USA and Muslims

come_again: The article is hardly about the current situation or an endorsement of US foreign policy. The discussion about Iraq situation came out of general discussion about the effects of US policies on Muslims. Nobody really liked to discuss the overall effect over more than 50 years because it might have looked good on US cap. Muslims in general are not ready to accept this hard reality that US has been overall not a bad superpower for Muslims because in many cases US interests were better served by coopting Muslims at various level and at many places.

The Iraqi situation, if leading to another bloody war, is the worst case scenario for USA-Muslims relationship. Had this article been written at a different time with no war looming on the horizon, the usual suspects would not have accepted it on different grounds than Iraq. In thier eyes, USA can not get any credit because of bad credit by supporting Israel. It is that simple. Believe me, when I wrote this article with the common chowk interactors in mind, I knew pretty much the responses from each.

How can it be an endorcement of US policies when it is mostly about history and not current situation.

During discussion I took a rather unusal, for myself, stand aiming at the removal of Saddam and ending sanctions on Iraq. It is very unfortunate that the only way to see my aim succeeding is war. I hate wars like most educated and peace activists but Bush has followed policy in such a way that withdrawing for him is no longer an easy option without losing credibility. I felt it futile to oppose war under current pumped up environment. Moreover, a no-war situation is actually delaying indefinitely of the my stated aims of removing Saddam and lifting sanctions.

War is not an easy option to defend in favor of a sole super power. As you notice, I am having difficulty to convince nasah and others whom I agree on most other issues. I am not so much supporting it than resigning to accept inevitable with a hope of achieving my objectives sooner in case of Iraqi defeat.

What pains me a lot is the ultra-stupidity of regimes like Saddam for not co-operating with UN inspectors years ago. They should have done everything possible to end the effects/ raparation of defeat. What were they planning by not cooperating and placing hurdles in the work of UN weapons inspectors? Clinton was the guy to deal with but they squandered so many years for the sake of worthless biological/ chemical weapons program.

Deep inside, I still do not want war but no war is more likely a no resolution of the situation. Two years from now President Bush will be running for re-election. A turning away from this point will not look good on him with flat economy. He should not have started it but now he will have to resolve it before next election.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

````More than 30 anti-war American academics arrived in Baghdad on what they called ``a fact-finding humanitarian mission.``

``War is the number one destroyer of human rights. We believe that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq is unwise, unnecessary and contradicts American values,`` said James Jennings, head of the Atlanta-based aid organization Conscience International.````(Washington Post)

sameeroo...
the only problem I had with this article is what appears to be your eager endorsement of US foreign policy, as PM has pointed out, and others. Well...perhaps not the only problem, but I voiced my opinion about the INS registrations to you in another arena.

far too many lives have been lost as a result of Saddam`s tyrannical rule, but one life is too many...i don`t believe and refuse to believe that any more blood needs to be shed. Nor is it possible to say that the troops storming in will improve a long impoverished and suffering country. . .

{I have far more knowledge of Daisycutters than you ever will, and probably understand the magnitude of US firepower much better than you.}


...hehehe....holy $hit, this guy cracks me up...:)

rsaxena #113/ PM #117 and others: There is definitely merit to what you both and other have said regarding this highly pro-US piece. I liked your, ferozK and Shankar responses because they are based on reason and not rhetorics.

First of all, this article starts with ``Muslim extremists........``, basically countering them in debating fashion. Nowhere I used the term US foreign policy, US president or President Bush. It is the overall US policies effect on the Muslim world.

My first contention was that without USA, Muslim world would be worse off because of things US did and the anti-Muslims things USA did not do. Here I am not talking about any single president or policy but overall, cumulative effect of USA for the last 57 years. The over-population, poor education, illiteracy, treatment of women, state of economy etc. of Muslims in general can not be blamed on USA. Nobody else is responsible for their plight.

I agree with imperialistic nature of all superpowers in the history including when for a while Muslims were superpower. Compare President Reagan attacking Grenada on the pretext of the lives of few US students in danger and MB Qasim attacking Sindh on similar trumped up/ fake pretexts. As FerozK always suggest that foreign policy in self interest will always look imperialistic to all others, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In this kind of selfish nation states, basically small countries have developed good techniques of both scavenging from superpower, flirting with superpower and eking out small victories from super powers but most of all agreeing to play the game on superpower turf. From Nehru to Jinnah and to most Afro-Asian freedom movement leaders, the common thread is playing the game on colonial powers terms.

The topic is worth actually books detailing the benefits that Muslims enjoyed more than Vietnamese, Philipinos or Indians. The education, healthcare and funding source for NGOs is mostly some USA based organization. Where did M. Yunus of Bangladesh learned his skills to start Grameen Bank in Bangladesh? Actually Bangladesh could be presented as an example of a Muslim country which is not at all hurt by any US foreign policy, yet the anti-American shouting crowd with US flag burning is quite common site.

As an international principle, one should not involve in the internal affairs. Here world could not stop poor country like Pakistan to interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. When Muslims take great pride in defeating the soviets in Afghnistan, they forget that it was breaking of same international understanding which they (and rsaxena) are now complaining - about interference in the internal affairs of Iraq. This is the way world has been. Who asked Europeans to interfere in the internal affairs of Americas, Africa and Asia? Who invited Muslim invaders throughout history? Nobody. It was might is right principle. Why then bar is raised for USA? Those who take pride in Islamic history does not have any moral right to oppose USA interfering in Iraq.

This article was a response to those people who make Ghaznavi a hero but Bush a villain. To me if Ghaznavi is a hero then Bush is an angel.

I am also interested in the future - here on earth. I do not see any merit in opposing USA out of hate or on the basis of principles when the principles are relaxed for themselves and not used for their own history. Basically any offensive, irrational and aggressive strategy that becomes detrimental is not worth following. That is basic Art of War by Sun-Tzu. Muslims have put the future of at least two coming generations at risk by not reading Art of War by Chinese sage.

As you see, I do not see any merit at this stage of opposing war against Iraq, which (if suceeds) means continuation of Saddam and sanctions.

Good to hear from you, PM. I hope you had a happy holidays season.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

PM #117: ``that results in that megalomanic`s removal would be a good thing for Arabs and non-Arabs alike.``

This is a relative argument. One cannot make it with certainity. It depends on who replaces Saddam. It also depends on what the intentions behind the removal of a person are, and who is doing the removing.

Do you have any information on who the US has in mind for replacing Saddam? If you don`t, then how can you make this argument?

From the news reports I have seen, it is one of the following choices: 1) An Iraqi individual who is wanted in Jordan for one of the biggest bank frauds in the history of Jordan 2) A nephew of an ex-King 3) Members of a religious party.

Going by past history, the criteria used in this case will not be who is better for the people of Iraq. It will be who is the most pro-US. Sooner or later, the new ruler will become anti-US also (remember Saddam started out as a US ally), because the Arab people are generally anti-US, and he will need their support. At that point he will be removed also, at the cost of a few hundred thousand more Iraqi lives. And the cycle will continue.

The removal of anyone is only long lasting if there is people`s approval behind it. That is why all removals must be done domestically and indigenously (it doesn`t matter if it is through a revolution or a coup, but it has to have local support behind it). One cannot just start removing people as and when one feels. The long term effects of that is always drastic, even if not a single life is lost in the process.

If the American govt. has become a reborn humanist, and is all of a sudden worried about the Kurds (after supporting Saddam while they were being gased), then it should support an independent Kurdistan (like I do), and arm the Kurds. What is the point of bombing Iraq? But supporting Kurd independence will mean applying the same rules on Turkey, which kills Kurds also, and whose Kurds want independence, as well. The Turkish killing of Kurds will stop if Kurdistan (Turkey and Iraq) becomes independent. But the USA does not want to piss off Turkey, so it is ok for Turkey to kill Kurds.

As an example, look at what happened in Iran, when the CIA brought the Shah back. Similarly in Afghanistan, the USSR started the removal of one leader after another. The US from the other side (with help from Pakistan) started doing the same. Look at the mess in the end over there.

If Saddam was being removed through a domestic revolution, I would support it. There were people who were opposing Saddam (including me) when he attacked Iran, and was the blue-eyed boy of the USA, which provided him with weapons and sattelite photos (CIA Direcctor`s interview). It is strange to now see the US be a johnny-come-lately and start talking about his attack on Kurds etc.

``It is unfortunate that lives will be lost, but lives are being lost to his tyrannical, maniacal policies right now, and for the past many years.``

I am truly amazed to see people talk of human rights on the one hand, and completely discard them when the people being killed do not belong to the same camp as they do.

Would you be saying the same thing if your family members were sitting in Iraq, with nowhere else to go? Imagine the fear of the Iraqis waiting for the gigantic armada of hundreds of thousands of tonnage of bombs awaiting them.

Don`t you think the opinions of the Iraqis should be taken into account, if they are going to be attacked and killed? Someone should at least ask them, if they agree with your judgement on them being killed. ``Do onto others as you would have them do unto you,`` is a famous Christian rule. Isn`t it?

Why doesn`t the US govt. show any opinion polls from Iraqis on whether they want the volutarily help the US is about to give them, through a massive air raid, to democratize them? Maybe in a poll, Iraqis will prefer Saddam over a USA sponsored attack and regime change.

Saddam is no friend of Pakistan (infact he has traditionally been more of a friend of India than Pakistan). Iraq has never uttered a word on Kashmir. Arabs treat Pakistanis like trash. But even then, I cannot support a self-serving attack on Iraq by the USA. Iraq has attacked Kuwait, Iran and the Kurds and greatly threatened Saudi Arabia. Yet Kuwaitis, Iranis and Saudis are opposing an attack on Iraq. Their leaderships will have to be coerced into supporting it.

The only justification for killing Iraqis is if the Iraqis themselves requested an attack. Otherwise, the killing of Iraqis is no different than the killing of people in the WTC. It is pure terrorism. It is just going to add furthur fuel to the cycle of violence.

The world will be a dangerous place if the decision on who can live and who should die, anywhere in the world, is based on who can debate this better on Good Morning America and on Nightline and on the public opinion polls of US citizens. A human life should be worth a lot more than that.

Sameer,
There is some merit in the causes you ascribe for Muslim hate of the West, (lost) pride being among the foremost IMHO. Most Muslims I know of who oppose the `hegemonic`, `imperialistic` ways of the US come up empty when put to the task of actually citing two such examples. The best they do is offer feeble examples in which the other party acted equally self-interestedly (e.g. Zia, Saddam) My point, of course, is not that the US isn`t imperialistic, but that hatred for it isn`t based on any true knowledge of this imperialism.
Of course, as others have pointed out, you are too favourable in your opinion as regards US foreign policy. I believe Shankar is right on the money when he says that the US`s realpolitik-dicated foreign policy is no different from anyone else`s- just more pronounced and ugly because it`s supported by tremendous power. While I believe voices like Chomsky`s and Gore`s need to be raised and heard more, I think things could have been a lot worse if the same fiat were in the hands of other civilizations. I think this is realism.
As for the issue of INS registration, I wonder if the outcry from presumably morally-offended Pakistanis would be half as loud if India were included in the list of nations. I watched this firegn minsiter guy`s interview on TV last night. Amazing! He said that in registering his protest to the US authorities, he was assured that Pakistan wasn`t being signled out. But that wasn`t good enough for him/Pakistanis. As a front-line ally in the war on terrorism, he had argued, Pakistan deserve special treatment. I sat there wondering which planet he was vacationing on when the Taliban were setting up their hate farms, or when Al-Qaeeda operatives found shelter all over Pakistan after Oct. `01.
But his attitude, like those of the Pakistanis loudly protesting a security measure they would likely unquestioningly subject themselves to in say, Saudi Arabia if the Sheikhs decided to do so tomorrow, says something nastier about these people`s mentality. The need for (perceived) security of a host nation is made subservient to the need for one`s collective pride to not be hurt. Why it is that pride is attached in the first place to a simple matter of security is an ``issue`` in itself.
The cries of the presumably politically discriminated would be much more credile had these folks demonstrated a prior, or even current, belief in the civil rights traditions they now freely invoke.
*****
As for cowboy Bush and his plans for Saddam, well, I think setting aside the question of political/moral propriety, any move, `rightly` motivated or not, that results in that megalomanic`s removal would be a good thing for Arabs and non-Arabs alike. It is unfortunate that lives will be lost, but lives are being lost to his tyrannical, maniacal policies right now, and for the past many years.
rgds,
PM
--------------
sadna, ferozk: Good to read you guys again.

Keshto....in your post #107, as usual you blab on without having a clue. The South Waziristan scouts are not part of the Pakistan Army but are border guards with 100% recruitment from the Tribal areas. The Pakistani law doesnot apply in the tribal areas, a mandate since the British times. The Pakistani Army has to work through the political agent, again a relic of the British rule. The last time the Pakistani army tried to force its will in the Khyber Agency, 1983, they got their behinds kicked enough that they didnt try again. Neither the British could, nor the Pakistanis can control the tribal areas hence they are what they are - Pushtun lands where the Durand Line is irrelevent.
Hekmatyar, is not an ISI man, until recently he was hiding in Iran because the Taliban were his mortal enemy. Most of Hekmatyar`s money comes from Saudi Arabia but he doesnot have a strong presence in the Tribal areas becuase of strong ideological differences between his Wahabi dominated Hizb-e-Islami party and the Pushtun psyce - where cultural affinity comes before religion. ISI could only exert influence on Hekmatyar when they had US supplied arms to distribute - now specially after the ISI chose the Taliban over Hekmatyar, Hekmatyar doesnot need the ISI.
FazlurRehman, who is not from the Tribal area, is not as strong as you show him to be. In the Nawaz Sharif elections sweep he barely won from Mussarat Shaheen, a movie actress, not known for her artistic abilities. FazlurRehman`s recent rise to power is purely incidental as he is the head of the six party alliance; it wont be long that the MMA dissolves due to infighting - remember two of the six parties in the MMA are Shia. The MMA rise to power is purely a protest vote against the US operations in Afghanistan seen as anti pushtun - which is why the MMA only won in the NWFP and partly in Baluchistan. If the US wants to control the border areas they would have to work with the Pushtuns in the area otherwise they would never be able to control that area no matter how many daisy cutters they use.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: sameer #100

...bush has not demonstrated convincingly that saddam is a threat to american security...he is a threat to this own people, but that is his and his people`s business....furthermore, a war at this time is going to give birth to more osamas amongst the young of iraq....and finally, the american economy cannot bear the uncertainties or cost of a war right now...in the gulf war, kuwait and saudi paid much of the bill, and so did other allies...this time around, we are mostly on our own...

...in the next election i am voting democrat all the way...if for no other reason then to get someone whose idea of fixing the economy involves more than giving tax cuts that most people will stash into their savings accounts...which is what they will do in this environment....

shankar #88/103: You are slowly begining to sound more and more like your fellow Brahmans (Advani and Vajpayee). I suppose all Brahman stick together, when push comes to shove.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

shankar #97: If your argument is that the US can beat up on anyone it wants, then that is a fact that everyone will agree to. I have far more knowledge of Daisycutters than you ever will, and probably understand the magnitude of US firepower much better than you.

The problem with arguments like yours is that they can come back and haunt you. The, ``might is right`` argument tends to do that. The other thing is that people like yourself, then should not on one hand speak up for people like Gandhi, and then on the other hand speak up for Bush and Cheney.

At least, I can say without conflicting any principles that I admire Gandhi`s stances on various issues of conflict. You can no longer say that. After all, Gandhi`s views would be more in line with mine, than yours.

You are incorrect in stating that the US foreign policy has been too soft. It has actually been too hard. Otherwise, why would the US oppose institutions like the International Criminal Court? For starters, US foreign policy is not controlled by the US to begin with - at least in its relations with Arabs. The US should be very friendly with Arabs and vice-versa. US needs thier oil, and they need US technology and dollars. Yet it is in a useless conflict with them to satisfy Israel.

Are you seriously going to tell me that the US has benefitted from this conflict? How? It has just lost less in lives than the Arabs, but it certainly hasn`t benefited. If I kill fifty of your people, and you kill my brother, over third-party conflicts, then have I benefited?

Americans are targets of terrorism all over the world now. And you are telling me that the US has benefited. How exactly does bombing a country like Iraq end terrorism. Terrorism has no face. It has no nationality. It breeds of state terrorism (which the US commits).

US airlines, with market caps larger than countries, are going out of business, left and right. United Airlines to give one example. Because people are scared to travel. American embassies are getting blown up. America`s relationships with historical allies like Canada, Germany etc. are going down the drain, because these countries don`t want to be pulled into an American war. Billions has to be spent on Homeland Security. Everyone from Korea to Iran to India and Pakistan feel they need a nuclear weapon, before America tries to neutralize their programs. Heterogenous societies with secularists and religionists that had till now co-existed peacefully, like Pakistan and India, are internally being pulled in two opposing and destructive directions, due to the, ``with us or against us`` argument.

Not to mention the fact that the US will kill hundreds of times more innocent people than OBL ever killed. Yet OBL`s and Bush`s followers will somehow or the other justify these killings, and continue to point out that their leaders are, ``too soft.``

You, like so many Indians I have met, are overly impressed with the American, ``White man.`` You are enamoured with him. What the hell kind of Brahman are you? I am a great admirer of the Western enlightenment also. But I don`t think everything all, ``White men`` do is correct. And USA is not the only, ``White man`` country in the world. Try to understand the ideas of Canadians on human rights and foreign policy. They are decades ahead of the US. Canada has only lost 150 or so soldiers in battles since the Korean war. And every single one of them was in a peacekeeping mission. Why aren`t Canadians in a conflict with Arabs? Why aren`t people blowing up things in Toronto? Why is everyone targeting Americans? Maybe Canada has been harder than Americans?

Instead of talking to Americans, how about stepping out of the country and seeing what everyone else in the world is saying. Do you really think the US is being, ``too soft`` if it cannot get a single country (other than Blair, who is also waivering now that his people are not supporting him) to support its war. Not one country will support it willingly. Are all these countries from Europe to Canada to Iran stupid? Are you and Cheney the only genuises?

Both OBL and Cheney have no countrymen, except their own, supporting them. Is it because they are too soft? Or because they are idiots?

Let me tell how these conflicts will end. Both Arab hidden terrrorists (Al-Qaeda etc.) and US state terrorists will continue to get pumped up by supporters (like Israel etc.) telling them they are, ``too soft.`` Since they cannot track each other down, they will continue raising the stakes by bombing people who have nothing to do with the violence, like people in Iraq and in WTC. In the end, one of them will explode a nuclear device in an attempt to exterminate the other`s, ``peoples.`` That could explode just as likely in Michigan as it could in Baghdad. At that point, you can continue reading your Newsweek articles about people being, ``too soft.`` If Newsweeek is still around.

You can either quote Gandhi or you can quote Cheney. Both are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Make up your mind. Don`t switch back and forth, when it suits you. Have some principles. You can say whatever you want about my arguments, but they are consistently based on the principles of human rights.