Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses Pakistan's indignation at the United States over the Zawahiri strike, the failure of our policies toward Pakistan in general, and other erroneous stances toward the Islamic world arising from the Cold War:
It is common in the Islamic world for America to be regarded as “the bully on the block." This is true even in Pakistan, where outrage is running high today over the failed strike at Zawahiri. The Pakistanis are outraged despite four decades of the American government supporting Pakistan to the hilt, supplying it with every sort of advanced weaponry (partly because American officials loved dealing with those ramrod-straight, mustachioed, sometimes Sandhurst-educated Pakistani generals, all very pukka sahib as opposed to those nasty leftists, some of them from the Christian, but also Marxist, from the Indian state of Kerala, and of course those Bandung-conference leftover leftists such as Krishna Menon). The Cold War, for the United States, meant that Islam was a Good Thing. For though no one knew a damn thing about Islam, they knew that Religion and Atheistic Communism Did Not Mix, and who was more religious than those devout Muslims. Of course it was true -- Islam and Communism don't mix. But the Nazis and the Communists did not mix, either (though all three Total Systems have much in common), and yet, during World War II, we had no difficulty in making common cause with Soviet Russia.During the Cold War, this inability to see Islam for what it was, is, and will be -- a totalitarian threat at least as great, and probably a good deal greater, than Communism -- led to certain obvious failures, and certain failures that remain unobvious. Among the obvious failures was the CENTO military organization, with Iraq, Turkey, and Pakistan enrolled in a supposedly non-Communist military alliance meant to mimic NATO, under American (and British) leadership. It came to nothing, for it was nothing -- except that the Americans were locked into the myth of stout Muslim allies.
The second was the firm entrenchment of the myth of a benevolent Saudi Arabia, our "staunch ally" -- a notion promoted by ARAMCO in its official publications and through a powerful network of Washington agents. This began in the 1950s, and the power of this myth only grew. No one knew much about Saudi Arabia, and Islam itself was hardly understood; in the State Department, it remains understood. Loy Henderson was not reading Arthur Jeffery or C. Snouck Hurgronje in 1948, or ever. Nor were those children of Beirut missionaries who comprised such a large percentage of what came to be called Arabists. They were akin in their attitudes, these non-Arab scions of Christian missionaries, to islamochristians, that is, Christians who, because of the pull of their Arab identity, had internalized and then promoted views that are essentially Islamic (such as the impermissibility of Israel, as an Infidel sovereignty, to exist within the dar al-Islam, whatever its size and however long and devious the means to eliminate it). Curious, is it not, that no one has noted that the ethnic pull for Arabs (who even if Christian sense that the Arab claim to fame is based on Islam) trumps resentment over their treatment as dhimmis, whereas non-Arab Christians in Muslim-ruled lands -- Christians in Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or Indonesia -- not having this ethnic pull, do not identify with the Muslim besiegers of Israel?
That myth of Saudi Arabia as an ally effectively entrusted our energy fate, our energy policy, to the dreamy idea that Saudi Arabia would “moderate” oil prices “as a favor” to us. It never has, it never will. The Saudi oil policy is always based on one thing: cold calculation of how to maximize, over time, the total revenues to be obtained from Saudi oil reserves. This means a constant calculation of what rises in price will do to demand for oil, over what period of time, and with what elasticity. Many factors -- technological developments in other forms of energy (can coal be cleaned? Can nuclear energy be made safer, or solar energy be made cheaper?), the likely drops or rises in demand, and so on --must all be factored in. But “friendship” and “doing favors” for America, however often this may be claimed, has never been a part of Saudi oil decision-making. No matter how many times the absurdity of this proposition is demonstrated, it keeps coming back -- because there is a powerful lobby of Saudi-funded agents who recycle petrodollars for their personal benefit, as lawyers, investment bankers, public relations experts. They are simply Saudi hirelings, and continue to attempt, with diminishing success, to fool us about Saudi Arabia. But they have helped to prevent an intelligent energy policy, which could have begun back in 1973, if not before, by putting our own taxes, steadily rising, on gasoline at the pump, and on oil used for other thigns, and used that money for conservation projects, subsidizes to mass transit, and nuclear, wind, and solar energy projects.During the Cold War, of course, Saudi Arabia was a Stout Friend, and it was the Saudis who helped us in supplying the Muhajideen in Afghanistan. There are those who still feel that the Americans did the right thing in Afghanistan. There are others who may feel, at this point, that a Communist state in Afghanistan would not have been worse than the Taliban (the label "Communist" in Muslim countries often disguises a secularist, who needs some other fervent faith to see him through, and it is not as dangerous to be thought to have put Islam on the back burner for Marxist economics, as it would to abandon Islam for, say, Christianity)). The Afghanistan problem hastened, but did not cause, the crumbling of Soviet power, which came about when enough people within the nomenklatura realized on its own terms Soviet Communism could not deliver. Members of the Soviet elite (and the children of that elite) recognized the connection of Communism, already a moral failure, to economic failures, and they did not need a defeat in Afghanistan to make that clear.
Still another country misperceived was Turkey. Turkish troops performed bravely in the Korean War. Turkey was a member of CENTO, so temporary and so silly as it was. Turkey was a place that supplied airbases and listening posts. And Turkey was both “secular” and straightforward, just like those mustachioed Pakistani generals who were so much more pleasing than the messy, fussy, dangerously leftist Indians (so they were perceived) in the 1950s and 1960s. So Turkey became a “staunch ally.” There was certainly more truth to this than in the same label affixed to Saudi Arabia. But it depended on Kemalism, on the constraints on Islam. And as we now know, when Islam came back, and it has come back (or rather, since it had never left, but had been tied down) to Turkey, that inevitably means the kind of anti-Infidel (i.e., anti-American) attitudes that can be seen in the Turkish press, and in the Turkish government, and among the Turkish public. The secularists of Turkey were not sufficiently grateful to Ataturk; they thought Islam was permanently put in its rightful place, and that only their cooks and drivers, from the poorer sections of Istanbul or the countryside, took Islam seriously. They are beginning to see that they were wrong. And they now may dimly understand that Erdogan is clever, and a real threat, and that they will have to hold fast to the army rather than allow him to destroy the army’s power to step in.
Islam was not opposed to Communism because it was totalitarian and against human freedom. For Islam has much in common with Communism: it is totalitarian, it is against human freedom, and especially of freedom of conscience. It was a mistake to believe that Saudi Arabia was a “staunch ally” or an ally of any sort. It was a mistake to support Pakistan to the hilt, and to allow that country to acquire nuclear weapons. It is a mistake to continue to bribe the Pakistanis for their cooperation, which is limited to picking up Al-Qaeda members and not, much more importantly, at a minimum to sending A. Q. Khan to this country for interrogation. It instead should include handing over the weapons he developed -- or risking the complete destruction of the Pakistani economy and of supporting an Indian pre-emptive strike so as to ensure that no Muslim state, or group within that state, ever acquires weapons of mass destruction.
The notion that the Pakistanis are an American ally is absurd. It is manifestly absurd after their support of the Taliban, after A Q. Khan helping to endanger the United States by selling the most detailed nuclear plans to North Korea, Iran, and Libya, and perhaps to Egypt (the Egyptians have put the $60 billion in American aid to purposes the Americans, endlessly trusting, never intended), and after the Pakistani refusal to allow the Americans to interrogate Mr. A. Q. (tellingly, now a national hero in Pakistan). That the Pakistanis, having received even more billions of dollars from the Americans in outright aid and debt relief, after decades of double-dealing and meretriciousness in every way, should dare to complain about America as a bully makes one’s blood boil. Pakistan cannot be trusted, not now, and not ever.
Pakistan is of course a Muslim country. It is a country whose people do not recognize that they have no other history because, though they are obviously the descendants of Hindus forced to convert by the onerous conditions of dhimmitude, or forcibly converted at the point of a sword, they refuse to recognize their own ancestors, their own pre-Islamic history. All they have to sustain and console them is Islam. That’s it. Nothing else. They cannot bear reality. And they will be that way as long as they remain fervently, even fanatically, Muslim. All of their political and economic and social and intellectual failures come from Islam. But this is the one thing, the thing above all other things, that they cannot allow themselves to recognize. It would disorient them, drive many of them mad.
And therefore, they must blame the Americans. It fits their conspiratorial view of the world, their crazed susceptibility to rumors, their hatred of the Infidels. Even educated Pakistanis have a milder, watered-down version of the same, that they feed to credulous foreigners and journalists, many of whom simply repeat these stories without critical examination (see, e.g., David Rohde of The Times).
They can do no other. But we can. We are free to analyze things as they are.
Hugh, no one, but no one, who wears a uniform thinks of Pakistan as a friend. Musharraf is close to us because he has to be to stay alive. We let him be close to us because while it is good to keep your friends close, it is better to keep your enemies closer, especially if they have nukes and have no idea how to protect them from attacks by terrorists or coup factions, secure them in a time of national collapse, provide them with fail-safes in the event of confused indications and warnings. This is one "friend" it is best to keep close, at least until Pakistan is of no use to us anymore.
It is common in the Islamic world for America to be regarded as “the bully on the block."
It's also all-too-common in the American world for America to be regarded as “the bully on the block." It's the fault of those pesky right-wing conservatives again.
Musharraf's son works as an accountant in Massachusetts. Many sons and daughters of the Pakistani elite are educated in the West, and many wish to remain in that West. Who can blame them?
Think of Bhutto's daughter, "Pinky" Bhutto, who attended Harvard in the 1970s, where one of the other girls in the class was Anna Benes, granddaughter of Eduard Benes, who gave his name to the Benes Decrees, which have been discussed, regularly, here. Think of all the children of the generals and zamindars who run, who own, who control the country of Pakistan, and who will not admit to the tenets or attitudes of Islam, and cannot bring themselves to connect the failures of the Islamic world with the inattention or indifference or hostility to democracy and minority rights that are obviously part of Islam, the habit of mental submission, the inshallah-fatalism, and all the rest. This they cannot do. But some rich Pakistani kid at Middlesex, or Yale, can persaude his naive roommates that there is nothing wrong with Islam, or it was only bad General Yahya with his "extremist" views, or Islam "means peace" so why don't you accept it (John Walker Lindh was not a unique specimen; he has his East Coast clones, some of whom even head off to Yemen for religious studies and to bring back a real Muslim wife).
One thing is clear, however. Though Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Indian Muslims cannot dare to think of their own non-Muslim ancestors, and the conditions under which those ancestors were forcibly converted, either upon pain of immediate death, or the humiliation and degradation and physical insecurity that all non-Muslims faced, it is easier for Pakistanis, too, to jettison Islam if they have the chance. Unlike Arabs, non-Arab Muslims do not have that extra ethnic identification with Islam that makes it almost impossible to slough off Islam itself. Thus one will find former Pakistanis (Ibn Warraq, Irfan Khawaja, and others), as one finds many Iranians, as well, able to make that mental leap not from "bad" Islam to "good" Islam, but out of Islam altogether.
And then there is the phenomenon of the "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim. One never knows who is feigning, and who isn't, in this category, who is holding back for careerist reasons (as I think Fareed Zakaria -- who, for god's sake, has a wine column -- does, for how far could he climb if he were known, not as a "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, but as an ex-Muslim, an apostate? Not far).
It is remarkable that the Americans do not treat Musharraf and company -- those generals, those zamindars -- much more roughly. We can force their children back to endure life in Muslim Pakistan. And that is something those family men could not possibly wish on their children. They cannot admit to themselves that Islam stunts mental growth, that an Islamic society and polity is something that, unless you are going to exploit so that you can be a Leader of the Masses, in the nasty Imran Khan manner, is to be avoided. Get out, get out, get out if you can, is what those well-off parents wish for their children, but don't dare admit to themselves or their children it is becuase of Islam.
Well, we can make it much harder for those chidlren to come to, or remain in, the West -- if those generals and zamindars with their jute and rug factories do not play ball. And they can play ball. Squash racquets, and cricket, and the kind I have in mind.
I look forward to imagining, in the mind's ear, softly wafting from an upper window, over lawns at Langley, a phrase of encouragement, uttered by someone to someone else, on a very special telephone:
"Well-bowled, General Musharraf! Well-bowled!"
"All of their [Pakistanis'] political and economic and social and intellectual failures come from Islam. But this is the one thing, the thing above all other things, that they cannot allow themselves to recognize. It would disorient them, drive many of them mad. And therefore, they must blame the Americans. It fits their conspiratorial view of the world..."
Same goes for millions of Americans, who would also blame America, which fits into their conspiratorial, anti-Western view of the world. Those pesky right-wing conservatives again.
I whole heartedly agree with the article.
I realize there are times when an administration chooses to join forces with one enemy on a specific delimited mission to deal with a grave immediate threat. But I don’t understand the lies. There is no good reason to lie about the nature of ad hoc alliances. Indeed, many are questionable. Or, worse, they help our long-term enemy while doing little to deal with the immediate threat.
Islamic countries are not our friends—at best they may appease us. But who is fooled that Musharraf is doing anything but pursuing his own domestic enemies? And who is fooled that Saudi Arabia has only acted against those jihadists that have caused problems within the family? Sadly, the answer is most Americans. We are still ignorant about Islam, four years after 9/11.
Excellent article Hugh.
Pakistan is as grave a threat as Iran, yet is seldom seen as such. Pakistan also gives me pause about an attack on Iran. As much as I want to attack Iran and prevent another Islamic bomb, even if we were successful in preventing Iran from getting it (temporarily?), right across the border the menace already exists. It is a terrible quagmire.
Since Pakistan has the weapon, you can no longer attack that country unless you had a missle defense system that would be able to handle any large-scale missle attack. Considering that they have few warheads, but probably many missles, they could probably overwhelm such a system anyway numerically. See also discussion about the missle defense system infra.
Nonetheless, I agree with you about Pakistan, but what about safeguarding their nuclear arsenal? If we were indeed to bully him and not pay him the jizya, the regime would likely fall and insane Paki fundos would probably take over. The next day we might hear that anyone attempting to interfere with Islamabomb will be subject to a nuclear attack. Or worse yet, they might announce that if a large sum is not paid, the weapons will be handed over to whomever the state sees fit. Even worse, they might pretend to be non antagonistic towards the West, all the while steadily handing over the (portable?) nuclear arsenal to the likes of UBL.
Of course, this scenario, or worse might play out with Pakistan whether or not we support him. Considering how badly they want to kill him, it could be any day.
In spite of its shortcomings, we need to improve the missile defense system immediately to deter Pakistan, N. Korea and Iran. But even with such a large-scale system in place, I still see portable nukes/devices/spent material as a far bigger threat. The advantage of such an attack is the inability to strike any one country because you do not know from whence it came. In such a scenario, only a Cheney/Chirac solution exists. That is, informing all moslem countries that they could be hit with a nuclear weapon should the West ever be targeted with such a terrorist attack. But remember, when the attack occurs, we would have to actually carry it out and poison the entire planet. How lovely.
Currenty Pakistan is on the jizya payroll, as such, you can expect the strings from are US include oversight over the nuclear material. And if we no longer paid the jizya, then what?
Crazy Moslems are pushing the planet to the edge of destruction. Never has mankind seen such lunacy.
Pakistan is of course a Muslim country. It is a country whose people do not recognize that they have no other history because, though they are obviously the descendants of Hindus forced to convert by the onerous conditions of dhimmitude, or forcibly converted at the point of a sword, they refuse to recognize their own ancestors, their own pre-Islamic history. All they have to sustain and console them is Islam. That’s it. Nothing else. They cannot bear reality. And they will be that way as long as they remain fervently, even fanatically, Muslim. All of their political and economic and social and intellectual failures come from Islam. But this is the one thing, the thing above all other things, that they cannot allow themselves to recognize. It would disorient them, drive many of them mad.
Pakistanis tend to pretend that the Islamic history of India - be it the Sultans of Delhi, or the Moghuls later - is Pakistani history. Problem with that is that much of that bloody activity happened in areas that are now in India. For Pakistan to have a logical history, it would have to start in the 20th century with Jinnah and the Muslim League, but there is no reason to believe that they don't see themselves as successors to the Moghuls, and have terretorial ambitions on India that go way beyond Kashmir. If one wants evidence of that, consider that all their recent Chinese and North Korean acquired missiles are named after various Afghan invaders of India - Ghouri (after Mohammed Sabuktadin Ghouri), Ghaznavi (after Mahmud of Ghazni) and Abdali (after Ahmad Shah Abdali). Look forward to future missiles being named after Timur and Babur. Should give anyone who knows Indian history enough clues about what they are up to.
Hugh, the unstated part of your article is - Islam is Pakistan's identity. Take that away, and how is Pakistan different from India? Sind would be an Indian state every bit as much as Gujarat - LK Advani, the former deputy Prime Minister, was born in Karachi. Like East Germany had no identity once it shed communism (as would North Korea), Pakistan would have no identity if it shed communism. (Incidentally, same argument holds for Bangladesh).
Think of Bhutto's daughter, "Pinky" Bhutto, who attended Harvard in the 1970s, where one of the other girls in the class was Anna Benes, granddaughter of Eduard Benes, who gave his name to the Benes Decrees, which have been discussed, regularly, here. Think of all the children of the generals and zamindars who run, who own, who control the country of Pakistan, and who will not admit to the tenets or attitudes of Islam, and cannot bring themselves to connect the failures of the Islamic world with the inattention or indifference or hostility to democracy and minority rights that are obviously part of Islam, the habit of mental submission, the inshallah-fatalism, and all the rest. This they cannot do. But some rich Pakistani kid at Middlesex, or Yale, can persaude his naive roommates that there is nothing wrong with Islam, or it was only bad General Yahya with his "extremist" views, or Islam "means peace" so why don't you accept it
At one point in the 80's, during the Zia-ul-Haq regime, Benazir Bhutto was thought to be a moderate who would undo some of Gen Zia's Islamification policies. But what people didn't see was that her very western upbringing, as well as the fact that she was a woman running for a top post in an Islamic party, was the very reason that voters otherwise unhappy with the Zia regime would be wary of voting for her. As a result, she underwent a lot of changes to make her look genuinely Islamic - from her mother arranging her marriage, to preserving most of the Islamification policies. On the foreign policy front, there were many Indian Leftists who expected relations between Pakistan and India to improve. Au contraire - shortly after coming to power, she made several incendiary speeches re: Kashmir. In fact, the more exposure any Pakistani had to the West - e.g. Imran Khan, the less pro-Western they have tended to be.
If one would have expected a genuinely secular Bhutto, one wouldn't have found it in Harvard educated Benazir, but rather in Murtaza Bhutto, her brother who fled in exile to Libya.
One thing is clear, however. Though Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Indian Muslims cannot dare to think of their own non-Muslim ancestors, and the conditions under which those ancestors were forcibly converted, either upon pain of immediate death, or the humiliation and degradation and physical insecurity that all non-Muslims faced, it is easier for Pakistanis, too, to jettison Islam if they have the chance. Unlike Arabs, non-Arab Muslims do not have that extra ethnic identification with Islam that makes it almost impossible to slough off Islam itself. Thus one will find former Pakistanis (Ibn Warraq, Irfan Khawaja, and others), as one finds many Iranians, as well, able to make that mental leap not from "bad" Islam to "good" Islam, but out of Islam altogether.
It's more difficult for Pakistanis or Bangladeshis to cast off Islam, for the reasons mentioned above. It's different from Iran - if Iran were to switch some day from Islam to Zoroastrianism, they wouldn't suddenly be identified as Russia. If Pakistan or Bangladesh some day cast off Islam, they would be perceived as 2 more Indian countries in the sub-continent. Nothing wrong with that, except that they'd have trouble being noticed.
Hugh: It instead should include handing over the weapons he developed -- or risking the complete destruction of the Pakistani economy and of supporting an Indian pre-emptive strike so as to ensure that no Muslim state, or group within that state, ever acquires weapons of mass destruction.
Hugh, there is no way India can launch a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan any more than US could have launched a pre-emptive strike on the Soviets during the Cold War. Both countries have nukes, but are within striking distance of each other. What you have here is a one sided detente - India won't strike first, since it doesn't want to be nuked, while Pakistan may, knowing that it'd do so in the cause of Islam, and would accept the martyrdom that comes with it.
Kafir Nonbeliever: Since Pakistan has the weapon, you can no longer attack that country unless you had a missle defense system that would be able to handle any large-scale missle attack. Considering that they have few warheads, but probably many missles, they could probably overwhelm such a system anyway numerically. See also discussion about the missle defense system infra.
India may not be able to attack Pakistan, but the US can. Already Pakistan has stated that it won't allow the US to launch another such raid as last week, so use this as the opportunity to read them the riot act, and follow it up some day with an ICBM directed half way around the globe. While India is in Pakistan's striking distance, the US isn't, so such a thing can be successfully pulled of in case of both Pakistan and Iran. Once that happens, then India will be in a position to threaten Pakistan should they persist with their support to Kashmir or any other Islamic forces in India.
.. and one does not have to look far, to see what Islam has done to Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
In India, IT - Information Technology.
In Pakista, IT - Islamic Terror.
Case closed!
Alert, yeah. It's a haaaard choice: my job or my life!
My only other disagreement - Communists had a policy of picking enemies of the US, including Islamic enemies. China had a policy of being allied with Pakistan against India - this wasn't restricted to the US. The Soviets, after 1956, stopped supporting Israel, and started supporting Arab Nationalists. So it isn't like the US had the choice of allying with the comrades against the Muslims.
Some time, I hope to see an analysis of Arab Nationalism, and how it affected/was affected by Islamic imperialism. I don't see it in the archives (maybe I haven't looked hard enough), so it would be revealing as to the extent of Islamization countries like Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Libya underwent.
Hello All,
Pakistan is a young country, but had to come to the party because some big boys wanted to party in their backyard.
One of the biggest party piecies was for the Russi to invade Afganistan....and the Yankee should have let him keep it.
But no, Amrika couldn't let it pass, they had to play the field too....you yourselves know how dangerous it is to let kids play with guns, (even Ironman Hondo got to play with guns), but no guns weren't enough, you gave them stinger missiles, trained them to stand on mountain tops, giving them night vision bonuculars and fire those missiles....letting them get on with.
You can hear the Pentegon saying "heh heh, we are so clever, non of our blond boys are being shot at, only those stupid filthy pusto/urdu speaking, kurta wearing, non English speaking types are dying" but they creating havoc on the Russians too....boy can life get any better?"
Some Pentagon official also says "you know, you goota see it to believe it, those afgans, they will moon 5 times a day in the middle of Russi gunfire ...praying to someone called Allah (swt) and talk about Muhammed (Pubh), I mean you gotta see it to believe it.
And it got better, the US gave them more money, "we need more of you, boys....you kill Russi ...yes...how?".....a salute and "yes, Joe we build madrassa and get more young....from age of 6, we show them hand grenade..and he blow up Russi tank....you like?".
I LIKE, I LIKE, Well I gorra git me 10 of them...."Seeeargent, git me the pentagon on the line rit now....boy I need me 10 of them there Madrassas".
Well the rest is almost history....nobody wanted to know about Afganistan....or the million who were dispaced and were living in Pakistan...selling guns, drugs, chewing gum and Russi dead hats and grenades to little childrens. It was obvious that some one like Bin Laden was going exploit the situation ...not for the bidding of the Amrikan, or the Russi...but use what he had been brought up with all his life....and the rest is history culminating in 9/11.
No, virtually none of this is mentioned in Hugh's article, but the greates lesson here....don't give guns to little kids...someone will get hurt...now that they have for it.
Carlo Panella had a very good piece on Pakistan in Il Foglio a few weeks after 7/7 this past summer.
He stressed the British role in getting Pakistan established.
On Saudi Arabia, the USA and UK helped make the Saudis rich by subsidizing the price that their oil companies paid for Saudi oil. ARAMCO got tax breaks under the Foreign Tax Credits for paying the Saudis. This system goes back to 1951 under a Democratic president, but continued afterwards with the Republicans. Surely, the Saudis had few friends in DC better than the Dulles brothers, staunch Repubs.
The failure to see how Western powers have enriched the Arab oil kings is due to a great extent to the "left." This failure shows how fake today's left is.
See links below on oil, Western powers and the Left.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/kindly-making-arabia-rich.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/what-does-left-really-mean-in-2005.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/left-part-of-solution-or-part-of.html
Is a fundamentalist take-over of Pakistan only a matter of time? We’re well aware of Saudi Arabia’s funding of Madrassas. But most are unaware that the same spirit of Islam permeates the government schools and all of Pakistan’s society (as I remember reading.)
When Iran gets the bomb we’ll have Shiites facing Sunnis both armed with nukes. I’m not a military strategist or foreign policy analyst but I’d like to ask one question. Do we want to be in the middle of all this? Undoubtedly Pakistan will extend its nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia. At present, we are trying to keep Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other in Iraq. Do we want to continue to stand between these to variations of barbarianism even after they possess nuclear weapons?
Eliyahu,
"The failure to see how Western powers have enriched the Arab oil kings is due to a great extent to the "left."
How completely absurd.
The entire Western world's economy (and others) is dependant on oil and you continue to blame only one political side? Need I remind you that "leftists" have very little power in the US at the moment? Moreover, Bush has his hand in the oil business. However, I don't blame Bush exclusively for our current fuel problem. Please drop that one-sided garbage. The blame rests on many, including the car manufacturers and both "right" and "left". We need alternative forms of energy to get off of the terrorists' oil as quickly as possible. In the US the “left” is down, so stop trying to blame the entire world’s energy problems on them. As for the UK, is it fair to blame the likes of Thatcher/Major for the UK’s energy problems? I’m afraid blame does not always come delivered in nice little packages.
Infidel Pride,
RE: Pakistan preemptive strikes, nuclear retaliation.
You indicated that the US has the power to attack Pakistan and not fear a nuclear attack since we are in another hemisphere (ICBM issues etc). While I agree with you that they probably currently lack ICBMs, you fail to see that we Americans place a greater value on life than do Islamists, probably more so than the secular Musharaf too. If Pakistan were to retaliate with nuclear attacks in Israel, Europe or perhaps even India, we would be very reluctant to attack. Since we don't have enough military intelligence to determine just how powerful a Pakistani retaliation could be, I don't feel comfortable making a recommendation. Do not forget that any Islamists that may take over Pakistan will not be secular like Musharaf. To them, a blaze of glory and even a defeat that costs the infidel world dearly can still be a victory. Against such a foe, there are fee options.
On the other hand, attacking Pakistan (with the current regime) before they acquire ICBMs and BEFORE they are taken over by fundos is an entirely different proposition. If we attacked Islamabomb and IF we were able to nullify as many missiles silos as possible, and IF we could shoot down almost all missiles that might get through, and IF India agreed to provide troops with which to occupy Pakistan, then maybe we are on to something. It is a very risky endeavor with many "ifs", and I don't think I need to remind you that the West has no little appetite for such danger.
The last thing that you forget is explaining to the American people where our interests lie in excuting such an attack. While I can see the need for it, it would be a hard sell for most of the West.
You have also not really discussed China's interests in the area. China: the big red country that assists Pakistan. Would China sit idly by and allow India to nullify Pakistan?
Naseem~ So you don't just hate non-muslims you also hate blonds? Well aren't you the little racist.
Ifidel Pride posted What you have here is a one sided detente - India won't strike first, since it doesn't want to be nuked, while Pakistan may, knowing that it'd do so in the cause of Islam, and would accept the martyrdom that comes with it.
The argument here is that if India and Pakistan both immolate themselves in a nuclear exchange, Pakistan will come out the "winner". As more then 90% of the Hindu population of the world resides in India. Pakistan would have destroyed an "idolatrous" nation, taking with it nearly a billion Hindus for the sacrifice of a mere 150 million muslims. In the Jihad game, this is a win. Muslims of Pakisatan will be considered collateral damage, just as the muslims who perished in the World Trade buildings on 9/11.
It is clear that for the MAD doctrine to work, India will have to formulate its detterent doctrine to take in a wider compass.
Need I remind you that "leftists" have very little power in the US at the moment?
Leftists are not merely Democrats. Leftism is not merely a matter of bodies of people subscribing to specific, concrete party platforms. Leftism is a cultural phenomenon.
Leftism holds dominant power over our culture, our worldview, even if it doesn't currently hold specific concrete governmental dominance through being a majority party.
And it is this PC Leftist culture and worldview -- infecting most liberals and many conservatives -- that is the biggest impediment to the West waking up to the problem of Islam now.
If I understand the persistent, nearly monomaniacal poster above, nothing but nothing is worth discussing here or anywhere else about Islam until we all get it into our thick skulls that something he calls "Leftism." Yes, shout it from the rooftops, proclaim it from the hills, We Have a Dream, We Have a Scheme, We Have a One-Word Answer to It All: Leftism, Leftism, Leftism, Leftism -- please fill up the page, printer, with the word Leftism until we all understand, thoroughly, completely, absolutely, so there is not the slightest possible hint of backsliding or misunderstanding or confusion on this score, because if there should be, if there is, there can not possibly be any conceivable bringing to the attention of others anything of value, anything that makes sense, anything at all about Islam and its menace, its atittudes, its tenets, its ways of controlling, its points of appeal to Infidels, its points of weakness to those within its own camp, its divisions, its potential demoralization.
No, unless each and every thread here bears a posting about "Leftism" by the poster in question, and unless each of us finally admits, cravenly, that yes, indeed, it is this thing called "Leftism" that is the source of all our woe and mental confusion and solicidute for Islam -- and not the Esdrujula Explanation that I have now offered three times in the last dozen hours, to wit:
Stupidity
Cupidity
Timidity
Rigidity
-- well then, all is lost, and the world-wide conquest of Islam is inevitable. But I prefer the Esdrujula Explanation.
Meanwhile, perhaps the poster above will learn to curb, at this website, his che-palle enthusiasm for his own "Leftism" -mania, and let us all get on with the matter at hand -- Islam.
"Oh, miseria de toda lucha por lo infinito!"
as the first line of a poem by Ruben Dario, in Cantos de vida y esperanza, puts it.
This particular "lucha por lo infinito" as conducted by this particular poster is getting on more nerves than mine, in more ways than one.
"perhaps the poster above will learn to curb, at this website, his che-palle enthusiasm for his own "Leftism" -mania, and let us all get on with the matter at hand -- Islam."
I'm not stopping "us" from getting on with the matter at hand (Islam). I'm merely calling attention to the fact that the larger Us, outside the bounds of this tiny subcommunity here, will not get on with that matter at hand as long as the L word has the upper hand.
I wouldn't even bother calling attention to that fact, were there not so much denial of it here among us.
You need not take arguments so personally Hugh. Feel free to argue against them, but don’t be upset at the author. Your always-eloquent arguments are also welcome and appreciated. However, simply putting well-written ideas to paper/web does not mean all readers will agree. Though we may disagree on some things, we are allies of sorts. We see eye to eye on some things. Perhaps I am of a different political persuasion than you are, and I can accept that. Nonetheless, differences of opinion over politics does not mean that I do not agree with the danger of Islam, or the desire to protect Christians, Jews and others from persecution which humanity must do. I agree with you one hundred percent about Islam’ danger. I don’t need to be convinced. I am a “liberal” who IS convinced. Perhaps we disagree about the exact level of danger. I see the terrorist threats very clearly, but I don’t really know what you would have us do about it. If for example, we all become devout Christians tomorrow, and even abridged the US constitution in this society, would we be magically protected from a backpack nuke set off in Seattle? I don’t believe so. If you advocate changing immigration practices, I could not agree more.
Again, disagreeing over political opinions does not mean we do not have common ground. I, like you, hate Islam. "Conservatives" need "liberals". The reverse is also true. As a “liberal”, I am doing my best to expose Islam every chance I get. I have read much of what you have written and considered it. I do not think that it is bunk, but I disagree with some of it. I concede a breakdown of PCness in our society and in many Western societies with respect to Islam. However, I do not agree with you on all of your positions. Nonetheless we can have gentlemanly discussions and there ought not be any mutual disrespect. Healthy debates are just that, healthy.
As I see it, the fundamental difference between us really be summed up in the following way:
I see Western civilization as being what it is NOW, secular. You see it as already having been lost. Most Europeans, and many Americans are probably closer to my interpretation. Thus I wish to preserve the civilization of today, whereas you appear to want to radically change it. Notions of Left and Right are simply variations within a range that is modernly accepted. In a battle with Islam, there is no greater desire on the part of the Islamists but to see our current civilization crumble, as they envy it tremendously.
Pointing political blame at political parties or groups is easy since there is so much blame to go around. For example, Pakistan got the bomb under Clinton's watch. I think Clinton was a terrible president, but not because of the stupid 40 million dollar investigation about his oral sex life, rather I hate his utterly abysmal foreign policy. But he also inherited the situation in Pakistan, from the previous administration. Bush Senior’s policy toward Iraq can hardly be viewed historically as a "victory". On the contrary, it actually enflamed the situation in Iraq. Bush Sr. also foolishly entered Somalia. Carter had the opportunity to effect change in Iran in 1979, but blow it miserably. Blame can go around and around, but we find ourselves in the situation we are in now with respect to Iran, Pakistan and the ME. I doubt we disagree on the problems in the countries I have mentioned.
As you can see, I do not take sides in a political debate. I am not a democrat or republican. Neither party is doing anything about Islam and immigration policy and I am against that because of PCness gone array. There, I admit it again. I concede that it is a terrible mistake. I write to my representatives about the issue. PCness can be dangerous when groups of people (Moslems) use it to gain demographic advantage or to conceal terrorist or seditious activities in any country in which they live. From what I am reading, Europe is at last is seeing it. When I was recently in Holland, I sensed that the Dutch are getting it. The Dutch do not want to lose the civilization that they have now. They wish to preserve it and see Moslems as threatening it. Would you replace what they have assuming they did something about the Moslems?
Remember Hugh, a "war" with Islam, is not only about bombs (although they have their place), it is about hearts and/or minds. It is not possible to destroy all Moslems, as much as it would make it logistically easier. If there is hope in this world, there is the chance some will leave the horrid religion for perhaps another religion (Zoroastrianism, Christianity etc.) or become non-believers.
I happen to think we Westerners have enviable civilizations. Sure, they are not perfect, but they are the envy of the world, are they not? So it comes to that. I want to keep the status quo in society and inform (liberals especially) about Islam. That is why I am here and that is why I send out so many emails and tell everyone I know about the evils of Islam. I would even be willing to help more, but I am but one person. That we have differences of opinion about politics should not detract from the common goal of exposing Islam. Don't you see that we are not so different, you and I?
Ud no entiendió lo que dije anteriormente. Para nosotros no es una lucha por lo infinito, esta es una batalla para mantener los derechos que tenemos ahora, que no se peirden, porqué son muy frágiles.
-Kafir
The posting immediately above confuses me. It appears to be directed to me ("Hugh" is addressed twice), as if I am the one attempting to make much of differences within the camp of Infidels. I'm doing quite the reverse. I have objected to the practice, by others, of constantly harping on the discussion of all the things one must, one is told, re-think, in order to properly perceive the menace that Islam poses to non-Muslims. The line from Ruben Dario was a borrowing, applied in not quite straightforward fashion, to those who appear to wish to struggle for, if not the Infinite, then something a good deal more elaborate than what is the common denominator, or should be, here.
To wit, recognition of the nature of a particular threat, and a desire to diminish it. I'm not about to suggest that this is the place to deplore the inclusion of Gore Vidal or Maya Angelou in a course described as "Studies in Greatness: Shakespeare, Milton, Keats, Gore Vidal, and Maya Angelou."
We know What Is Wrong With This Picture. And why. We want, here, to concentrate on other things.
Just a short comment this time. I was in Pakistan in 1985 when I was in the Navy. We were ordered not to wear our uniforms when going away from the base, a Pakistani pier zone, it was so we would not be obvious targets. Targets I had no clue why back then, but now I see.
Kafir, the left in this country is typically weaker in the area of wanting to use force against threatening powers. Or it certainly seems to take them longer to get it. I am glad that you are working on it.
Naseem, a sign of maturity is to take responsibility for your actions. So, maybe it is time for Islam to take responsibilty for it's own failures and stop blaming the west, or Jews or Christians.
Naseem, I noticed in another post that you live in Pakistan and that your postings range from the serious to the sarcastic. I will remember that when responding to your postings in the future. My friend is from Lahore and is Ahmadiya, that is why he is in the U.S. not in Pakistan. Those pesky "real" Muslims drove him out. A shame indeed.
To the poster above -- but Naseem is a self-declared Ahmadiya. No doubt envious of the friend you describe. And since Naseem, though keenly aware of the insecure position of Ahmadis in Pakistan, nonetheless exhibits standard Muslim attitudes, including the gleeful prediction that our days as Infidels are numbered.
Which brings me to a question. Are you quite sure that in all ways your friend, who apparently received asylum, has views on the Jihad, or on Muhammad, that would withstand scrutiny, or are you convinced that his being an Ahmadi is enough for you? There's a line of questioning, especially about the details of Muhammad's life (Banu Qurayza, Khaybar Oasis, Al-Hudaibiyya Treaty, Asma bint Marwan, Aisha), that would, fairly easily, help you to find out. If you prefer to let sleeping dogs, etc. -- by all means. If you are curious, however...
Kafir Nonbeliever: You indicated that the US has the power to attack Pakistan and not fear a nuclear attack since we are in another hemisphere (ICBM issues etc). While I agree with you that they probably currently lack ICBMs, you fail to see that we Americans place a greater value on life than do Islamists, probably more so than the secular Musharaf too. If Pakistan were to retaliate with nuclear attacks in Israel, Europe or perhaps even India, we would be very reluctant to attack.
Kafir N
I wasn't suggesting any attack on Pak civilian targets, as (presumably) wasn't Hugh. I was responding to his suggestion that the US support India should the latter choose to take out Pak nuclear installations. The point I was making was that as long as Pakistan has nuclear weapons (which they do), militarily it's do-able by the US, but not by India. If Pakistan's nukes (or at least nuclear launch sites in Baluchistan) are taken out, they are no longer a military threat to anybody.
On the other hand, attacking Pakistan (with the current regime) before they acquire ICBMs and BEFORE they are taken over by fundos is an entirely different proposition. If we attacked Islamabomb and IF we were able to nullify as many missiles silos as possible, and IF we could shoot down almost all missiles that might get through, and IF India agreed to provide troops with which to occupy Pakistan, then maybe we are on to something. It is a very risky endeavor with many "ifs", and I don't think I need to remind you that the West has no little appetite for such danger.
Point I mentioned above is that while Pakistan lacks ICBM's which can go around the world and strike the US, the missiles they do have from N Korea, notably the Ghouri, have a radius tha cover most of India. As a result, India cannot attack Pak military sites without risking a major retaliatory attack. Also, the hypothesis here was that such an attack would be similar to the Osirak attack by Israel in 1981, which was a one shot raid that destroyed Iraq's potential program. In this case, an attack would have to be more extensive, given that unlike Iraq, Pakistan already has nukes (according to National Geographic, Pakistan has more nukes than India, but I tend to doubt that).
Your latter comment "The West has little appetite for such danger" is more on the mark. However, that has more to do with the State Department, and its kowtowing to the Islamic world, and trying to compensate its opposition to countries like Iran by supporting other Islamic countries like KSA, Pakistan, Indonesia, et al, regardless of their policy towards infidels.
The US has a history of backing Pakistan, which is the main reason it's seen in India as being a force for Jihad. Given this perception, India won't do anything about this unless and until combating Jihad is a central core of US foreign policy.
The last thing that you forget is explaining to the American people where our interests lie in excuting such an attack. While I can see the need for it, it would be a hard sell for most of the West.
Kafir N, see my last point in my previous post - US support for Pakistan, even after 9/11, disgusted a lot of Indians and cause most to question the seriousness of the US war on terror. Those who don't are under the illusion that the US recognizes the threat of Islam.
You have also not really discussed China's interests in the area. China: the big red country that assists Pakistan. Would China sit idly by and allow India to nullify Pakistan?
In 1999, India and Pakistan fought a mini war on the Kashmir border - a war which is known as the Kargil war. In this, India held the upper hand, until the US made it clear to Pakistan not to expect any support - diplomatic or military. Gen Musharaf was the the commander of the Pak army at the time, and led the operations from his side. The US pressure meant that Nawaz Sharief, the prime minister, was forced to end the fighting for his side. Given that Musharaf was the commander of the losing side, it was a real chutzpah on his part to launch a coup that overthrew the Pakistani civilian government in 2000.
As for China, it did not itervene. If China did flex its muscle on behalf of Pakistan in such a case, it would be a threat to India. That only butresses my earlier case that only the US can take out Pakistan's nuclear sites.
It is clear that for the MAD doctrine to work, India will have to formulate its detterent doctrine to take in a wider compass. - DP111
DP111
The MAD doctrine cannot work with Islamic countries the way it did with the Communists. Reason, as Bibi Netanyahu pointed out, was that while the Communists did have an irrational goal like the Islamists, they were rational about how they executed it, and they had a will to survive, which the West could bank on. That is not there in case of the Mohammedans - they are perfectly happy to let themselves go if it means taking enough infidels with them.
Had India fallen to Islam in the last millenium during or after the 800 years of jihad, it would have been over for Asia: the Jihadists out of India would have proceeded to Burma, Thailand, SE Asia, China and eventually taken over the continent. Hindu resistance and ultimate victory in the 1700s was what started the roll back of Islamist expansion.
If the US doesn't recognize this, and acquiesces in Pakistan having nukes, a day will come when those nukes will be in the hands of Jihadists all over the place. Then Iraq would have been genuinely futile from the WMD standpoint - al Qaeda would end up with it anyway.
kafir nonB,
Please read over what you quoted from me. I wrote that the "Left" is to blame "to a great extent." This does not mean that I am blaming "only one side." In fact, I don't believe that the Left as such exists, except as a manipulated body of public opinion. There may be a few "leftists" here and there who are consistent true believers in what the Left traditionally used to stand for. But these are very few.
But why do I blame that body of opinion [including writers, intellectuals, and assorted scribblers]? I blame the Left "to a great extent" because precisely the Left used to be interested in economic factors, in who owned what and who financed what and what the workers were making and experiencing. Yet, even years ago the Left was easy on exploiters and feudal tyrants, if they were Arabs or other Muslims. Now, one expected the Left to discuss how the Foreign Tax Credit was used to enrich not only ARAMCO and its constituent companies, as well as the Saudi princes and sheiks, and their purveyors like Rafiq Hariri. But somehow Arab billionaires are not discussed as such. Leftist maniacs like mad William Blum, are apparently totally ignoring the significant ownership of means of production in the West by rich Arabs. Yes, I know that there are a lot of poor Arabs too. I've also noticed that Muslim-Arabs who are not heirs to wealth [unlike the Saudi royals] usually prosper more in the West or in West Africa for that matter, than they do in their own countries. I attribute that to their religion-cum-social-structures. Now if Blum were informed or rational, or moral, then he would oppose Arab [or other Islamic] terrorism. Sane people would not enthuse over "the Iraqi insurgency," which is more a drive to murder fellow Arabs --heretics perhaps-- than to liberate anything or anyone from occupation. Yet, one of the marking signs of the Left today is support for these jihadis in Iraq, many of them coming from well to do families in Saudi Arabia, by the way.
Now, why blame the Left [of course not only the Left]? Again, because today's Left uses the old labels, terms, and concepts [imperialism, resistance, liberation, etc] in new ways, in totally inappropriate ways, disregarding history, or the reality of Muslim society, etc. Now, Geo Bush --identified as "Right"-- follows certain policies that were once considered "Leftist." For example, in 1992, the Israeli Communist Party --named Hadash-- ran on a platform calling for "two states for two peoples" in the Land of Israel [that is, a Jewish state of Israel and an Arab state to be called "Palestine" for a spurious "palestinian people" which had never existed in history]. Today, Geo Bush calls for "two states for two peoples." Is Bush a Leftist? Did the whole world shift Left? What does the Left-Right dichotomy mean today, if anything? Is the European Union leftist or rightist? Is the EU imperialist or anti-imperialist? Is the EU liberationist?
As for the bolsheviks, who greatly influenced the thinking of what today is called the Left, they declared a pro-Islamic position way back in 1917.
See the document at this link:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/bolsheviks-for-jihad-genocide-stalins.html
Bear in mind that imperialists like Arnold Toynbee of the RIIA [royal institute of int'l affairs] were also pro-Islamic way back in the 1920s.
If it is not clear, I declare that I am not a Marxist-Leninist or any other kind of Marxist. But I do ask those who consider themselves to be such to use the Marxist concepts in conformity with what they used to be supposed to mean.
Borg:
Naseem can't like Afghani Muslims any too much either. They suffered horribly under the Soviet puppet regime. Where the US erred in its interventions is where it teamed up with the Taliban and OBL, but then I think it was inevitable that any course of action against the Soviets would help the Islamists who saw their opportunity to re-establish the Caliphate.
Pakistan will be dealt with.
Much is made of US military equipment supplies with the paks, however they fade into insignificance when you consider what is going on in terms of Indo-USA military co operation.
The US is interested in supplying the F18 to india, as well as the patriot system.
The two aountries airforces regurlary train together (may practising for that fateful day)
USAF personnel are familiarising them selves with indian procedures and vis a versa.
The USAF is training IAF search and rescue teams.
The two countries Special forces train together.
http://www.google.com/custom?q=indo+us+cooperation&sa=Google+Search&cof=LW%3A283%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.frontpagemag.com%2Fimages%2Ffp_index_logo.gif%3BLH%3A91%3BAH%3Aleft%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.frontpagemag.com%3BAWFID%3A9edb6131425a5b04%3B&domains=frontpagemag.com&sitesearch=frontpagemag.com
I don't think you Americans should worry too much about your jobs being threatened, the potential for long term cooperation will far outstrip any job losses.
The USA is willing to supply nuclear reactors to India, which will result in more American jobs being created.
Being a "BIO" (British of Indian Origin)my self has advantages for both the UK and India the land of my parents (although they live in west London)
However one thing i must mention is that when the Indian PM visited the USA it was hardly mentioned in the US media, alsi I think Americans should do more to differentiate between Indian Americans and moslems.
Go to temples and ask people of their experiences of islam, the stories will make your toes curl.
Regards
AI
Hugh you wrote to me,
Which brings me to a question. Are you quite sure that in all ways your friend, who apparently received asylum, has views on the Jihad, or on Muhammad, that would withstand scrutiny, or are you convinced that his being an Ahmadi is enough for you?
I know that he served in WWII in the British Navy and most of his family, children etc..are here. We engage in intense dialog on religious matters and have shared books with each other. I have asked him the tough questions about Islam and of course he has not recanted from their view that Mohammed was a superior prophet to Jesus. Yet! I am at this point, content to let my prayers and the words of the authors I have shared with him, work on his attitude. That is until our next discussion.
I will look into the line of questioning you mentioned.
Thanks