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

Two articles on the site, one by Ghori asking Muslims to reform and now this by Feroz asking the US to reform. There is a stark difference in the way they have approached the subject. Ghori wasted 35 years in the Foreign Service and Feroz is showing here that he probably deserves to be in the Pakistani Foreign Service.

However, Feroz’s idealism or should I say failure to account for the US interests and its need to maintain a strong hold on the world economy, makes his suggestions to the US not so pragmatic.

I agree that the military solution that the US sought by attacking Iraq, has failed in the streets of Baghdad and thus has offered an opportunity to the Islamists to claim victory. The US failure in Iraq has created a foreign policy and military fiasco for the US.

The US can’t just leave Iraq without having some guarantees that its departure from Iraq would not cause an open war or warlike situation in the Middle East. In such a situation, the only victors would be the Islamic militants, as they are the most armed and dedicated warriors in the Middle East.

Can this military failure lead the US to rollback its military strength from the area as Feroz is apparently suggesting? Alternatively, would the US attempt to increase its military presence in the Middle East until it finds some viable political/diplomatic methods to dominate the Middle East and its resources?

Looking at the current US policies it is quite clear that the US would not back down from using force in the area thus perpetuating the current imbroglio that is sucking more countries into the conflict.

With the emergence of Iran as a legitimate regional power in the area, which may soon have access to the nukes too, the chances of diplomatic solution that Feroz is suggesting are remote. The US would not agree to them. 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.

The author tried to include so many things in one article. Good try!

How much ever you try, the basic approach is faulty. Mistake me not. It`s yours. Despite being a researcher you keep bunching the people as Muslim world and non-muslim world etc.,? I dont think you get a PhD with this kind of appraoch. I think Muslim world is different from Muslim-majority country.

The countries who helped the US on Iraq are 1. Qatar 2. Kuwait, 3. KSA 4. Turkey 5. Jordan 6. Egypt and elsewhere they are Afghanistan and Pakistan Turkhmenistan... the list goes on. Do you think that these countries are non-muslim majority countries? OK, Mush is a stooge, what about Turkey & Turkhmenistan?

Willy nilly you`re putting all people of muslim faith of all countries queued-up behind Osama? How? Another faulty approach. It`s saving grace that you said that there was diversity of opinion among Muslims.

Some samples of your mind:

>>>the US did not truly grasp the ideological reasons for the attacks of September 11, 2001<<<

Is 9/11 justified, u mean?

Yes, u mean that. Read this:

>>>>The attacks on the Pentagon in Washington, D. C. and on the World Trade Centers, in New York, were symbolic ...<<<<<


>>>the salient point to this logic was to hold the United States accountable for its lack of political and economic justice in its policies towards the Muslims and Muslim nations. <<<

Pl ask the presidents/Kings of the US allies like KSA, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt... long list...


>>>what the United States needs to understand is that the philosophy of the groups, such as Al-Qaeda and its various splinter groups, which argue for the existence of militancy as a solution to their political problems, is not to defeat the United States in a military sense, but in a political sense by removing its influence from the Arab and Muslim nation<<<<

I think u r assuming this? Would the terrorists be rational? In an inter-dependent world one country infleuning other is so common.

Man..., I give up.

Pl read this:

The first attempt on WTC was made by your countryman Ramzi Yusuf (what`s his problem?). Next one was deadly & that was by Atta gang but the attack was conceived, planned & financed by a group from your country (Khalid Sheikh+OBL).

Conclusion: If the basic perceptions are wrong u end up giving wrong prescriptions. I think u need to unlearn your exisitng knowledge and relearn the subject of international relations all over again.

USA has beat Japan and Germany in World War II. USA starred down the Soviets during the Cold War.

If USA controlled the oil supplies there is no way anyone can challenge the Americans.

HP #1

`` The US can’t just leave Iraq without having some guarantees that its departure from Iraq would not cause an open war or warlike situation in the Middle East. In such a situation, the only victors would be the Islamic militants, as they are the most armed and dedicated warriors in the Middle East. ``

Islamic militants in Iraq are proxies for the Sunni elite that lost its power after Saddam ws overthrown. Most of them are Baathist diehards who have using Islam. Which idiot is willing to die for Baathist party ? If you invoke religion you have a steady supply of recruits.

feroze,

.... i beg to differ - the Muslims are not `` a rational people and if confronted with this choice, will favor stability and over instability in their lives; prosperity over deprivation and hope over despair`` ...........there is no evidence to support your thesis ...... they are very very different from other people

.......... and there is only one solution to this problem : the muslim world has to move in the same direction as the rest of the world - socially, culturally and economically ............. as things stand today they are ``too different`` ............. there is a sense of ``sameness`` between new york, zurich, paris, tokyo, seoul, singapore and shanghai, but as soon as you land in an islamic country whether it is malaysia, dubai, pakistan or - god forbid- saudi arabia, the difference is apparent ..............

...... why ae muslims different ? ....... is this ``difference`` a threat to the rest of mankind ?

`` The US can’t just leave Iraq without having some guarantees that its departure from Iraq would not cause an open war or warlike situation in the Middle East. In such a situation, the only victors would be the Islamic militants, as they are the most armed and dedicated warriors in the Middle East. Islamic militants in Iraq are proxies for the Sunni elite that lost its power after Saddam was overthrown.``(HP)

this is called swallowing Bush`s Goebelsian propaganda lock stock and barrel –

yes the US CAN leave just the same way it left Vietnam -- and no earthquake happened -- Islamist militants are not the proxies for the Sunni elite they are proxies for Osama bin Laden -- and this Sunni elite business is just concoction of the Bush`s colonial Haditha killers -- to create a blood-filled gulf between the Sunni and the Shia Arabs of Iraq --

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

After the USA leaves -- the Baath will take over -- don`t underestimate the Baathists -- it is the only pan Iraqi organization that has its tentacles in every village and at every town and city level including the Kurdiash areas in Iraq -- and they are as ruthless as the Islamists in killing the Islamist militants and innocent people as the Islamists are in killing the Baathists and the innocent people.......

The real insurgency in Iraq is run by the intensely nationalist Baathists -- and it is not entirely the property of `Sunni Elite`....althoug definitely dominated by them …..it also involves the Shia Elite and the Christian Elite......

Zarqawi was eliminated because he crossed the Iraqi boundaries -- went beyond Iraqi borders totally uncalled for.....

this discredited puppet `government` will meet the same fate the discredited puppet South Vietnamese government met.....that`s all

the rumors of Iraq death, demise and disintegration – “after the Americans leave” -- are as triple xxxagerated in 2006 -- as the death, demise and disintegration of Vietnam were -- “if the Americans leave’....in 70`s

#6 nasah

``Islamic militants in Iraq are proxies for the Sunni elite that lost its power after Saddam was overthrown``

This is not my line. babu wrote that. I hope you are not attributing this to me. But I sure believe that most of the resistance in Iraq is from the Baathist. Though I am not sure they will take control of Iraq after the US leaves.

It will take time and some political/diplomatic efforts for the US to leave. No one should expect a unilateral decision. Lets be realistic. The US would not give up just because its hopes in Iraq are dashed.

I will not deal with specifics here, many of the assertions of the author are flawed, the most prepostrous of which is the suggestion that the US should construct continent wide/ country wide virtual ``concentration camps`` to keep the populations of the Muslim world in check, he calls it the cordon of containment in the ``arc of instability``.

There are too many specifics in this article that show a lack of understanding of US motives and conditions in Muslim lands, too many to list and bust, I will however deal with the main thrust of his argument and that is that the US is fighting a genuine war in which it seeks victory and ultimately peace. This assumption, upon which the rest of his article is based is totally flawed. Victory or no victory, post WW2, the US has never settled for peace, when one conflcit is over it seeks another~ war itself is the enemy rather than an external foe and if the US public wants to achieve peace and victory, it will have to fight war itself, the war that its elite impose upon the world for the sake of averting economic crisis and keep the current setup going, moreso than any Jihadists, war is the way of life of the US elite.

The US is not interested in peace in the ME, if they were, it would have readily been achieved, the institutions, dominated by the US in those countries would have progessed in a fashion that was democratic and that region would now be equalling the US in economic might. That was not done and will never be done because it would spell the end of US domination and hegemony.

The author is suggesting that the rebelling slaves be drugged, using various polite mechanisms, so that they give up their rebellious behavior, or are contained (jailed) in country/continent wide prisons- his corridor of inhumanity- and enjoy their bondage. Well that has happened in the most part, all those countries are in peaceful submission to the US but why have not wars in the region ended inspite of that? Because war is ingrained in the psyche of the US political economy. They will not end, they cannot end unless the `military metaphysic`(the Kalima of these power elite), the military definition of reality, an effect of institutional fusing, the military,political and the economic, is altered. And that is not going to happen any time soon. It is upto the victims of this mentality, our people in the poor countries to challenge this, and alter their courses together, only then, maybe after a massive war there will be peace.

hamidm #5 today i went to a bank and there was a very pleasant young lady there who undertook some tedious work of checking figures that I needed her to do with a pleasant smile on her face. She was also wearing a hijab, so she must have been a dreaded (I must say the ``m`` word here)...m-m-m-m-muslim. And...horrors...when I asked her where she was from, she revealed that she was an.an....egyptian. In other words, and Arab!! horror!! And as I was leaving she smiled and said ``Khuda Hafiz`` (which she must have known to be the traditional form of saying goodbye for Pakistanis, even as our nuts are trying to replace it with ``Allah Hafiz``). Any normal person would have been tearing her hair out at the tedious work I had set her to do due to an error on my part, but this hijaabed young lady had nothing but friendly smiles. So, was this an evil muslim plot on her part? Or was this an example of how wrong you are when you act as if muslims have a monopoly on bad people.

So, dont generalize about muslims. I understand your frustrations and so forth at the nuts in the muslim world - but you become like them yourself when you paint people of a given community by the same brush you apply to the rotten eggs in their midst.

#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?

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.

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

[...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.

#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.

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

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

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