Thursday, June 08, 2006
The War on Terror
June 10, 2006
What has this war achieved so far? How long do we expect it to continue? What does victory look like? These are all legitimate questions that a nation must ask when it declares a war. The public deserves honest answers from its leaders.
I offer my humble answers to such far reaching questions in a book published recently. It is called “The War on Terror and Democracy – An Arab American Perspective”. It is a collection of selected essays and articles published in recent times mainly in the Arab American News. Each article examines this conflict from a different angle and by the end of the book it is my intention to have provided the reader with a comprehensive view that captures a middle ground. Or at the very least, leave the reader with an impression that a middle ground can exist.
Every conflict has two sides to the story and the more entrenched and rigid each side becomes the less likelihood there will be for peace. Recently, President George W. Bush started coming off his high horse and admitted that he made “some” mistakes in the past. In a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, he admitted using tough talk which defined the culture of this conflict, and the use of phrases like “wanted dead or alive” and “bring it on”, he conceded that such language was “not helpful”.
This sort of macho talk also defined the culture of domestic law enforcement in the early days after 9/11. It sent signals to people in authority that abuse of civil rights was justified. There was a great sense of panic in the nation and Bush’s machoism invited bullies to come forward seeking the glory to be called “heroes”. But such overzealous officers were prosecuted in the aftermath of the AbuGhraib prison torture scandal. And now we have cause to be more concerned with the allegations of massacres committed by US troops in places like Haditha in Iraq.
But peace in this conflict and the way to get there is hardly talked about any more. As Arab Americans we are caught in the middle of this conflict. We fully understand why the people of the Arab and Muslim world are angry and hungry. It is a volatile combination that will keep exploding. We criticize Muslim extremism, rigidity, inflexibility, and inability to compromise even harder than we criticize the actions of the Bush administration. We want this country to succeed and to overcome its ignorance.
At the end of the day we are Americans and we have to engage the mainstream public opinion in a real way that offers alternative solutions. We need to thrust our insight into the kitchens of public policy-making. The mainstream media is not going to solicit our opinion or make us a regular component of its junky diet. Peace is possible, as I claim in my book that “it is no mystery that America can end this war in 100 days.”
I also make some outlandish assertions that amuse some of my colleagues and give critics an easy target. For example, on page 10, I declare that “Judgment Day will happen on April 4, 2009, at noon.”
But there is a method to my madness. I see US foreign policy as fundamentally flawed. America’s relationship with other nations is based on the “friendly” factor. If they are our friends, like Israel, they can violate every human right possible and never risk losing our support. US support is not based on mutual respect of international law or recognition of any moral code that is universal to all human beings. This is like saying we are a nation of laws and no one is above the law unless you were a close friend of George Bush. Close friends are exempt from following the law and they face no consequences to wrongdoing. US foreign policy is corrupt and it represents favoritism and nepotism on an international scale.
On the other hand, you have culturally bankrupt fat Sheiks controlling all the wealth of the Middle East. They are loathed and hated by almost every Arab in the world. When Saddam Hussein took out the Kuwaiti Sheiks in 1990 very few Arabs cried. George Bush senior and Margaret Thatcher were outraged that international law was violated and a sovereign nation was invaded. Most Arabs don’t believe that these fabricated banana republics even deserve the title of sovereign nation. They are mostly plantations like the ones abolished by Abraham Lincoln and the American civil war. They have no legitimacy for existence except the right afforded to them by the US. Every Arab believes that he has a right to the wealth created by every drop of oil. But they have been deprived of that wealth by the US. They blame the US for their hunger.
Then, we tell them that we want democracy in the Middle East and we make our own gullible American citizens believe that democracy is the only guarantee against terrorism. We send troops invading another sovereign nation, Iraq, on a “noble” mission to install democracy by the barrel of a gun. While in another hot spot called occupied Palestine, people on their own create a democratic movement and they conduct free elections. But, we disagree with the results because they elected “unfriendly terrorists.” So, what do we do? We starve them more.
This week, Mogadishu fell to Islamic Court movement fighters and Somalia may enjoy peace for the first time in 15 years under Islamic rule. Should we be alarmed and begin our invasion plans because an Islamic regime has wrested power by force. It sounds like Taliban in 1995. But maybe not. They signaled that they want to be “friendly” with America and that they will not be whipping their women. So, maybe we should get past the labels of “Islamic” and “terrorist” and begin to look at the people as unemployed, poverty-stricken and desperate. We should look at every Arab state and admit that it is a failed state. I can not name one Arab state that is successful by modern standards.
“The War on Terror and Democracy” provides insight on how we can get out of this quagmire. It is easy to read and every page promises to be packed with fresh and provocative ideas.
What has this war achieved so far? How long do we expect it to continue? What does victory look like? These are all legitimate questions that a nation must ask when it declares a war. The public deserves honest answers from its leaders.
I offer my humble answers to such far reaching questions in a book published recently. It is called “The War on Terror and Democracy – An Arab American Perspective”. It is a collection of selected essays and articles published in recent times mainly in the Arab American News. Each article examines this conflict from a different angle and by the end of the book it is my intention to have provided the reader with a comprehensive view that captures a middle ground. Or at the very least, leave the reader with an impression that a middle ground can exist.
Every conflict has two sides to the story and the more entrenched and rigid each side becomes the less likelihood there will be for peace. Recently, President George W. Bush started coming off his high horse and admitted that he made “some” mistakes in the past. In a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, he admitted using tough talk which defined the culture of this conflict, and the use of phrases like “wanted dead or alive” and “bring it on”, he conceded that such language was “not helpful”.
This sort of macho talk also defined the culture of domestic law enforcement in the early days after 9/11. It sent signals to people in authority that abuse of civil rights was justified. There was a great sense of panic in the nation and Bush’s machoism invited bullies to come forward seeking the glory to be called “heroes”. But such overzealous officers were prosecuted in the aftermath of the AbuGhraib prison torture scandal. And now we have cause to be more concerned with the allegations of massacres committed by US troops in places like Haditha in Iraq.
But peace in this conflict and the way to get there is hardly talked about any more. As Arab Americans we are caught in the middle of this conflict. We fully understand why the people of the Arab and Muslim world are angry and hungry. It is a volatile combination that will keep exploding. We criticize Muslim extremism, rigidity, inflexibility, and inability to compromise even harder than we criticize the actions of the Bush administration. We want this country to succeed and to overcome its ignorance.
At the end of the day we are Americans and we have to engage the mainstream public opinion in a real way that offers alternative solutions. We need to thrust our insight into the kitchens of public policy-making. The mainstream media is not going to solicit our opinion or make us a regular component of its junky diet. Peace is possible, as I claim in my book that “it is no mystery that America can end this war in 100 days.”
I also make some outlandish assertions that amuse some of my colleagues and give critics an easy target. For example, on page 10, I declare that “Judgment Day will happen on April 4, 2009, at noon.”
But there is a method to my madness. I see US foreign policy as fundamentally flawed. America’s relationship with other nations is based on the “friendly” factor. If they are our friends, like Israel, they can violate every human right possible and never risk losing our support. US support is not based on mutual respect of international law or recognition of any moral code that is universal to all human beings. This is like saying we are a nation of laws and no one is above the law unless you were a close friend of George Bush. Close friends are exempt from following the law and they face no consequences to wrongdoing. US foreign policy is corrupt and it represents favoritism and nepotism on an international scale.
On the other hand, you have culturally bankrupt fat Sheiks controlling all the wealth of the Middle East. They are loathed and hated by almost every Arab in the world. When Saddam Hussein took out the Kuwaiti Sheiks in 1990 very few Arabs cried. George Bush senior and Margaret Thatcher were outraged that international law was violated and a sovereign nation was invaded. Most Arabs don’t believe that these fabricated banana republics even deserve the title of sovereign nation. They are mostly plantations like the ones abolished by Abraham Lincoln and the American civil war. They have no legitimacy for existence except the right afforded to them by the US. Every Arab believes that he has a right to the wealth created by every drop of oil. But they have been deprived of that wealth by the US. They blame the US for their hunger.
Then, we tell them that we want democracy in the Middle East and we make our own gullible American citizens believe that democracy is the only guarantee against terrorism. We send troops invading another sovereign nation, Iraq, on a “noble” mission to install democracy by the barrel of a gun. While in another hot spot called occupied Palestine, people on their own create a democratic movement and they conduct free elections. But, we disagree with the results because they elected “unfriendly terrorists.” So, what do we do? We starve them more.
This week, Mogadishu fell to Islamic Court movement fighters and Somalia may enjoy peace for the first time in 15 years under Islamic rule. Should we be alarmed and begin our invasion plans because an Islamic regime has wrested power by force. It sounds like Taliban in 1995. But maybe not. They signaled that they want to be “friendly” with America and that they will not be whipping their women. So, maybe we should get past the labels of “Islamic” and “terrorist” and begin to look at the people as unemployed, poverty-stricken and desperate. We should look at every Arab state and admit that it is a failed state. I can not name one Arab state that is successful by modern standards.
“The War on Terror and Democracy” provides insight on how we can get out of this quagmire. It is easy to read and every page promises to be packed with fresh and provocative ideas.
posted by Neal AbuNab at 7:01 PM
0 Comments:
Neal AbuNab
 |
| Contact Neal |
| - |
| Books |
 |
 |