâ.
Wolfowitz appears to insist that âdemocracyâ must be imposed on the Iraqis, and that, if they resist, they must be forced, on the pain of death, to accept it. He depicts the American invasion of Iraq as geared by an irrepressible zeal to spread âdemocracyâ, while remaining silent on Americaâs consistent support to the some of the most undemocratic regimes in the world.
Seeking to provide a âhuman faceâ to American occupying forces, he quotes an unnamed Iraqi woman, who allegedly met Bush at the White House while on a trip to see the functioning of a âdemocratic societyâ, as saying that âthere would have been no opportunity for Iraqi women to learn about democracy were it not for the sacrifice of American servicemen and womenâ. Wolfowitz waxes eloquent about the âgreatâ deeds of American soldiers in Iraq, whom he describes as setting up schools, getting people âback into their homesâ and even distributing bicycles worth âfive bucksâ each to Iraqi children. Not a single word is uttered about the thousands of Iraqis who have died and continue to die as a result of the American occupation.
It is not that the authors of the RAND report are as naïve and ignorant as they appear from their academic outpourings. Obviously, their diagnosis of the problem and the solutions that they suggest are carefully packaged to serve American and Zionist hegemonic designs and to counter any threat to American and Israeli interests. While the seriousness of religiously-inspired militancy and terror certainly cannot be downplayed, the authors of the RAND report seem to limit the phenomenon to Muslim groups alone, which, of course, is misleading.
Religious radicalism is not a Muslim monopoly, and if we are serious about combating it our concern must extend to all such groups, Christian, Hindu, Jewish etc, in addition to Muslim, that spread hatred and terror in the name of religion. Likewise, state terrorism, which the RAND report appears to bless in the name of the âwar on terrorâ, must be seen as an equally grave threat that needs to be combated.
In addition, religious radicalism cannot be seen, as the RAND report does, simply in ideological terms. Its complex underlying causes and factors, economic, cultural and political, must also be taken into account in the context of imperialism and the Western-dominated capitalist system. Only then will we be able to ask the right questions and come up with the appropriate responses.
The writer has done his Phd at the International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World, Leiden. He also edits a web-magazine called Qalandar, which can be accessed at www.islaminterfaith.org
<img src='http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/2005/12/14/20051214_yogi_sikand.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />