The Long War: Rethinking American Options in the War on Terror

tahmed32

I was on a motivational course last week and there was this hijaaben management- trainer ... wow what a smile ... and what commitment. I asked her as to what `her` own motivation was, and she replied she had been asked this question three times that week and actually it was only to make `some` sort of a difference.

These hijaabens certainly know something.

HP,

The Islamist would torpedo any such attempts by the US as a peaceful solution would probably again make the Islamists spectators in the local political battlegrounds in several Middle Eastern countries including Pakistan and perhaps Iran too.

That is very good analysis. Muslims are sick and tired of being spectators while these idiots not only continue with their idiocy but try to control all Muslim lands as well. This will never happen.

#8 by masadi on June 14, 2006 5:28pm PT

comrade masadi: Do you think the US war in Afghanistan against the perps of 9/11 is justified?

no harangue...just a yes or no answer please..

Feroz: I think your analysis is in generally excellent and on the mark.


it lost any moral claims it might have harbored as a justification for fighting this war.


Here`s the thing: There are always going to be people who are never going to be favorably disposed to the US. Even if the US hadn`t attacked Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the war on terror, the vast majority of muslims would have opposed the war in Afghanistan, a war as justified as any war can ever be.

Morality is in the eyes of the beholder. For the neocon chickensh!ts, a war on every muslim country is always justified. Similarly, for the vast majority of muslims, a war by a non-muslims country on a muslim country is NEVER justified.



The attacks on the Pentagon in Washington, D. C. and on the World Trade Centers, in New York, were symbolic in the sense that they were not designed to dent the economic or the military power of the United States, but to draw attention of the United States, and the world, towards the Muslim nations’ own political


I beg to differ...Al queda wanted to provoke the US government into an action that would be perceived by the muslim world as an attack on Islam and muslims. Their aim was to amplify the us-versus-them feeling among the muslim population in the hope that the sheeple would rise against the US friendly arab/muslim governments like saudi arabia and on the westernized Muslim elites. They had hoped to play upon the muslims-as-victims worldview and they`ve succeeded for the most part. Muslims who have never said a word about saddam`s torture chambers or saudi arabia`s treatment of prisoners are up in arms about gitmo? give me a break..



This idea of proving the commitment of the United States towards the welfare of the people in Arab


I don`t buy that...the arab countries have enough money for the welfare of their own people..people who have access to free health care and free education still feel the need to lash out by flying planes into buildings? Maybe it`s the whole victim worldview that the arabs need to do something about..

Re: # 19

nasah,

..... i don`t mean to be funny - i really mean it !........ to put it another way, it is about men who want to destroy things they cannot build - things like tall buildings, for example ........... the other stuff is just excuses to justify their inability to stand up and take a leak like real men without the fear of going to hell ...............

nasah #14 Corporations cant teach their staff to be cheerful, nor do they teach them to say ``Khuda Hafiz`` to Pakistanis. I have seen some pretty miserable specimen - scowling, unhelpful - who also work for large corporations. And they arent even ``evil muslims``.

jang #16 Nothing wrong with being blown away by someone who is helping you in a friendly and competent manner. You dont find too much of that anywhere in the world nowadays. Knowing some hijaabans, I can say confidently that it is nothing more than a political/fashion statement for at least some of them. But - if they are nice, friendly people otherwise - they are fine by me.

hamidm #17 I wouldnt trust anyone walking around with a stick of dynamite. So that means nothing. :-)

`` it is really that simple - it has nothing to do with oil, israel, democracy, shamocracy ....... it is about men who, ``hate our way of life`` .............(hamidm)

you are so funny hamidm.....:))))

``A senior American general said that sources within Zarqawi`s network gave intelligence that helped the Americans and Iraqis to track him down.
That fits with a number of recent assessments, indicating that Zarqawi was losing popularity, even among his own supporters.

There has been a vigorous debate on insurgent websites in recent months about Zarqawi`s brutal methods, particularly his gruesome trademark of videotaped beheadings.
Criticism

Several sources close to the insurgency had suggested in the last few weeks that Zarqawi`s role had already been downgraded. He was also criticised recently by Osama bin Laden`s deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Many supporters of the insurgency feared Zarqawi`s brutal methods were discrediting their cause.

But there was also disquiet over his vicious hatred of Shia Muslims (Zarqawi himself was a member of a radical Sunni Muslim -- called Wahabi Wahshis -- sect).

Zarqawi`s group was blamed for many of the worst attacks on civilians, both inside Iraq and in neighbouring Jordan.``(BBC)

the attack on neighboring Jordan`s one was the last straw that broke that wahshi camel`s back -- and the insurgents called the Americans to take him out....

...... i think feroz and everyone else is spending too much effort in trying to rationalize the acts of irrational people; too much effort on putting a learned geo-political spin on the acts of impotent and desperate men who lash out and kick the dog because they have failed at every field of human endevour - men with hate in their black hearts nurtured by an insidious ideology that has outlived its usefullness .............

......... it is really that simple - it has nothing to do with oil, israel, democracy, shamocracy ....... it is about men who, ``hate our way of life`` .............

............. now, you all can go on with your scholarly discussion, but i am sticking to my simple-minded analysis ............

p.s. and tauheed mian, the hijaban at the bank might have been polite and all that, but i would not trust her with a stick of dynamite during ramadhan .....

#9 tahmed, i can safely say that the hijaban blew you away ;-)

``this hijaabed young lady had nothing but friendly smiles.``(tahmed)

that was the corporate trained smile from that hi jabi Cheshire Cat........Tauheed:)

#13 Ranjit writes <<< Mr. Khan,

You entire reasoning is incorrect. The objective of 9/11 was very precise and well calibrated - >>>

Your thesis is just as incorrect as Khan`s. The only thing about 9/11 that was well calibrated was its use like another ``Pearl Harbor`` for the US to embark on a lucrative (for the corporate elite), expensive war and to encroach further in that area. Mosquito bites like the attack on the Cole or the Embassy bombings don`t affect the US and its foreign policy. Al-Qaeda was able to seek refuge in Afghanistan thanks to the no tiny role of the US in ensuring a power vacuum there and then ultimately being indifferent and implicitly helping the wrong side in this ``divide and rule`` strategy and then post 9/11 shifting sides in tune with the desires of the Iranian Mullahs.

This divide and rule of the ME by proxy started back in 1916 shortly after Osama`s spiritual predecessors had conspired against the Turkish Caliphate, it is nothing new. Now that proxy is getting slowly replaced by permanent footprints in the region by the US.

This carving out fetish that Khan and you are obsessed with will not work. The US is hated inside Iraq because of what it has done more so than in the rest of the Arab world, the Iraqis are resisting occupation and the vast majority of them are not Osama`s thugs~ who are merely nuisance value and good media fodder and little else. Combine this solidarity caused by an external invasion with the farce of Iraq being part of the war on terror and you construct condition that strengthen the jihadists in this cat and mouse game. That is why I state again, the US and the Jihadists by each other`s actions fulfill each other’s motives and mutually grow in their perversions. The ones that suffer from the fallout are the Muslim masses in that region and around the globe.

[...The political purpose of the September 11, 2001 attacks was not to, as originally claimed by the Bush administration, to seek the destruction of the United States...]

Mr. Khan,

You entire reasoning is incorrect. The objective of 9/11 was very precise and well calibrated - drive out USA and its allies from the middle-east. It was not some random act of nihilism. Rather it was a sinister strategy meant to shock the US into receding from the middle-east, thus opening up a power vaccum that could be exploited by Al-Quaeda. In 2001, Al-Quaeda was already well established in Afghanistan and had its clout in Pakistan. It wanted to expand its clout, preferably by taking over a oil rich middle-east country like Saudi Arabia.

The 9/11 attacks were preceded by escalating sets of attacks on World Trade Center in 1993, East African Embassies, USS Cole etc. Al-Quaeda`s main demand was that the US troops leave Saudi Arabia - not some resolution of Isreali-Palestinian conflict or a call for social justice. This is the clearest giveaway of Al-Quaeda`s sinister agenda to create a power vaccum. The ultimate aim was of course to reestablish the caliphate in the entire ummah along the lines of Al-Quaeda`s extreme islamofascist ideology. In fact, in one of his early videos, Osama was heard complaining about the end of the Turkish Caliphate in 1919.

The US correctly recognized the expansionist fascist ideology of Al-Quaeda and understood that it was dealing with an adversary not too different from the Nazi party. Hence its response has been ferocious. It has used overwhelming military might to break the back of Al-Quaeda not just in Afghanistan but in several parts of the world. US policy in Iraq has been an extension of this war - basically the idea being to carve out a portion of the ummah that is not only politically allied but also socially and philosophically allied with the US and serve as a permanent bulwark against Al-Quaeda. Of course, the execution of this strategy has been highly flawed at the tactical level due to lack of proper planning, lack of adequate troops etc.

What should the US do next? It should do exactly what the British did in India - divide and conquer. The chaotic situation in the middle-east is not too different from the situation in India in the eighteenth century. Muslims have deep divisions along sects and ethnicities. By picking favorites and manipulating them to fight with each other, it can enjoy tremendous prosperity and stability. If the Iranians get strong, put the Saudis and Pakis against them. If the Saudis get strong, put the Iranians against them etc. Along the way, if some western ideology rubs off like democracy, secularism etc, that would be a bonus.

While I have great respect for Mr. Feroz Khan, I have a slightly different take on the very premises of the article and a sense of wonderment about the learned author having being swept by the media description “War on Terrorism” and some of the pragmatics of future of the current conflict. For sake of brevity I shall try to avoid specifics.

War on terrorism, whatever it may mean, I suppose the premises of war are very much economical. In other words, the focus of war is securing flow of oil at a cheap price up until the time an alternative viable source of energy is found and infra-structure is put in place for delivery. By all indicators, this does not seem likely in the near future. Hence, dependence on oil. For example, in 1940s, the US was producing 100% of oil whatever it was consuming. This equation is now 90% of the oil is imported, which necessitates securing the point of production of oil and transports routs, in addition to working on drilling at home (Alaska).

In such a situation, it is very conceivable that continuously brewing conflict in the areas of interest represents the best choice for it falls within the realm of calculations as to how much of price of oil can be paid in form of blood of soldiers, a price that is acceptable to American public. I think it is the genius of policy makers that they have been able to correctly predict that anger against war would not mount to such a degree that the US would be defeated at home, if not in the battle field. I guess, it’s going fine so far and is acceptable to public. This predicts there may be an escalation of use of force. The regional beneficiary of Iraq war, Iran can also be counted as reason for continued presence of military might in that region.

The issue of terrorism is very real but its roots are not as simple as we are led to believe as if it is an ‘Islamic Witchcraft’ exclusively and the myth as if Muslims are monolithic, which they are not despite calls for oneness of “Ummah”. I am reminded of analyses that material realities influence religious ideologies also, which have always been malleable.

I think the issue of terrorism is a many-faced monster where no military solution is going to be successful. In olden times, rebellious sentiments have been present but there were not enough means to inflict pain to the real or perceived enemy at a distance. Modern technological knownedge has made it easy to put a spectacular resistance, if not truly matching, in the real or perceived enemy`s home ground. That is the problem.

I am heartened by what you said, “It [US] should allow them choice after giving them the options of experiencing progress with the rest of the world ….”, but million dollar question is, would capitalist war-industry allow such a change of Imperial-heart when Muslims also feed into their own depravity both economical as well psychological? Let me say though I always enjoy your articles.

Regards,

Tahir Qazi

iraq war objectives are mostly met. removal of saddam regime and installation of a shia regime under american support, right in the middle of shia regimes of syria and iran, with tacit support from egypt, KSA, gulf-emirates and turkey. iraq will be an american base for next 25 years, hopefully the iranians will join the capitalist world-order like the vietnamese by that time.

#6 if anything Saddam cabinet was one of the most pluralistic even if it was one of the most sadistic --

---

nasah sahib, what is the percerntage of Shias in Iraq and what was the percerntage of shias in Saddam`s cabinet?