US War On Terror And Muslim Response
By Usman Khalid
02 August, 2007
Countercurrents.orgThe entire world was shocked beyond belief when the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon building were struck on 9/11 by US planes hijacked by Arab young men. There was sympathy for the victims and justifiable anger in America. But the US response in invading the already devastated country of Afghanistan was excessive. More important, the USA did not obtain the endorsement of the UN Security Council and the invasion violated International Law. A military attack is permissible only in response to an invasion or imminent aggression. The Afghans did not invade the US nor were capable of doing so. That the 9/11 attacks had been planned and executed by Arab mujahideen in Afghanistan, did call for action, perhaps even punishment, but not the wanton bombing that resulted in the death of over 40,000 mostly of innocent non-combatants.
The invasion of Afghanistan set the stage for the “US war on terror” that is still going on. There is little point in quarrelling about this name which many consider misleading. What is important is that it is a new type of war, with new rules. When President Bush said, “You are either with us (the USA) or with the terrorist”, he propounded a new doctrine of war the chief features of which are: 1) strategic ‘pre-emption’ and 2) ‘unilateralism’. Both of these features constitute a violation of international law. America has assumed the right to invade or bomb any country which it accuses of providing refuge or assistance to terrorists. America makes demands to hand over to them persons it accuses of being terrorists. A country that refuses on the plea that it does not have an extradition treaty with America, or that legal procedures should be followed before extradition, or that they cannot hand over a person to be sent to a dubious jurisdiction like Guantanamo Bay, or that the accusation made by America does not constitute a crime in their country, earns the wrath of the USA. Most countries take the threats from America seriously and comply. Those countries that resist are demonised, isolated and sometimes even invaded. Three countries have been invaded since 9/11 - Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon – and thousands have been incarcerated in many countries without trial or handed over to America by their own governments because of dire American threats.
The governments that submit to American pressure and are unable or unwilling to protect the legal and human rights of their people lose legitimacy in the eyes of their own people. This is the main impact of the US war on terror that is destabilising all the Muslim countries. The fact, however, is that countries that plead that the requirements of their national laws and/or international law should be met before incarceration or extradition, have not been pressurised unduly by America. Yet most Muslim rulers have acted out of the fear that America may consider this approach as “not being with them” and therefore being the enemy. America has exploited this fear and wantonly declared even those fighting American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan as terrorists. Any one resisting Israeli occupation of Palestine is also a terrorist. Any one resisting Indian occupation of Kashmir is also a terrorist. Any country that gives refuge and the protection of law to its citizens accused of being terrorists is under the threat of being declared a terrorist state deserving everything America can throw at it.
As America expands its list of enemies to include those who resist the Indian and Israeli occupation, the reaction of the Muslim masses is vociferous, sometimes even violent. Many Governments take into account the anger of their people and resist American pressure. The degree to which a government submits to American pressure is the extent to which it is seen as illegitimate. Free media, it has been seen, is also not immune to bribes or intimidation. The ‘free press’ in many countries has started to call the resistance fighters as ‘terrorists’. Withdrawal of citizenship and persecution of those who took part in Afghan Jihad is the norm in most Muslim countries. Banditry by demobilised soldiers has been the after effect of every war, but the after effect of demobilisation of Mujahideen in Afghanistan is unique and horrific because of the way their home countries treated them after the end of the Afghan war against Soviet occupation. In consequence, there is an exponential destabilisation of the entire Middle East and much of South Asia.
In the wake of 9/11, the USA was right in demanding help to identify and punish those who had caused the terrible damage and loss of life in the USA. But the wanton bombardment of Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon has reversed the situation. It is now the victims of American and Israeli bombing and not the trigger-happy occupation troops who get sympathy from the local populations. Six years after 9/11 there is little sign there is going to be a let up. In fact the slaughter in occupied countries has become wider and more deadly. It has long since been forgotten that there is no place for revenge or retribution in any code of civilised law. Punishment to wrong doers, compensation to victims and reparations by countries held responsible for war and violence are the right response. America does not explain why it chooses to ignore or violate law so blatantly. How does America expect laws and international conventions to be obeyed by others when America itself violates them with impunity? The global impact of the US war on terror is the erosion of the state and increasing lawlessness. The people are increasingly afraid as they get little direction or leadership.
As the moral authority of states that submit to pressure is eroded, there is a corresponding rise in the credibility and power of defiant individuals and non-government organisations. The rapid growth of underground resistance groups is the hallmark of our times. Such resistance groups have more legitimacy and peoples’ support than many Muslim states. Contrary to what America says, it is not because the rulers are not democratically elected; it is because the ruler (whether elected or not) is deemed to be illegitimate when he acts in defiance of law (Sharia in most cases) and socio-political values of the country. Most of the Muslim States are not multiple party democracies. Majority of them are one party state, or, ruled by tribal leaders or hereditary emirs. In the past this has never affected their legitimacy in power. Electoral legitimacy is new to the Muslim World; it is in vogue in very few countries like Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey and Pakistan. Even in these countries, elections are no longer the touchstone of legitimacy; the agenda of the government determines its legitimacy. When the rulers conduct the business of the state in accordance with law to protect and promote the peoples’ agenda, they are legitimate, if they do not, they are deemed to be illegitimate.
The society in every Muslim country is largely conservative because of the power and influence being in the hands of feudal/tribal leadership over many centuries. Many of them are the progeny of pious persons (called ‘pir’ in South Asia including Afghanistan) and the traditional society shows deference to pious men and clerics. In such countries the society develops on totalitarian lines where dissent and difference is frowned upon. Whether there are elections or nominations, the leadership remains in the same hands. The challenge to tradition and conservatism came from the cities when ‘democracy’ made noisy protest permissible in the last few decades. This challenge reinforced the appeal of the clerics after a brief period when ‘liberal’ leadership came to the fore. The liberal leadership became popular by showing the efficacy of its ‘political struggle’ in securing ‘liberation’ from colonial rule. Against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Indian occupation of Jammu and Kashmir, Israeli occupation of Palestine, and now the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the political and diplomatic instruments have proved to be utterly ineffective. Conservatism with all its appendages is back in vogue again.
In the West, liberalism was an objective before it became a force. In the Muslim World, the main concern remains ‘liberation’. The Muslims eagerly embraced liberalism when that delivered ‘liberation’ and returned to conservatism when liberalism – both its facets i.e. democracy and secularism – were seen to generate internal polarisation and strife but not ‘liberation’. Jihad in Afghanistan started and succeeded when ‘liberation movements’ in Palestine using the help and tactics of the Communists had strayed off course. The parties of clerics became popular all over the Muslim World by espousing the agenda of ‘liberation’. The world has been slow to grasp the change. The change is the result of sixty years of humiliation. The occupation of Palestine and Kashmir is now sixty years old. Until twenty or so years ago, all efforts to liberate these territories were frustrated. Despite the acceptance of ‘sovereign equality of nations’ and ‘non-interference in the internal affairs of states as universal principles, the Muslim rulers were unable to get the occupation vacated. When they fought wars, they were defeated. When they took diplomatic initiative, they were sidelined and ignored. Occupation continued; only those UNSC resolutions are enforced which have American support.
The rise in the price of oil in the wake of the 1973 Arab Israeli War brought immense wealth to many Arab states that also support highly conservative societies. Reaction to humiliation in such societies is revenge, not accommodation of the enemy. They had seen that democracy in their region had increased the influence of foreigners who are the friends of their arch humilator and tormentor – Israel. Democracy, wherever it was introduced, was seen as an instrument of subversion and was discredited. Military coup d’etats occurred in several countries. The people felt that the military rulers would fight better and restore their honour and dignity. The military leadership failed spectacularly. It has since been seen that the armed forces can be subverted and infiltrated as easily as the political parties. The number of senior generals, who were evacuated to the USA in the wake of the defeat of Iraq, revealed the extent to which the ‘strongman’ Saddam’s tightly controlled armed forces had been infiltrated. Having seen electoral democracy as well as military despotism fail to deliver dignity, the people could not have spurned conservatism; they returned to it.
A new era began with Jihad in Afghanistan. In this era, being the progeny of the pious or the powerful is not good enough and one had to be a Mujahid in order to aspire to rule. Wisdom and piety are still the yardsticks by which leaders are judged but courage and character have acquired more importance. In the contest between the Imam and the Mujahid, the Mujahid has won. Both are pious but a Mujahid is different to an Imam in very significant ways. The religious political parties in many Muslim countries are parties of Imams. They operate openly and pose little challenge to the socio-political order. The Mujahids, in contrast, do not form political parties or contest elections; they seek to change the socio-political order relying on ‘deference’ enjoyed by the Mujahid rather than underlining ‘difference’ that an Imam excels in. As if that was not complicated enough, the Mujahids are also of two types: one, whose agenda is ‘liberation’; two, whose agenda is making people good Muslims. Al-Qaida, as it is now well known, is not really an organisation, it is the name given to the CIA data base of Arab Mujahideen who took part in the Afghan Jihad in the 1980s. They represent the ‘liberation’ wing of the Mujahideen who consider the liberation of Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya and Mindanao, the removal of foreign military bases from Muslim countries and the restoration of control over the resources of the Muslim countries as their objective. They see the ‘collaborators’ among Muslim rulers as the main hurdle in their way and have made them their prime target.
The other types of Mujahid vary a great deal - from peaceful preachers of ‘tablighi jamaat’ to the takfiri who do not hesitate to kill the non-devout Muslims who they consider worse than Kafirs. The Taliban, more or less, are takfiri; although their role varies - they are engaged in jihad fighting Hamid Karzai and the occupation forces in Afghanistan and they are also fighting Musharraf and his armed forces in Pakistan. In the Taliban, the agenda of ‘liberation’ and of Sharia and Khilafa have become fused. The latter has limited appeal or credibility but the two agendas feed on each other and both are undermined in consequence. That is why most wise Muslims fear that the Taliban phenomenon is helpful to the enemies of Islam. Whether the Muslims divide and polarise into sects, ethnic groups, or into the devout and the non-devout, the enemy can support one side and sustain an internecine war. This classification and compartmentalisation is not neat, each person in every category describes his beliefs differently in an obscure language. But without an understanding of these compartments it is impossible to understand the problems let alone to resolve them.
The Mujahid whose agenda is ‘liberation’ has captured the imagination of the Muslim masses throughout the world. America sees them as the main enemy as do their collaborators among the Muslim rulers. But it is the takfiri who are causing death and destruction in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those who operate from the platform of religious political parties or the pulpit, do little harm. They are in fact vulnerable and easy to revile and ridicule, demonise and even defeat. In Pakistan, the present ruler and his chosen political allies, the MQM and the PPP, revile the alliance of religious parties (MMA) to earn some brownie points from America but they are silent on those with ‘liberation’ as their agenda. Since the takfiri have been the allies of those with the ‘liberation’ agenda such as the Taliban, the two are often considered the same. But takfir is not Islamic at all since in Islam Allah (SWT) alone is the Judge. No individual can judge who is a good or a bad Muslim. What started as targeting rulers seen as collaborators has since included the soldiers that these rulers command. Since this extension of the definition of collaborator has met success in occupied Iraq and occupied Afghanistan, the danger exists that takfir may become a part and parcel of the ‘liberation’ agenda. This would be ruinous as it would sustain an internecine war without end. In the wake of the army attack on Lal Masjid in Islamabad, every soldier of the Pakistan Army is now a legitimate target. Every politician or eminent person who is critical of those making vile attacks on the armed forces would be a target. The unravelling of the state could happen so fast that no one would be able to control it.
Elections are still the best way to obtain the underpinning of legitimacy to a government. In a Muslim country with a constitution with proper checks and balances, it would be hard to carry on governing without embracing the agenda of ‘liberation’. However, the Takfir menace has to be uprooted. The Takfiri do indeed terrorise people in the name of Islam and impose their will on them. Their cult has taken roots in some areas and they would continue to blight the political landscape of Afghanistan and Pakistan unless we learn to differentiate between the agenda of ‘liberation’ and of ‘takfir’. It is impossible to defeat ‘takfir’ without embracing ‘liberation’. Takfir will continue to flourish until it is distinguished from ‘liberation’, isolated and dealt with severely. People cannot and must not judge each other; that is the role of the state. A state within a state is intolerable in every polity – including Islamic polity. Since the resistance in Iraq has targeted all those working for the occupiers, including the Iraqi police and soldiers, this strategy came into Afghanistan. It has now been extended to Pakistan. This extension cannot be arrested and reversed without General Musharraf submitting to law and retiring from the office of COAS and President this year.
Those resisting occupation deserve honour because they are fighting to restore our honour, and our ownership of our lands and our resources. To honour them, the Muslim countries do not have to wage a general war or take any other such precipitous action against occupiers. But they must accept that resistance is legitimate; that resistance fighters deserve support and praise; they should not be condemned as ‘terrorist’. Without being the sole spokesmen of the resistance, the Taliban and takfiri in any shape or form would have been sidelined and discredited a long time ago. They would have surely been forced to abandon random terror as a weapon. A change in tactics and language to articulate the view point of the resistance would make it harder to demonise the resistance and bring wider public support. But occupation would be vacated only in consequence of a successful strategy.
Asymmetrical War
With the USA being the sole super power, any war involving the USA is bound to be an unequal war. The Americans call this war ‘asymmetrical war’. In the past, terms like ‘guerrilla war’ or ‘insurrectional war’ were used because these described the tactics of the weaker side. Now, it is recognised that every war is different and that ‘total war’ like the First and the Second World Wars is insane conceptually as well as practically. Now, every war is conducted according to a “narrative”. Both belligerents write their own narrative and the most realistic and practical narrative wins. Someone wrote the narrative of 9/11. The author was able to get educated young men from well-to-do families who were not known to be particularly religious to undertake the suicide mission. Did he appreciate that America would simply call them ‘terrorists’ and promptly wage a ‘war on terrorism’ invading several Muslim countries? The jury is still out if that was a part of the narrative for success or that the strong US reaction has frustrated and defeated the adversary. I am of the view it is the former but I would not have written such a narrative.
The US ‘war on terrorism’ is being conducted according to two narratives one of which will triumph over the other. What is a narrative, any way? It is cogent description of why and how a war is started, how it is conducted, and how it is brought to a conclusion. If the narrative is incomplete, defective or less realistic than that of the enemy, the war is lost. The Soviet Union sent its troops into Afghanistan in 1979 on the basis of a narrative: it was invited by the Afghan Government it would restore the writ of that government and then it would leave. The defect in the narrative was that the Afghan Government was perceived by the people to be a Soviet puppet. Since it lacked legitimacy, it could only stay in power as long the puppet masters were able to provide it with troops to fight and money to run the administration. The Soviet troops displayed courage in fighting but the Soviet Union could not indefinitely provide the money and the troops required to maintain its Afghan protégés in power. The Soviet Union wisely withdrew when it realised that their adversary’s narrative was much simpler and more popular. The Afghans were ‘resisting occupation’, and were neither constrained by time nor by resources. The resistance was bound to win.
America’s intervention to liberate Kuwait in 1991 from Iraqi occupation was successful because the narrative of the First Gulf War had basis in international law and the strategy had clear and practical parameters. It was started on the request of the victim of aggression – Kuwait; it was supported by its neighbour – Saudi Arabia – that furnished the base for the US operations; and the UN Security Council passed a resolution permitting military operations against Iraq. The war was fought by both sides as a ‘conventional war’ with clear front lines but it began with aerial bombardment of Iraq that was much more fierce than what could be justified by operational needs. The war was easily won; the US forces withdrew after getting Iraq to sign a surrender document and agreeing to pay reparations. The narrative of the war had a sound basis in law; it cost the US nothing as the cost of the war was borne by Arab countries; and it gave America a huge psychological boost ending the so called “Vietnam Syndrome”. But wanton bombardment of Iraq, the burden of reparations and economic sanctions, and the humiliation of ‘no fly zones’ over North and South Iraq, wrote the narrative for the Second Gulf War, which America cannot win. That is because the war now being fought by the Iraqis is a war of “resistance”.
The 9/11 attack was audacious and required a high degree of planning that the Arab youth had been considered incapable of. This came as a great surprise. There was panic in the USA and the populace did feel terrorised. To call the American response as “War on Terror” is quite understandable. America, on the one hand, is trying to reassure its citizens that such attacks would not recur; it is also trying to make sure that such attacks on the soil of the USA indeed do not recur. The concerns and the efforts to address those concerns are legitimate. The entire world sympathised with the USA. The panic on the streets of New York and the robust organised response to the destruction caused was seen by the entire world on their TV screens and drew admiration. America really stood tall among nations as an example of restraint and fortitude in the face of crisis. But the benefits of all that acclaim were frittered away in the aftermath of the tragedy. Those who had been campaigning for America to embrace ‘unilateral military intervention’ to secure the ‘oil riches’ of the globe, to maintain the USA as the sole super power in the world, saw in it an opportunity to start this war we now know as the “the US War on Terror”.
It is already apparent that the USA cannot win the war in Iraq on the basis of the present narratives of this war. America has indeed sought to re-write the narrative. It now says that the objective was the removal of the tyrant - Saddam Hussain – from power. But he has been transformed into a ‘hero’ of the Arab World by the pictures of his ‘defiance’ under the hangman’s noose. America now says it invaded Iraq to bring ‘democracy’ to that country and to the broader Middle East. But democracy has lost its shine in the eyes of much of the world as the model democracies – USA, India and Israel - have their armed forces occupying other peoples land in defiance of the UN and international law. The cruelty and excesses of US soldiers are even more blatant and go unpunished more often than even the military personnel of India and Israel. When the USA talks about human rights, the response all over the world is a derisive laugh. In Iraq and elsewhere, the USA is not presenting itself as a model of democratic restraint and accommodation. It is vengeful like the tribal people of Afghanistan and Pakistan with the difference that those tribes have longer memories. That brings one to the narrative of the current war in Afghanistan.
America was not always against ‘liberation’ wars. In fact, it is trying to re-write the narrative for the Second Gulf War and present it as a ‘war of liberation’ from Saddam’s tyranny. The USA supported and helped the Afghans win their Liberation War against the Soviet occupation. The Afghans were grateful to America, which provided them funds and weapons to win the war. They were also grateful to Pakistan for having allowed Afghan refugees to move freely throughout Pakistan in search of work and shelter. The Afghans were very impressed with Arab fighters who came and fought alongside them making huge sacrifices in saying good-by to a life of relative luxury in their own countries. Quite un-noticed but quite naturally, something unusual and unique was happening. A new narrative – an Arab-Afghan narrative - was written for global emancipation of all captive peoples. This has come to be seen as a challenge to the global ambitions of the USA. Things snowballed until the Bush Administration wrote its own narrative for its “war on terror” that opposes ALL freedom movements. America pitted itself squarely in opposition to the Arab-Afghan narrative of ‘resistance and liberation’.
The Arab-Afghan narrative is well supported throughout the Muslim world. It had positive implications for the liberation war in Palestine, Jammu and Kashmir, Chechnya and Mindanao and was received with enthusiasm by the people of every Muslim country notably Pakistan. But the political class of Pakistan – based in the feudal class and ethnic minorities – saw it as a threat to its power. The country has been polarised into ladeen (the English word closest in meaning is ‘secular’) minority and deendar (Muslim and religious) majority. America sees the ladeen as its natural allies and has pitted itself against the majority in Pakistan and everywhere else in the Muslim world. The ladeen minority rules in Pakistan, Egypt and Algeria with US support. Everywhere else, the rulers maintain a balance between the fear of the majority and the fear of America. That is perhaps wise and safe. But America wants more, which makes walking the tightrope more difficult.
In the six years since 9/11, battle lines have become clearer. The narrative of the opponents of US hegemony is simple. They want all countries to own their own land and their resources. They would like Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya and Mindanao to exercise their right of self-determination and all foreign bases to be removed from the soil of Muslim countries. Both these objectives have long been supported by the non-aligned movement and the UN Charter also lends their objectives full support. Although the demand is vigorously made by ‘fugitive Muslim leadership’, it is neither peculiarly Muslim nor particularly radical. The Arab-Afghan narrative been undermined by the takfiri who have added Sharia and Khilafa as objectives that have little mass support. Without returning to the pure and simple ‘liberation’ agenda, the movement is likely to go out of control. The truth is that the objective of the Arab-Afghan narrative is modest and it has support from the majority of the countries of the world. The difficulties arise from the takfiri minority and the USA remaining hostile to national self-determination but supportive of the takfiri. Since the leaders of takfir have all served time at Guantanamo Bay, many believe they were brainwashed while incarcerated to believe that Pakistan was responsible for all the problems of the Afghans.
The Arab-Afghan narrative was written after every other narrative having failed to obtain self-determination for the Palestinians and the Kashmiris over a period of half a century. During the Cold War, Pakistan became the most allied ally of the USA in the hope of the USA’s influence being helpful for a UN supervised plebiscite in Kashmir. The Palestinians and the other Arab states aligned themselves with the Soviet Union with similar hopes. But success was obtained only in Afghanistan by fighting the Soviet Occupation as Jihad. Why is it surprising that every other Muslim nation still suffering foreign occupation should try to replicate their success? Jihad and the mujahideen were eulogised in the West when it was waged against Soviet occupation, but it is an evil when waged against the American, Indian or Israeli occupation. Resistance to occupation is ‘resistance’ whether it blessed by the God of Christians, Muslims or Jews or has the blessing of several gods or no god at all. The words Arab and Muslim (like many other words used to describe national identities) are neither exalted nor inferior as these are just descriptive terms. When a country’s media or leaders use these words to identify a threat, they do more than misinform; they actually threaten whole swathes of population and turn them into enemies. That the Arab-Afghan narrative is described as Jihadist or Islamist may have created fear in western minds and made the obtaining of public approval for waging a war against them easier but it has not made victory any easier.
The Arab-Afghan narrative has clear objectives, its methodology is resistance, and the timeframe for concluding the war is left to the enemy. Since the authors of the narrative are fugitives, it is not a narrative for a war by a people or a country, in any specific theatre of war, or by any particular force. The narrative is for resistance, which has become synonymous to Jihad. The effect of such a narrative is that it does not marshal or direct resources; its main purpose is to judge the rulers of every state as to whether they act as helpers of the resistance or act as collaborators of their enemies. The collaborators, quite naturally, describe the authors of the narrative as extremists and revile them for providing reasons to the enemy to invade and destroy. That is how the Arab-Afghan narrative has opened an internal dimension for the war against occupation. The rulers or leaders who restrain or decry the resistance are condemned as collaborators and traitors even though some of them might honestly believe that the cost of confrontation is too high and that compromise is essential for survival.
That is the situation in the Muslim World today. The Arab-Afghan narrative for resistance exists. It will outlast the life of its authors. Trying to kill them or discredit them is of little use. The narrative is sustained by the cruelty and excesses suffered by those living under occupation, the slyness of collaborators, and the crocodile tears of the fence sitters. The Western nations do feel threatened and the situation they face is indeed frightening but it has been created by them and they alone have the key to its resolution. The Balfour Declaration that gave Palestine to the Jews, and the Radcliffe Award that gave India the land corridor to send troops into Kashmir were the decisions of the British Government. Did they foresee that giving these territories to their favourites rather than the rightful owners would cause so much war and bloodshed? Perhaps, not! That is also the case with America. It sent troops into several small countries and into several wars always saying (perhaps even believing) that it was saving the people from the ‘bad guys’. But it has often turned out that those bad guys were ‘supreme patriots’ much loved in the countries America went in to save.
Extremism – the myth and reality
In countries ruled by hereditary monarchs or states with a one party system, there is either no provision for elections or they are a pointless exercise. In such countries, if there are significant minorities and legitimate dissent seeking foreign patronage, the temptation to infiltrate and exploit is hard to resist. Even in multiple party “winner takes all” democracies America’s secret service (CIA) is continuously cultivating contacts with those out of power or out of favour to influence events and pick up puppets. America can start a civil insurrection more easily in democratic countries because the ‘out of power and out of favour’ are equal in numbers to those in power and in favour. The US officials are often quite blatant in the use of their contacts (agents) to interfere in politics and even routine administration of countries often for no better reason than merely because they can. The legitimacy of ‘democratically elected’ leaders is often no better than those of despots. In such an environment there was a place for an alternative to electoral legitimacy. That has been provided by what is known as “Political Islam” whose slogans are ‘sharia’ and ‘khilafah’.
The flag wavers of Sharia and Khilafa are the main destabilising force in most Muslim countries. The Muslims masses are familiar with both ideas and are eager to embrace them but are suspicious of those waving the flag. The people are wary because the flag wavers use strong language against the West as if abuse alone would win the day. They are unable to distinguish between resistance and random violence. They choose targets that are ‘own goals’. At times one fears that the danger in Muslim countries is more from within than without. If the picture appears complicated, it is because it is indeed complex. By its failure to respect complexity, America is always pushing its friends to do more, and pressurising others to toe its line without having a clear line itself. The USA violates the rules of inter-state conduct as well as the international law. Question is asked, why? Are the US objectives indeed those that are publicised? A consensus is emerging, even in the USA, that the real objectives are different to those announced publicly. It is, therefore, important to fathom those objectives and to oppose strategies that caused so much slaughter and have entailed wanton devastation of whole countries creating so much anger and frustration in Muslim states.
To secure control of the oil of the Middle East is generally accepted as the prime reason that provided the drive for the invasion of Iraq. This unfortunate country is literally sitting on oil and lies between two of the giant oil producers in the Middle East – Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Americans thought that victory in Iraq would be like victory over Germany in the Second World War. Grateful Iraqis would eagerly join them to build a new Iraq. The US bases would be welcomed. From those bases, America will control the entire Middle East – its oil and everything else. They clearly did not take notice that the occupation of Palestine and of Kashmir is still being resisted sixty years later. Perhaps they thought if Israel and India can live with resistance for so many decades, why can’t they? The answer is they can but America cannot. The people of Israel see their country as small and insecure, which it is. The Israelis really want peace but they cannot see the Palestinians as a part of their nation. There is not enough space for the two of them. In the Arab-Afghan narrative, Palestine is united on the basis of majority rule. That basis is increasingly acceptable to a moral minority in Israel. There is, therefore, hope. After America realises that it can buy as much oil as it wants and does not need to occupy oil rich states to do so, it would also have to agree to majority rule in a united Palestine.
Kashmir is not America’s problem. Also, there is no resource rich real estate in South Asia that should draw America’s interest or attention. The resource rich areas lie north of Afghanistan in Central Asia. All the American problems in the Middle East emerge from embracing the Israeli agenda; all the problems of America in South Asia emerge from embracing the agenda of India. America is in Afghanistan because India wants to squeeze Pakistan. India has sold to America the proposition that further disintegration of Pakistan would preclude its emergence as a leading Muslim state. It would be unable to provide a short route from the Arabian Sea to western China and it would be unable to be the seaboard of the Central Asian Republics. Why does India want to damage Pakistan so much? Because, India wants to be all of those things itself. It wants to suffocate and kill Pakistan in its embrace. ‘Making frontiers irrelevant’ is the name of that embrace. India wants to have the freedom of routes through Pakistan to Afghanistan and beyond and be another super power.
But there is one major flaw in the Indian narrative. When the armed forces of a country are defeated, even destroyed, the people continue resistance. India has not been able to pacify and integrate Assam or Kashmir where the Hindu population is sizeable. It had to disgorge East Pakistan after conquering it. While any country can make trouble for its neighbours by creating and patronising dissent, there are more benefits from having friendly neighbours. India will not find stability until it drops its dream of Akhand Bharat, stops making trouble for its neighbours and give freedom to captive peoples – most notably Kashmir and Assam. In turning its face away from the legitimate movements for national self-determination, America is neither guided by any principle nor self –interest. It is guided by the ambitions of its strategic partners – Israel and India. If an important principle or vital interest of America was involved, only a very foolish country will refuse to accommodate this. Sadly, blunderbuss America – seen widely as a menace - is menacing itself much more.
Apart from oil and security of Israel, no cogent reason has been advanced for the American aggression in the Middle East. The invasion of Iraq has undermined both objectives. The oil price has jumped from 25 Dollars to 75 Dollars a barrel. That has made Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela very rich and America is on the verge of bankruptcy. President George Bush and Condoleezza Rice have often talked about democracy and about bringing changes to the map of the broader Middle East, to create new states of Kurdistan and Baluchistan; and splitting Saudi Arabia into three states. Is that the real objective then? But these are not just lines on paper but a strategy of slaughter. Iraq, which has been split into three regions but is still federated, has experienced horrendous slaughter to force the migration of people from one region to the other. If America’s intent indeed is to change the map of the larger Middle East, it is a scheme for unprecedented slaughter. If they do indeed want slaughter, then they would rely on the takfiri to carry it out.
Conclusion - how to avoid the slaughter
The enemies exploit sectarian and ethnic differences among the Muslims, ridicule Islam and create doubts about its efficacy as a binding force in the Ummah. They help those ready to engage in sectarian or ethnic war in Muslim countries with weapons and cash. Those with ‘liberation’ as their agenda do not only resist foreign occupation, they also fight the ethnic and sectarian warriors. They are right to turn their attention to ‘collaborators’ among the rulers but they are wrong to extend takfir to entire population and soldiers of countries not under foreign occupation. By such extension, they destabilise those countries and make them resemble occupied countries. However, rulers like Musharraf and Hosni Mubarak, so eager to revile the Mujahid as terrorist, bear some responsibility for the Islamic guns being turned against Muslims.
I return to the main theme of my paper. Mujahid with ‘liberation’ as his agenda should be distinguished from the takfiri. It is only by embracing the agenda of ‘liberation’ that the Muslims can defeat the extremism of political Islam. It is hard to imagine any reaction other than disgust to the ranting of political Islam promising to convert the Queen and hoisting the green flag on Westminster. It is not just a case of the ‘best but unattainable’ being the enemy of the ‘good but possible’. I believe that political Islam as well takfir are ideas that assist our enemies to demonise and destroy us. The question why the Arabs and Muslims have been unable to liberate Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, and Mindanao is a genuine question that will not go away. This has a religious dimension, which can be resolved only by the Muslims themselves. It is also a military problem for which no outside help is expected; the war would have to be fought by the Muslims themselves. America has continuously taken the wrong side – the side of the occupiers of Muslim lands: India and Israel. It has ended up becoming an occupier of Muslim lands itself. The USA’s war on terror is the symptom not a disease or a cure. It is the symptom of megalomania. Islam faces challenges that it can only resolve by itself.
There is no such thing as extremism of belief; the very word ‘belief’ means it is beyond reason. Extremism is always of action. It is wanton bombing, extensive collateral damage, torture and humiliation of prisoners, that is extremism. The Muslim leaders, who call the resistance extremists and terrorists, would represent their people better if they focussed on the extreme brutality that their people continue to suffer in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Palestine and Kashmir, in Chechnya and Mindanao. The US war on terror is indeed unprecedented. It is unprecedented in its scale which is global. It is unprecedented in the intensity of the slaughter it entails. But there is light at the end of the tunnel. The narrative of the resistance is simpler, more viable and sustainable almost indefinitely. The narrative of America has run into sand already. Without an exit strategy, it is doomed.
Paper Read at London Institute of South Asia (lisa) Seminar on July 24, 2007. Usman Khalid is the Director of lisa
Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Digg it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Get CC HeadlinesOn your Desk Top