Addict (drugaddict) wrote,

Juan Cole, Combating Muslim Extremism (The Nation)



*Juan Cole  The Nation  [from the November 19, 2007 issue]  Posted
November 1, 2007*

All the major Republican presidential candidates have bought into George
W. Bush's rhetoric of a central struggle against Muslim extremism and
have thus committed themselves to a generational, often self-generating
war. By foregrounding this issue, they have ensured that it will be
pivotal to the 2008 presidential race. The Democratic candidates have
mostly been timid in critiquing Bush's "war on terror" or pointing out
its dangers to the Republic, a failing that they must redress if they
are to blunt their rivals' fearmongering.

Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani in his recent /Foreign Affairs/
article complains that the United States has been on the "defensive" in
the war on "radical Islamic fascism" and says with maddening vagueness
that it must find ways of going "on the offensive." He promises that
"this war will be long." Giuliani is being advised on such matters by
Representative Peter King, who has complained that "unfortunately we
have too many mosques in this country"; by Daniel Pipes, who has
questioned the wisdom of allowing American Muslims to vote; and by
Norman Podhoretz, author of /World War IV: The Long Struggle Against
Islamofascism/. Combining the word "Islam" with a European term like
"fascism" is profoundly offensive; a subtext of anti-Muslim bigotry
pervades Giuliani's campaign, a sop to the Christian and Zionist right.

John McCain depicts withdrawal from Iraq as "defeat," saying in Michigan
on September 21 that it would "would strengthen Al Qaeda, empower Iran
and other hostile powers in the Middle East, unleash a full-scale civil
war in Iraq that could quite possibly provoke genocide there and
destabilize the entire region.'' But continued occupation of Iraq, a
major Muslim country, is just as likely to lead to the consequences
McCain fears. Some front-runners, like Mitt Romney, argue for a big
expansion in US military forces, without explaining how that would help
with counterterrorism.

The Republican candidates have taken their cues from Bush and his
Administration. They have continued to vastly exaggerate the threat from
terror attacks (far more Americans have died for lack of healthcare or
from hard drugs) and have demonized Muslims. India's Hindu-extremist
RSS, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, the Lord's Resistance Army of Uganda
and Colombia's FARC (a hard-drug smuggler) are seldom referred to by
Republican politicians worried about terrorists, even though all these
movements have been extremely violent and have threatened US interests.

Advocates of the "war on terror" fantasize about the Muslim world as a
Soviet Union-type challenge to the United States. In fact, the dozens of
countries with majority Muslim populations are mostly strong allies of
the United States. One, Turkey, is a NATO ally, and six (Morocco, Egypt,
Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait and Pakistan) are non-NATO allies. Only fourteen
countries have this status, so Muslim states make up nearly half. The
United States counts many other friends in the region, having
significant frictions only with Sudan, Syria and Iran, and those are
mixed pictures (Syria and Sudan helped against Al Qaeda, and Iran sought
a strategic alliance with the United States against Saddam Hussein in
early 2003).

The Republicans are playing Russian roulette with America's future with
their bigoted anti-Muslim rhetoric. Muslims may constitute as much as a
third of humankind by 2050, forming a vast market and a crucial labor
pool. They will be sitting on the lion's share of the world's energy
resources. The United States will increasingly have to compete with
emerging rivals such as China and India for access to those Muslim
resources and markets, and if its elites go on denigrating Muslims,
America will be at a profound disadvantage during the next century.

Some Muslim extremist groups are indeed a threat, but they have not been
dealt with appropriately. Bush has argued that terrorist groups have
state backing, a principle that authorizes conventional war against
their sponsor. In fact, asymmetrical terrorist groups can thrive in the
interstices of states, and September 11 was solely an Al Qaeda
operation. In his speech about the conquest of Iraq on the USS Abraham
Lincoln on May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, "We have removed an
ally of Al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding." It was a
bald-faced lie.

Imperial occupations under the pretext of fighting terrorism suck up
scarce resources and multiply terrorism, and so are self-defeating. They
benefit only the military-industrial complex and political elites
pursuing American hegemony. The backlash is growing. Sympathy bombings
deriving from Muslim distress at brutal US military actions against
Iraqis have been undertaken in Madrid, London and Glasgow, and a handful
of formerly secular Iraqi Sunnis have suddenly expressed interest in Al

Worse, the hypocritical Bush Administration has ties to Muslim terror
groups. The US military, beholden to Iraqi Kurds for support, permits
several thousand fighters of the PKK terrorist organization, which bombs
people in Turkey, to make safe harbor in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Bush
Administration has used against Tehran the expatriate Iranian
Mujahedeen-e-Khalq terror network, on which Saddam Hussein bestowed a
base in Iraq. Democrats have mysteriously declined to denounce these
unsavory alliances.

The Administration clearly is not very interested in doing the hard work
of dealing effectively with small fringe terrorist networks. That is why
Osama bin Laden is at large and the CIA unit tracking him disbanded.
Successful counterterrorism involves good diplomacy and good police
work. A case in point is the plot last summer by young Muslim men in
London to bomb several airliners simultaneously using liquid explosives
in innocent-looking bottles and detonators hidden in disposable cameras.
Contrary to the allegations of skeptics, the techniques they envisaged
were perfectly workable. The plotters were determined enough to make
chilling martyrdom videos.

The plot was broken up in part because some of the conspirators were
turned in to Scotland Yard by British Muslim acquaintances disturbed by
their behavior. They had been alerted to the seriousness of radical
views by the bombing of London's public transport system in July 2005.
British police infiltrated an undercover operative into the group. The
Pakistani security forces helped monitor a radical in that country,
Rashid Rauf, who was in contact with the London group. That is, the
foiling of this operation depended very largely on the good will of
other Muslims. Such police and community awareness work has had proven
results. In contrast, invading and occupying Muslim states risks
reducing the fund of good will on which successful terror prevention

Since resources are scarce, it is important that the magnitude of the
threat not be exaggerated. Al Qaeda has at most a few thousand members.
It holds no territory and its constituent organizations have been
roundly defeated in Egypt, Algeria and other Muslim nations. Its command
and control networks have been effectively disrupted. Most threats now
come from amateur copycats. Al Qaeda has no prospect whatsoever of
taking over any state in the Muslim world. It probably would be dead
altogether if Bush had not poured gasoline on the flames with his
large-scale invasions and occupations. For John McCain to proclaim that
Al Qaeda is a bigger threat to US security than was the Soviet Union,
which had thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at this country, is to
enter Alice's Wonderland.

Very few Muslims are either violent or fundamentalist; most are
traditionalist, mystic, modernist or secularist. Murder rates in the
Muslim world are remarkably low. About 10 to 15 percent of Muslims
throughout the world, or 130 million to 215 million, generally support a
fundamentalist point of view, including the implementation of Islamic
law as the law of the state. But they are not typically violent, and the
United States has managed to ally with some of them, as with the Shiite
fundamentalist Dawa Party of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The
fundamentalists are atypical. In a 2006 Pew poll, majorities in Egypt,
Jordan and Indonesia were optimistic that democracy would work in their

Because of its support for or acquiescence to Israel's creeping erasure
of the Palestinian nation and for Israel's attack on Lebanon in 2006,
and because of Washington's own brutal war in Iraq, the United States is
poorly positioned to win hearts and minds in the Muslim world. In the
last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, some 75 percent of the
population of Indonesia (the world's largest Muslim country) had a
favorable view of the United States. By the time Bush had invaded two
Muslim countries, in 2003, America's favorability rating there had
fallen to 15 percent. It recovered a bit after US magnanimity during the
tsunami but then fell back to less than half the pre-Bush level. In
Turkey, the favorability rating has fallen from 52 to 12 percent in the
same period (all polling figures from the Global Attitudes Project of
the Pew Charitable Trust).

America does itself no favors by neglecting to promote knowledge of the
United States, of its political philosophies and social and political
system, in the Muslim world. The United States Information Service was
gutted and folded into the State Department in the late 1990s. There are
very few American Studies programs at Arabophone universities, and very
little US political philosophy or history has been translated. Likewise,
Congress funds the study of the Middle East at American Universities at
shockingly low levels, given the need for Americans who understand the
region and its languages.

Extremist Muslim networks have a specific history, almost entirely
rooted in reaction to many decades of European colonial domination or in
the Reagan jihad against the Soviet Union, during which the United
States gave extremists $5 billion, pressured Saudi Arabia to do the same
and trained the extremists at CIA facilities in Afghanistan. Much of
their subsequent violence can properly be seen as a form of
blowback--black operations that go bad and boomerang on the initiating

Marc Sageman, a CIA case officer in Afghanistan in the late 1980s who is
now at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, has
estimated the number of extremists who could and would do violence to
the United States at less than a thousand. There is a larger group that
supports the creation of Taliban-style rigid theocracies in their
countries and who are willing to deploy violence to achieve that goal.
While their ideology may be unpleasant, they do not necessarily pose a
security threat to the United States.

American politicians should cease implying that Muslim nations and
individuals are different from, or somehow more dangerous than, any
other group of human beings, a racist idea promoted by the Christian and
Zionist right. They should acknowledge that most Muslim nations are US
friends and allies. A wise American policy toward the small networks of
Muslim extremists would reduce their recruitment pool by the quick
establishment of a Palestinian state and by a large-scale military
drawdown from Iraq, thus removing widespread and major grievances. An
increase in visible humanitarian and development aid to Muslim countries
has a demonstrable effect on improving the US image.

The reconstitution of the United States Information Service as an
independent body would allow better public diplomacy. Promoting American
studies in the Muslim world, in its major languages rather than just in
English, would help remove widespread misconceptions about the United
States among educated Muslim observers. Increasing federal funding for
Middle East studies at home would better equip this country to deal with
this key region. More adept diplomacy with the Muslim states, most of
which are as afraid of terrorism as we are, could lead to further
cooperation in the security field. Better police work and cooperation
with the police of Middle Eastern states would be much more effective
than launching invasions. It would also help if we stopped insulting
Muslims by calling their religion "fascist."

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.