Deafening Silence

I'll Say It Again.

"They envy us our optimism, because theirs are deeply pessimistic societies, deeply scarred societies- societies hemmed in by ancient tribal and religious boundaries, where the most frequently heard political statement is: "No, you can't."

"The Marines wanted to help the Lebanese rebuild their country, but the Lebanese had other fish to fry, other scores to settle, which came first."

Thomas Friedman

From Beirut to Jerusalem

There has been much talk recently about an Op-Ed piece Thomas Friedman wrote for the New York Times in which he said Iraq's Ramadan spike in killings was a "jihadist Tet Offensive." 

In an interview with George Stephanopolous shortly thereafter, President Bush appeared to agree with this assessment and allowed that there was an increased level of violence coinciding with U.S. elections.  Then he said:

"They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw."

(Hat tip: Daniel Drezner, among dozens of others.)

This same idea was also aired in an NPR Interview with Andy Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.  Host Robert Seigel spoke with Kohut for several minutes about the public's reaction to the Tet Offensive and it's gradual effect on polling, then compared it with assessments of current public opinion on the conflict in Iraq.

I would like to draw your attention to something at this point.  In his much-ballyhooed concession to Stephanopolous, President Bush said that he believed the jihadists in Iraq were motivated by the opportunity to sway American public opinion.  In an interview on the same subject, Mr. Kohut spoke at length about fluctuating American polls regarding first Viet Nam, then Iraq.

Does this somehow "prove" that Iraq is the New Viet Nam?

No, it does not. I stand by my original statements on this subject.  But says a great deal about the way the American public- and possibly the U.S. Military establishment- perceives this conflict, and those misperceptions could lead us down many blind alleys.

Using the Tet Offensive as a metaphor does misleading things.  First, it indicates that the United States is facing  a single, monolithic enemy in Iraq.  It is not.  The problem of Iraq is the problem of multiple enemies with multiple agendas- private militias, death squads hiding among the ranks of the police, outside actors fomenting sectarian violence, and vicious, opportunistic  street crime.  Imagining all these forces as a single enemy will not lead to effective strategies any more than treating a single symptom will cure a complex disease.

Second, the Tet metaphor implies that the prime motivation of the enemy is to simply drive the United States out of Iraq and take control of that country.  Again, this is misleading.  While driving the U.S. out of Iraq may be high on the agenda of many groups, it is far from their only motivation.  In fact, I would argue that for most, forcing out the U.S. is only a means to an end.  Their ultimate goals could range from creating a Shiite theocracy to controlling a single province to merely securing spoils for their family or clan.

Just owning a hammer labelled "Viet Nam" does not make everything a nail.

The final distinction between the Tet Offensive and the Ramadan killing spree is the most crucial and the most telling.  It is also the one everyone seems to be trying to avoid.

What I am about to say next will not sound nice.

The U.S. invasion did not create the horrors we now hear of on a daily basis.  Iraq did not suddenly become a deadly place because Saddam Hussein was deposed and American troops were garrisoned within its borders.   The toppling of Hussein merely ripped the lid off an artificially imposed unity and revealed ugly realities that exist throughout the entire Middle East region.

These same realities are on open display right now in Gaza and Lebanon for anyone who cares to look:

Tribe and clan are the reality; citizenship and patriotism are hazy concepts at best.  "Belonging" breaks down to family ties and "loyalty" is defined by sect or ethnicity.  The looting that took place when Baghdad fell is an example of this.  Provide for your family while you can; you could be executed tomorrow for having the wrong last name. 

Weak governments held in place by private militias are no help. They are unable to provide even basic security, much less set an example of rational, impartial law enforcement.  A population that has no confidence in its equality before the law is not equipped to engage in democratic debate.  It will rely instead on armed strongmen to safeguard its various sectarian interests and force their conflicting agendas while said "government" looks on helplessly. 

This is how self-protection trumps nationhood.  The identities at war here- Sunni, Shia, Moderate, Islamist, Christian, and all their gradations- have little in common with each other, let alone a Communist insurgency.  Their conflicts had been keeping the region in turmoil for generations before a single U.S. soldier ever set foot on Iraqi soil, and the presence or absence of U.S. troops will not solve the problem.  At best it can only provide another lid.

Ironically, the problem will not be solved unless or until enough factions in Iraq decide to become a monolith- a nation ready to absorb its differences into a single Iraqi identity, sharing weaknesses and riches alike.  This is the Tet Offensive to hope for- and if it ever happens, it will deserve its own unique name.

Another Muslim Speaks

Exclusive: Why Is The World Afraid Of Muslims?
Tashbih Sayyed, Ph.D.
Author: Tashbih Sayyed, Ph.D.
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: October 4, 2006

A number of recent apologies made to the Muslims by non-Muslim leaders clearly indicate that the world has grown increasingly fearful of the Muslim rage. Political Islam, as is obvious by the reactions of the socio-cultural and political institutions in countries of Europe, Britain and the U.S. has come of age. It has been able to install itself in a position from where it can manipulate the host country’s social and political systems to its advantage. The significance of this achievement can’t be denied. Political Islam’s disabling fear has already deprived much of the West of its ability to stand up and defend its values.

After Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten apologized for publishing the Prophet Muhammad’s caricatures, Pope Benedict XVI found himself repenting for his comments and now Germany’s leading opera house, the Deutsche Oper Berlin has cancelled a production of Mozart’s Idomeneo, because it was determined that it will offend the Muslim sensibilities.

A report on combating terrorism issued by the Netherlands Interior Minister Johan Remkes and Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner says that radical Muslims are gaining influence in the Netherlands. According to the report, the ultra-orthodox Salafism that seeks to return to the “pure Islam” of the days of Prophet Mohammed was making its presence felt in an increasing number of mosques.

The adherents of Salafism shun western society and work against the moderate Muslims who want to integrate in the Dutch society. The report pointed out that the followers of radical Islam have successfully used the internet and lectures to win over more followers and gain control of moderate mosques, Remkes said. http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=30605

U.S. experts believed that radical Islam in France was responsible for last year’s rioting in France that began in a poor, mostly Muslim, neighborhood near Paris and then spread to other suburbs and cities across France and parts of Europe. They said, despite the characterization by several media outlets that those perpetuating the violence are primarily disaffected youth upset with French economic and social policies, the fact the unrest spread so quickly and is virtually limited to Muslim neighborhoods signifies a deeper, ideologically driven motive. http://www.m4radio.com/main/messageboard/1249.html

Great Britain, America's closest ally in the war against terrorism is also a major base of operation for some of the most radical Islamic organizations, including some direct supporters of Osama bin Laden. Radical Islam exploited the cultural and moral vacuum which has been emerging in Britain over the past 30 years. The London terrorist bombings last July, perpetrated by homegrown Islamist terrorists, shocked British society which until then thought that radical Islam was confined to distant places about which British people knew little and cared less. In January of 2002, British military intelligence working in eastern Afghanistan made a shocking discovery in the mountains of Tora Bora. During searches of Osama bin Laden's cave complex, they found the names of 1,200 British citizens, all Muslims, who trained with the Al Qaeda network in Afghanistan. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/841550/posts

In the United States of America, Islamists with clear ties to the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon are not only being awarded by the administration but are also influencing the U.S. policy in the Middle East. There are reports that the Muslim cab drivers are imposing there restrictive values on the Americans by refusing to accept passengers who carry liquor in their luggage.

In short, radical Islam has perpetuated itself in every part of the globe. No country or community is free from the influences of this fascist strain of political Islam. Islamist leaders are happy that they have been able to carry out the basic mission of Islamism to overwhelm the infidel world. In an interview with an Australian magazine, Nida’ul Islam, ‘The Call of Islam’, bin Laden called for a global holy war against the West. “Our encouragement and call to Muslims to enter Jihad against the American and the Israeli occupiers are actions which we are engaging in as religious obligations. Allah Most High has commanded us in many verses of the Qur’an to fight in His path and to urge the believers to do so… We have given an oath to Allah to continue in the struggle as long as we have blood pumping in our veins or a seeing eye, and we beg of Allah to accept and to grant a good ending for us and for all the Muslims.” http://www.aijac.org.au/review/1999/243/nidaulislam.html

Should I as a Muslim be happy about the situation? After all, these apologies and advances made by radical Islam confirm that the Muslims are winning in their jihad against the “infidel” world. The Judeo-Christian World is on the defensive and has chosen to lay down its arms at the feet of the religious fascists instead of standing up for its ideas about openness, tolerance and freedom.

But I do not feel any happiness or see any victory in finding that the world fears the Muslims. IN FACT I AM SAD. I do not want to be feared. I want to be respected, accepted and loved. The very fact that the world is appearing to be afraid of Muslims concerns me a great deal. I am afraid that the Muslim extremism is pushing this world to a point from where its rescue will be almost impossible. I do not see anything good in the situation.

The fact that the world fears Muslims speaks volumes about the image of my co-religionists. The image is definitely not good. People do not fear GOOD. They fear EVIL. And Muslims have somehow have failed to convey to the world that they are good. And I am not surprised.

Muslims will have to pause and ponder as to why world does not respect them Why are not they loved instead of being afraid of? Why it is that more and more people in the world have this image of them being fanatical as a rule as compared to the adherents of other religions where fanaticism is an exception. Muslims will have to think as to why the communities that welcomed the Muslim immigrants with open arms are now afraid to see them living amongst them. According to a Swedish, Carl Berglund, Muslims have polarized the Swedish society. “Their religion is so stifling and unaccommodating. They expect us to accommodate their religion when they don’t respect our beliefs,” he said. Carl Berglund doesn’t want to live with the Muslims any more and wants them to be expelled from Sweden. He says that he is no longer afraid of Muslims. “We should stop being afraid of Muslims. This is our country, our world, and those who can't accommodate us, should get out of Sweden.” http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=41358

France has also threatened to deport any Muslim leaders preaching extremist views, after fundamentalist Muslims won a strong voice in a new council to represent Islam in France. Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said the council, which will represent the country's five million Muslims, would not be allowed to become a breeding ground for radical Islam. "Islamic law will not apply anywhere because it is not the law of the French republic. Any Imams whose views run contrary to the values of the republic will be deported," Sarkozy told Europe 1 radio.

Earlier, Britain revoked the citizenship of a radical Muslim cleric, Abu Hamza al-Masri, who praised the September 11 attacks, after banning him from preaching at his London mosque because of his extreme statements.

I am afraid that this fear of Muslims will result in a serious revulsion of Islam in the western society. Contrary to the claims by the political Islamist establishment that Islam is a peaceful faith, their deeds convey an altogether opposite sense – there is nothing peaceful in what is happening in the Muslim communities today and what Islamists are doing in the world. And the faith that the radical Islamists represent is a faith of “perpetual outrage.” And in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “I have judged other’s religions by their lives, for it is from our lives and not our words that our religions must be read.”

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tashbih Sayyed is the Editor in Chief of Pakistan Today,The Muslim world Today, Our Times, and In Review, and a regular columnist for newspapers across the world.

© 2003-2006 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

H/T: Winds of Change

Terrorism? Table for Four...

Waitress, Waitress bring me some coffee

and make it as hot as you can

and bring me a light for this everlasting night

in the Highway Cafe of the Damned....

Austin Lounge Lizards, 1988

On October 4, Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project was invited to speak at the Roone Arledge Auditorium on the campus of Columbia University.  He brought with him Marvin Stewart, another member of the Minuteman Project. 

Neither got a chance to speak.  Stewart attempted to open the event with a speech, but he was taunted and shouted down by a group of student protesters.  When Gilchrist appeared, the protesters rushed the stage and the situation degenerated into a brawl.

Several of the protesters on the stage unfurled a banner that read: "No One is Illegal" in English-

and Arabic.

(You can see the banner in this video. Hat tip: Belmont Club)   

I went to the protest and a blog entry broke out.

While several different student groups took part in the protest, none took credit for the banner- or explained the use of Arabic in place of the expected Spanish.

The use of Arabic doesn't seem so odd to me, though.

They're called OTMs- "other than Mexicans."  Undocumented immigrants from South America, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon and other countries outside Mexico who slip over the border with the help of smugglers.  According to some sources, up to 90% of OTMs are never deported.  While they may be apprehended by border authorities, they are not detained due to lack of bed space.  Instead they are given a "notice to appear" before an immigration judge and turned out onto the street.

It's called "catch and release." 

In many cases OTMs are drawn to the porous Mexican border by the same hopes as other illegal migrants- a chance to sneak into the United States and build a better life, albeit by breaking the law.  But mixed in with these migrants is another class of border crosser-

And that brings us to the Cafe La Libanesa.  The Cafe La Libanesa, located in Tijuana, was owned by Salim Moughader Mucharrafille.  In addition to serving members of the U.S. Consulate fresh Middle Eastern fare, Moughader smuggled illegal Lebanese migrants over the border and into the U.S.  The linked MSNBC article claims at least 200 Lebanese were smuggled in by Moughader, but other sources place the figure at 300. 

Among these were a number of Hezbollah sympathizers, including Mahmoud Yousef Kourani, who promptly made his way to Dearborn, Michigan and began raising money for Hezbollah.  He is also known to have been trained in both weaponry and intelligence while still in Lebanon, where 4 of his brothers are active in Hezbollah.

Moughader has not been alone in his activites.  Undocumented Syrians have been caught by border patrols- while smuggling Mexican migrants as well.

The situation is inevitable; with tightening airline security it was only a matter of time before terror operatives began exploiting previously-established smuggling routes and methods.  So much simpler than attempting to board a jetliner- Kourani was driven over the border in the trunk of a car!      

The insecurity of the U.S.-Mexico border has become a global issue (read this article, written for a British newspaper.).  So global, in fact, that Al- Jazeera had planned to air a story on the border problem over the July 4, 2005 weekend.  (Plans were scrapped after an outcry from Chris Simcox and the Minutemen, among others.)

This aspect of border insecurity cannot be solved a guest-worker or amnesty program.  It is not a question of cultural chauvinism or economic disadvantage.  It is a national security issue that places innocent lives at risk.  Reducing this risk means agreeing to regulate the U.S.-Mexico border aggressively and effectively.

Perhaps we could start by abandoning "catch and release" in favor of constructing more dentention facilities.  That might leave men like Kourani stranded in the Cafe Libanesa- munching complemetary baklava and staring hopelessly at highway, asking the nearest waitress for a light.

History, Rhyming and Repeating

"It was too small and cramped a place to withstand all the political projects, all the fears and passions that swirled around it."

Fouad Ajami

I have a standing disagreement with a friend of mine who subscribes to the "Iraq is the New Viet Nam" idea.

Up to now I have simply argued that the comparison isn't useful.  It may be emotionally satisfying to fling the words "Viet Nam!" into a political argument, but comparing Iraq to Viet Nam doesn't tell us anything we need to know.  It doesn't reveal any new ideas or describe a possible path of action.

"Viet Nam!" used in this case is just a fashionable new curse word.

But I had no analogy to offer in return.

Then Hezbollah and Israel began to make war on one another and I found myself immersed in a different tragic history.  And this was how I found the analogy I had sought:

Iraq is the new Lebanon.

People like to sound clever by saying, "History never repeats, but it rhymes."

In Iraq it is doing a bit of both.

Let's start with the repeats:

"The proliferation of militias and private armies...was to be the answer to the escalating disorder."

Fouad Ajami

Like the Beirut of the 1970s and 80s, Baghdad and other areas of Iraq have decomposed into violent fiefdoms run by various private militias and separated by armed checkpoints.

" 'Cantons' and turfs were being carved out.  Woe to those caught in the way."

Fouad Ajami

Whole neighborhoods are now segregating, either by force or in self-defense.  Trucks crossing into Iraqi-Kurdistan are asked to remove Iraqi flags and display Kurdish flags instead.  Iraqi Sunnis are disguising their religious identity by using Shiite ringtones on their cell phones and memorizing Shiite holidays to recite if they are stopped and questioned.

There are now plenty of places where having the wrong religious background is enough to get you killed.  Which brings us to another ugly repeat:

"It degenerated into a war in which the combatants tortured before they killed, maimed the dead, and rarely took prisoners.  Massacre followed massacre."

Fouad Ajami

The horrors of Beirut are recorded in dozens of powerful still photos- the fresh smear of blood on the wall above newly-executed bodies, shattered buildings forming a backdrop behind hollow-eyed children.  Iraq's horrors are preserved in crisp DVD images and in sound and color on websites, but they are the same- the rapes, the mutilated bodies dumped at the side of the road, the burned-out cars and gutted buildings.

The violence is caused by the same noxious mix of motives: sectarian hatred, private militias supported with funding from other nations (such as Iran, which is dabbling in this conflict just as it did in Lebanon 20 years ago.), and plain vicious street crime.

And now the ugly rhymes begin.

As in Lebanon, the current government in Iraq is based not on a national identity so much as a nervous cobbling-together of ethnic and religious identities.  This emphasis on power-sharing resembles the government originally put together in Lebanon, in which figures from a 1932 French census determined the representation Muslims, Christians and Druze.  This edgy balance was easily upset by both real and perceived changes in the population and resulted in a government unable to unite, much less serve and protect, its people.  Some officials believe Iraq's new government is similarly weak.  Will it be worthy of the citizens who risked life and limb to vote it into power?

More rhymes:

The United States has played a role in both countries.  Lebanon had already imploded and splintered under the pressure of the Israeli invasion when the Marines arrived in 1982 as peacekeepers.  They lasted just 18 months.  The bombing of the American Embassy and the U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut in 1983(courtesy of Iran-backed Hezbollah) convinced President Reagan to order them home.

This time the United States does not have that option.  The toppling of Saddam Hussein ended a brutal dictatorship but also opened a series of fissures into which the poisons of an entire region have seeped.  "Neighbors" like Iran- and possibly Syria- seek to manipulate Iraq by instigating violence.  Shiites are trying to dominate Sunnis.  Christians are bombed and shot into retreating from the political scene.  Saudi Arabia heaves its own militants into the fray with a sigh of relief.  And all of this activity is squeezed primarily into the small area known as the "Sunni Triangle," which, like the Beirut of the 1970s and 80s, has become the proxy battleground for the obsessions of an entire region.

Do we really want to burden our troops and commaders with irrelevant examples from the Ho Chi Minh Trail and The Mekong Delta?  What has been unleashed in Iraq has nothing to do with Viet Nam.  What we are witnessing is the violent settling of long-postponed scores.  Civil war, if it comes, will not be the neat conflict between two discreet sides that Americans expect, but a bloody, blurry train-wreck of many forces and interests.  Lebanon is the experience that should instruct us, not Viet Nam.

But perhaps that would force some of us to look at it too closely. 

(All Fouad Ajami quotes are excerpted from: Beirut: City of Regrets. W.W. Norton & Co., 1988)