Mesopotamia Burning, Part III

It has been awhile since I did my last post in this series. That mainly had to do with work and school getting in the way. For an introduction to the series see Part I and for a history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East and the Iran-Iraq War see Part II. Part III covers the history of the start of the first Gulf War right up to the election of George W. Bush.

After the Iran-Iraq war, both countries were exhausted. Specifically, Iraq owed Gulf states, such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, massive amounts of money given to the country as loans, in order to fight against the Shia Muslim state of Iran.(1) On top of loans Iraq also suffered economically from the many years of war with Iran. In 1975 Iraq had 3% of its labor force in the armed forces. But, during the late 1970s and early 1980s Iraq shifted, under Hussein, from a mostly civilian economy to a mostly military economy. By 1988, when the major fighting had ended, 21% of the Iraqi labor force was in the armed forces. Also, military spending in Iraq had risen from $1 billion in 1970 (19% of GDP) to $12.1 billion in 1980 (nearly 23% of GDP) and during the period of 1981-1988 Iraq had spent 40% of its GDP, $111 billion, in military endeavors. Military spending was also outpacing Iraq’s production of oil, during the period of 1981-1988 while Iraq was spending $111 billion on the military, it only raised $72 billion in oil revenues. By the time the war had ended Iraq had an economy that was a mere shadow of its former self during the pre-war years. In 1980 the government generated $26 billion, by the near end of the war in 1988 Iraq was only generating $11 billion. To make matters worse Iraq suffered a 9% decline in its GDP in as little as two years, from 1988-1989.(2) According to Abbas Alnasrawi the decline in the Iraqi economy “constituted a severe blow to the government and forced it to adopt an austerity program of spending. But to reduce government spending in a period of sever economic crisis had the effect of worsening the crisis.”(3) Iraq was caught in between a rock and a hard place and had almost no place to go, especially since there was no hope that any of the governments in the Gulf region would ease up on their demands for repayment of loans.

Hussein began looking towards Kuwait, a country that Iraq owed millions of dollars in loan repayments to, as the solution to Iraq’s economic woes. Iraq was extremely vulnerable, a situation that benefited the U.S., and needed to boost its economy. Yet the economy had been fully militarized years before by Hussein and only continued military action could boost the economy. Kuwait also had strategic oil wells that Iraq could further use to bolster its economy. Hussein decided to invade Kuwait in July of 1990 and started amassing troops by the Kuwaiti boarder, but before he took action Hussein meet with U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie.

In the meeting Glaspie reportedly told Hussein. “We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” Hussein saw this as American backing, or at least American indifference, to his intended invasion of Kuwait.(4) The army presence, and Hussein’s threats against the Gulf states (he said the Gulf states were tools of the Western powers and that there was an intentional campaign to “impoverish Iraq’s people” by lowering oil prices), seemed to work since OPEC raised the price of oil from $18 per barrel to $21 per barrel. Yet, despite that, in August of 1990 Hussein ordered his army to invade Kuwait.(5) Justifying the invasion to the Iraqi people the deputy prime minister for the economy stated that “Iraq will be able to pay its debt in less than five years” and that “the new Iraq would have a much higher oil production quota” and “that its income from oil would rise to $38 billion; and that it would be able to vastly increase spending on development projects and imports.”(6)

In the same month that Iraq invaded, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 661, which demanded an immediate withdrawal from Kuwait. With that President George H. W. Bush started rallying nations from around the region and Europe as he began sending U.S. troops to the Gulf to prepare for an invasion. In September Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Hussein would have a “stranglehold” over the U.S., and the world, if he was able to take control of Kuwait’s and Saudi Arabia’s oil wells.(7) In November of 1990 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 678, authorizing force to ouster Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Before the U.S. lead invasion of Kuwait a “last-minute proposal was made by the French” that Iraq would pull its troops out if the U.S. agreed to propose an international conference on peace on the Middle Eastern region. The U.S. and Britain rejected this proposal with “U.S. officials saying that a peaceful Iraqi withdrawal was ‘nightmare scenario.’”(8)

The coalition forces made quick work in their fight against the Iraqi military once the air campaign began in January of 1991. “During forty-three days of war, the United States flew 109,876 sorties and dropped 84,200 tons of bombs. Average monthly tonnage of ordnance used nearly equaled that of the Second World War” and 93% “of munitions used by the allies consisted of unguided ‘dumb’ bombs, dropped primarily by Vietnam-era B-52 bombers.”(9) By February 26 Hussein ordered his troops to abandon their positions in Kuwait and return to Iraq. Instead of pursuing the Iraqi army all the way to Baghdad and overthrowing Hussein, President Bush held back.

Then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell, reluctant from the beginning to commit U.S. forces to the Gulf, said. “I took the president through the situation on the ground. I pointed out that within the next 24 hours, I would be bringing a recommendation with respect of the cessation of hostilities. The president then said, ‘Well, if that’s the case, we’re within the window. Why not end it now?’”

This was considered by many of the neoconservatives, or neo-Reaganites (as they called themselves), a huge miscalculation and that overthrowing Hussein should be the primary objective of the United States in order for the U.S. to exert its power and influence over the Gulf Region.(10)

While the victory over Iraq was an important victory for the U.S., especially during the post-Vietnam era, the fall of the Soviet Union was even more important, and changed the political landscape forever. On December 25, 1991, Secretary-General Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachyov resigned and handed over all power to the president of Russia, Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin. Wit the fall of the Soviet Union many where saying that the world had entered a new era and the threat of nuclear annihilation was no longer a factor. Also, with the end of the Cold War, said many political analysts, was the end of neoconservative policy. Yet, instead of disappearing, the neoconservative doctrine further intensified by “contending that the moment had come to create an American-dominated world order.”(11) In order for the neoconservative movement’s ideology to gain traction they needed a document that spelled out their beliefs and what they would need to do in order for America to gain complete hegemonic power. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz, was just the man to create such a document.

During the early part of 1992 Wolfowitz created a 46 page document that had been circulating in the defense department called the “Defense Planning Guidance” which was to define America’s role in a post-Cold War world.(12) The plan called for the United States to position itself in the world by using economic, diplomatic, and military means in order to remain the worlds only superpower and “to discourage [other countries] from challenging [U.S.] leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.”(13) The document also said that the U.S. should “talk loudly and carry a big stick” as well as using unilateral action when necessary.(14) While there were some within the Pentagon that agreed with the documents views many found the document abhorrent, as a result the document was leaked to the New York Times in March of 1992. In the Times article it was stated that the document’s “concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism, the strategy that emerged from World War II.”(15) The publishing of the article caused a public outcry and an undue strain on President Bush during a time when he was running for reelection. Because of this Bush ordered Cheney to personally rewrite the draft to make it more suitable to the public, as well as to many within the Pentagon who did not agree with its radical departure from traditional foreign policy goals. Because of this, the document was left on the backburner and kept in Pentagon vaults to collect dust, that is, until another president arose who agreed with the document’s policy goals.

It was obvious, however, from the start, that the newly elected President William Jefferson Clinton, was not the president to resurrect the Defense Planning Guidance. With the defeat of Bush many of the neoconservatives that had been working in Washington since Ronald Reagan (and some since President Gerald Ford, Jr.) took up jobs in public life. Then Senior Director of Soviet and Eastern European Affairs, Condoleezza Rice (who had left in 1991) returned to Stanford University to teach and to also work at the Hoover Institution. After making contacts she quickly became a board member of the oil company Chevron, and even had an oil tanker named after her, the Condoleezza Rice. Paul Wolfowitz also went back to the academic life and was appointed dean to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Cheney, after making a speech that seemed like he would never return to politics, became the president and CEO of the Haliburton Company, a top military contractor and oil services company that had many ties with the Pentagon.(16)

Clinton brought a more realist, or realpolitik, and pragmatical foreign policy to the table (as did former President George H. W. Bush), much to the dismay of the neoconservatives. Instead of focusing on regions around the world and targeting countries that would increase American hegemony and cement America as the world’s only superpower, such as Iraq and North Korea, Clinton instead focused on Somalia, Hattie, and the Balkans. In reaction to this (and for planning for the future), according to Gary Dorrien, “They tightened their hold over leading conservative think tanks,” such as the American Enterprise Institute, “and magazines, strengthened their alliances with Cheney and Rumsfled,” who had been the Secretary of Defense under Ford and had been involved in private business and other ventures since (he also introduced Cheney to Washington life), “founded The Weekly Standard magazine, and got a huge boost from the rise of the Fox network.”(17) In 1997 William Kristol, a prominent neoconservative outside of government, founded the Project for the New American Century, which called for the United States to step up its role and to make moves to further cement itself as the world’s dominant superpower and to spread American values across the globe, as well as to act militarily against other countries that challenged America’s supremacy. The following year the Project for the New American Century wrote an open letter to Clinton urging him to overthrow Hussein.

In the letter the group stated, “The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action…In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein.”(18) Obviously the neoconservatives were still interested in Iraq and still saw Iraq as a key player in furthering U.S. political power in the Middle East. While weapons of mass destruction may have been a legitimate worry for some within the group, the most important thing was the removal of Hussein because Iraq could be used as a tool to further U.S. dominance in the region, WMDs were a secondary issue (in fact, they seemed to be more of an excuse to invade than a legitimate concern for most). Those who signed the letter to Clinton were Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Richard Armitage, and John Bolton, among others.

Yet Clinton was still unreceptive to their calls. While he did sign a bill calling for the overthrow of Hussein latter on in his presidency and while he did initiate Operation Desert Fox, he did not take the type of action that the neoconservatives wanted. For that, they would need to look forward to another president.




Notes
1. Research Unit for Political Economy. “Behind the War On Iraq.” Monthly Review 55, no. 1 (May 2003): 33.
2. Alnasrawi, Abbas. “Oil, Sanctions, Debt and the Future.” Arab Studies Quarterly 23, no. 4 (Fall 2001): 5-6.
3. Alnasrawi, 6.
4. Research Unit for Political Economy, 36; Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. “An Unnecessary War.” Foreign Policy no. 134 (Jan/Feb 2003): 54.
5. Alnasrawi, 6.
6. Ibid., 6-7.
7. Klare, Michael. “The New Geopolitics.” Monthly Review 55, no. 3 (July 2003): 55.
8. Research Unit for Political Economy, 37.
9. Ibid.
10. Frontline. The War Behind Closed Doors. Prod. and dir. Michael Kirk, 60 minutes. Originally aired on PBS Feb. 20, 2003.
11. Dorrien, Gary. “Consolidating the Empire: Neoconservatism and the Politics of American Dominion.” Political Theology 6, no. 4 (Oct. 2005): 413-414.
12. Tyler, Patrick E. “U.S. Strategy Plan Calls For Insuring No Rivals Develop.” New York Times, 8 March 1992, 1.
13. Tyler, 1.
14. “Excerpts From 1992 Draft ‘Defense Planning Guidance.’ Frontline. The War Behind Closed Doors. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html (accessed Jan. 29 2007); “Chronology: The Evolution Of The Bush Doctrine.” Frontline. The War Behind Closed Doors. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html (accessed Jan. 29, 2007).
15. Tyler, 1.
16. Mann, James. Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet (New York: Penguin Books, 2004), 225, 227, 229.
17. Dorrien, 415.
18. “Chronology: The Evolution Of The Bush Doctrine.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html (accessed Jan. 29, 2007).

Image From:
Wikipedia

News Analysis: General Strikes and Chaos in Lebanon

The past two months there have been protests against the Lebanese government, especially against Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. It’s important to know what is going on in Lebanon as it is a key country to U.S. foreign policy and an important country in the region. Especially because it’s the base of Hezbollah, went through a brutal civil war and occupation during the 1980s and especially due to the recent war with Israel. These are some of the news articles I’ve read from around the world.

Middle East:

Daily Star (Lebanon)
Jan. 24, 2007
One Day Was More Than Enough
By Rym Ghazal

BEIRUT: The Hizbullah-led opposition's general strike against the government on Tuesday led to a nationwide protest that paralyzed the country and left its capital engulfed in barricades of blazing tires and bloodied by clashes that left at least three dead and over 130 wounded.

Late Tuesday, the opposition announced that it would lift its strike. Prior to the announcement, however, the man whom the crippling protest was aimed at unseating - Prime Minister Fouad Siniora - issued a brief, firm address to the nation in which he stood his ground and announced he would remain in office, even as the country appeared to be drawing to the verge of another civil war...(Read More)

Daily Star (Lebanon)
Jan. 26, 2007
Rival Mobs Plunge Beirut Into Anarchy
By Iman Azzi and Rym Ghazal

BEIRUT: Clashes erupted between government loyalists and opposition supporters in Lebanon on Thursday, escalating swiftly and leaving at least three dead and 158 others wounded by the time a rare curfew was imposed on the city at 8:30 p.m. Scenes across the capital were reminiscent of the country's brutal 1975-1990 Civil War; burning cars, reports of snipers on rooftops and a curfew for the first time since 1996.

Thirteen Lebanese Army soldiers, including four officers, were also wounded while trying to defuse the violence that spilled over from a political argument on a university campus in Tariq al-Jdideh...(Read More)

Al Jazeera (Qatar)
Jan. 25, 2007
Curfew Follows Fatal Beirut Clashes
By Al Jazeera and Agencies

A curfew has been declared in Beirut after four students were reported killed as rival groups of pro and anti-government students fought a pitched battle at a university, leaving at least 35 others wounded.

The curfew, from 8.30pm (1830 GMT) until dawn on Friday, was declared by the Lebanese army following hours of violence in the capital...(Read More)

Middle East Times (Egypt)
Jan. 25, 2007
Donors Pledge $7.6 Bn In Aid to War-Scarred Lebanon
By Agencies France-Presse

PARIS -- International donors Thursday pledged more than $7.6 billion in aid for Lebanon to bolster the Western-backed government in Beirut and help the country recover from war.

Saudi Arabia, the United States, France, and multilateral lenders led the drive to raise the massive aid package at a donors' conference for Lebanon, which was partly ruined during the July-August war between Hezbollah and Israel...(Read More)

South Asia:

News International (Pakistan)
Jan. 26, 2007
Respect Curfew, Says Nasrallah

BEIRUT: Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah urged his followers on Thursday to respect the orders of the Lebanese army which declared an overnight curfew after violent street protests.

“We are using a Fatwa in the interests of the country and civil peace... everyone should evacuate the streets, remain calm and leave the stage for the Lebanese army and security forces,” he said...(Read More)

Southern Africa:

Mail & Guardian (South Africa)
Jan. 25, 2007
Beirut Clashes Leave Students Dead

At least two students were shot dead and 35 others wounded in Beirut street fighting on Thursday between students loyal to the government and opposition supporters, a security source said.

Opposition-run television station NBN put the death tally from the fighting, which spilled over from the Arab University campus, at four, including two students. But the security source could not confirm this...(Read More)

Europe:

U.K. Guardian
Jan. 26, 2007
Four Dead, 35 Wounded in Beirut Violence
By Clancy Chassay

A three-hour battle between opposition and government supporters at a Beirut university yesterday left at least four students dead and 35 wounded, in a sign of Lebanon's deepening political crisis.

The army, which struggled to keep the two sides apart by firing into the air, declared a curfew last night in an attempt to end further skirmishes. Opposition and government leaders urged supporters to stay off the streets...(Read More)

Der Spiegel (Germany)
Jan. 23, 2007
General Strike in Lebanon: Violence in Lebanon as Opposition Aims to Topple Government

Previously-peaceful protests in Lebanon aimed at toppling the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora took a violent turn Tuesday at the start of a general strike in the country.

Thousands of opposition supporters blocked main roads in the capital Beirut and around the country with rubble and burning tires early Tuesday morning as a general strike aimed at toppling the government began. In addition, at least 14 people have sustained gunshot wounds in central and northern Lebanon in addition to a number of fistfights and other violence, according to police reports. Several have been injured in scuffles in Beirut, particularly in Christian areas...(Read More)

Le Monde (France)
Jan. 25, 2007
In Beirut, the Curfew Was Raised Without Incident

An hour after the lifting the curfew in Beirut on Friday, calm reigned in the capital where confrontations between partisans of the opposition and the government claimed the lives of three and wounded more that 152. Circulation was fluid in the middle of the Lebanese capital with some trade being opened for the day. In the district of Zokak Al-Blat, only the presence of dismantled roadblocks of refuse, as armored tanks of the army rolled by the crossroads, recalled the violent clashes of the day before. Grocers and bakeries raised their iron curtains as the district still slept, all of the schools of Beirut will remain closed until Monday…(Read More)

North America:

New York Times Jan. 25, 2007 Beirut University Dispute Escalates Into Rioting, Killing 4 By Nada Bakri and Hassan M. Fattah

Beirut - Violence erupted in Beirut on Thursday for the second time in three days, as an altercation in a university cafeteria escalated into rioting and gunfire.

The army declared a rare night curfew throughout the city amid fears that Lebanon’s two-month political crisis had entered a violent phase...(Read More)

Chicago Tribune
Jan. 25, 2007
Lull in Deadly Beirut Battles
By Megan K. Stack

BEIRUT -- By the time morning commuters headed off to work Wednesday, the fires had been snuffed out. The roadblocks had melted away. The rampaging youths who were burning cars and choking off the nation's roads seemed to have evaporated.

As quickly as they mobilized a vast network of demonstrators to lay siege to much of the country, Hezbollah and its anti-government allies pulled Lebanon back from a day of sectarian tensions and street fights by calling off a general strike...(Read More)

Image From:
New York Times

Indian Left, Caste and the Dalits

By Bhupinder Singh

I asked Bhupinder Singh to write a guest post for me to complement my series on "The Oppression of Shudras/Dalits in India." Part 1 was the introduction to the series, Parts 2, 3, and 4 were based on a Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM) report on the situation of Dalits in India and Parts 5 and 6 were written by me on a Hindu Liberationist Dalit issues.

I asked Bhupinder to write a blog on the situation of the left in India and the left's interactions with Dalit issues.

Bhupinder Singh is the author of a reader's words which is a very perceptive and excellent blog that mainly focuses on Indian affairs. He also is an editor for Blogbharti which "is an aggregator that brings to you the best of the Indian blogosphere."

The views and opinions expressed in this essay do not necessarily reflect those of the creator of this blog and are the sole responsibility of the author. Essays expressing opinions similar to and counter to those of the creator of this blog are strictly for diversity and to start thoughtful and meaningful discussion.

(Thanks to Jack for inviting to write this guest post)

The Indian Left has had a troubled association with the caste question.

The major reason, in case of the Left has been the over arching importance that Marxism has attached to class and class conciousness. This has been true of the Marxist Left which includes the original and later CPI, the CPM and even most of the Maoist formations. The socialist parties, specially under Ram Manohar Lohia and to a lesser extent Acharya Narendra Dev acknowledged the issue of caste since the fifties though from the backward caste, and not a Dalit perspective.

This post, however, focuses on the relationship between the Marxist Left and Dalit politics.

The class based approach of the Marxist Left gave little importance to caste, and even saw it as an impediment for growth of class consciousness. It's mass fronts consisted of the trade unions, the peasant associations, landless agricultural workers. Outside these class based fronts were those for women, students and the cultural wing (the famous Indian People's Theater Association).

No scope was seen for a Dalit or any other caste based association. In fact, when the DS4 of Kanshi Ram began to grow in the 1980s, it was seen, even by those cadres in the existing communist parties who came from a Dalit background, as reactionary and dangerous- since these threatened to break the unity of the class based fronts along casteist lines. At no time, till the Mandal Commission forced it to take a firm stand, did the Indian Left see centrality of the caste question in India.

Within the CPI and the CPM, the leadership has been, even till recently, primarily drawn from the Brahmins or the local dominant castes, with very few exceptions. Neither have these parties made any conscious attempt to bring cadre from the Dalit strata into leadership positions. Instead, they have recreated in their internal structures the imbalances of society.

This is not to deny the fact that they have also been relatively less susceptible to casteism, and many among their cadre continue to be within these parties because of the relative absence of casteism within these parties in comparison with others. This is especially so where Dalit movement has been weak or non- existent.

In comparison with some other countries, the Indian communists' participation and acceptance of parliamentary politics has been long and unquestionable. However the stress of political action also blunted the social and mass based actions that these parties should have been involved in.

This came out very clearly when, after the CPI(M) Congress in 1998, in reply to a question as to why the Left had failed to strike roots in Uttar Pradesh, the then party General Secretary H.S. Surjeet explained the reasons thus:

"There has been no social reform movement in the state".

This surely is a case of putting the cart before the horse, since for those on left of the political spectrum, reforms are only a part of a much more comprehensive radical agenda. The task of the left is to carry out changes that go beyond reforms and not wait for others to carry out the job. Surjeet's words raise an existential question for the CPI(M).

Another reason of this dichotomy between the Left and the Dalit movement has been that Dr. Ambedkar, by far the most towering leader of the Dalit movement if not its only one till the rise of Kanshi Ram, had been an opponent of Marxism. His focus remained the social upliftment of the Dalits and as a politician his sensibilities honed in English liberalism restricted his view. W.N. Kuber puts it thus:

In 1937, (Ambedkar) founded the Independent Labour Party, for sometime joined hands with the communists in the labor field but did not take consistent attitude and fight class battles. Though his community was downtrodden and landless and mostly wage- earners, still he could not make them class- conscious, because of the weakness in his inherent thinking. After the Poona Pact he tried to lead the working class, but failed and left the field forever, and chose to become the leader of his community.

(source: Ambedkar: A Critical Study by W.N. Kuber, 1973. Page 304)

His insistence on Buddhism as an alternative to Marxism also did not help to build bridges.

Buddhistic countries that have gone over to communism do not understand what communism is. Communism of the Russian type aims at bringing it about by a bloody revolution. The Buddhist communism brings it about by a bloodless revolution. The South East Asians should give a political form to Buddha's teaching.... Poverty cannot be an excuse for sacrificing human freedom.

(Source: Ambedkar, Life and Mission, page 487, quoted in Kuber).

To the over arching importance that Dr. Ambedkar gave to conversion as a salvation for the Dalits (then called the Depressed Classes), the scholarly CPI leader Hiren Mukerjee commented:

But merely by changing one's religion, one cannot bring a solution, particularly to the kind of problem that we have in our country. That is why I say the conversion to Buddhism was a gesture, a moral gesture, with certain conceptual connotations of its own. Buddhism is a magnificent religion, but somehow it was eased out of India. If by some miracle, Buddhism is brought back again, well and good. But things do not happen in real life like that.

(source: Hiren Mukerjee: Gandhi, Ambedkar and the Extirpation of Untouchability, page 46, quoted in Kuber)

If the Left parties are more sensitive to the caste question in recent years, it is because of the battle lines that were drawn in the aftermath of the Mandal Commission and also because of the political base that caste based parties, especially the Bahujan Samaj Party have been to create for themselves. While these made a dent in the following of all existing parties, the ones specially impacted were the Congress and the Left.

The second reason is the recognition of near absolute identity of the Dalits as one of the more oppressed sections in the country. Earlier observers, even among the most radicals ones, disdained this. Groomed in the modernist, Nehruvian framework in the backdrop of global appeal of Marxism, the caste factor was pushed under the carpet. It was even seen as an obstacle in establishing class-consciousness.

This has now changed, and rightly so. The communists and the Dalit movement share a complementary role. While the Dalit movement has articulated the social and political aspirations of the oppressed community, it has lacked a firm economic program, with the result that once power is gained (in Uttar Pradesh, for example), the lack of a class based theoretical perspective restricts it to either parliamentary politics or the perspective, often narrow, of a single leader. A Marxist understanding and placing the Dalit movement within a larger national and world wide struggle for emancipation complements this social and political approach.

It is not that this has not been attempted, it was there during the brief existence of the Dalit Panthers Movement in the 1970s before its disintegration. It was also there in the approach of Sharad Patil who broke away from the CPM to form the Satyashodak Communist Party in Maharastra in the 1980s.

Given the ossification in the dominant Left, however, this dialogue will have to be initiated by the cadre of the Dalit movement and independent Marxists.

Somalia: A History of U.S. Interventions

By Anand Gopal

This was an article I read at the MR Zine about U.S. involvement in Somalia. This can also bring into focus the recent U.S. airstrikes in Somalia against Islamic insrugents.

Anand Gopal is a doctoral student in physics at the University of Pennsylvania.

The views and opinions expressed in this essay do not necessarily reflect those of the creator of this blog and are the sole responsibility of the author. Essays expressing opinions similar to and counter to those of the creator of this blog are strictly for diversity and to start thoughtful and meaningful discussion.

There's a woman -- some call her "Black Hawk Down" lady -- who lives in a packed, squalid neighborhood in the middle of Mogadishu and runs a rather simple but grisly museum. For under a dollar, visitors can view her prized possession, the mangled, mud-splattered nose of a US Black Hawk helicopter that was shot down during the American intervention in Somalia thirteen years ago. The wreckage, quite popular among Somalis and foreigners alike, serves as a macabre memento of the decades of civil war that have raged on Somali soil. But more than anything, this strange little museum in the heart of Mogadishu reminds one of the constant, often disastrous foreign interventions into Somali affairs. As US-backed Ethiopian troops occupy Mogadishu and American helicopters fire at targets in southern Somalia, the time is ripe for a reexamination of the US role in the region.

The Mayor of Mogadishu

American involvement in Somalia began as early as World War II, when the US rejected the British-sponsored consolidation of all areas with Somali majority (including the Ethiopian territory of Ogaden, but excluding areas in northern Kenya, then under British control) into a Somali state. The US, eager to protect the territory and rule of their strong ally Haile Selassie in Ethiopia, instead fashioned a partitioningthat has defined the politics of the region ever since. Eritrea was placed under federation with Ethiopia, while Somalis were dispersed among Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya and the Republic of Somalia, which gained independence in 1960. The consequences were calamitous; Eritrea's amalgamation with Ethiopia sparked an increasingly bloody thirty-year battle for independence, while the goal of a Greater Somalia fueled rapacious irredentist wars over the next fifty years.

With unwavering US support of Selassie's monarchy in Ethiopia, the USSR increasingly turned towards Somalia, and the Horn of Africa became a critical theater for the Cold War. Siad Barre's coup in 1969 ushered in "scientific socialism" and attracted even more Soviet assistance, and in 1975 the US lost influence in Ethiopia following the overthrow of Haile Selassie and the monarchy. By the late Seventies, the Russians shifted support away from Somalia and began underwriting Mengistu's brutal regime in Ethiopia. No sooner had the Russians left than the US sought to bring Somalia into its sphere.

The Carter administration was quick to declare that Somalia should become "a friend." Befriending Somalia, however, meant supporting the severely repressive Barre regime, with its dismal human rights record and penchant for causing regional wars. Barre packed the government with members of his Mareheen clan, tortured and summarily executed opponents, silenced critics, outlawed opposition parties, crushed freedom of the press, and employed a feared secret police. Barre also exacerbated existing clan divisions by habitually playing various clans off one another.

Carter easily forgot the rhetoric of being a "human rights president" whenever strategic interests were involved. Somalia, a sparsely populated desert nation with few natural resources, nonetheless lies in a vitally strategic position at the mouth of the Red Sea. The port of Berbera overlooks sea routes between the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. US presence in Berbera, together with the southern port of Kismayu, would ensure control over the flow of Mid East oil. Moreover, American officials understood that the Somali ports could provide key bases in the attempt to neutralize nearby Soviet presence and defend US interests in the Persian Gulf (indeed, Berbera was used as an intermediate deployment base during the first Gulf War). Carter pledged military and financial aid in return for control of Berbera and other bases. Foreign multinationals, including four major oil companies, were quick to win concessions. The US, fearing a direct confrontation with Soviet troops, also insisted that Barre withdraw Soviet troops from Ogaden in Ethiopia, which became a sticking point in Somali-US negotiations.

The Islamic Revolution in Iran and the concomitant loss of a base in the Indian Ocean convinced officials to finalize the deal; thus one of the Reagan Administration's first acts was to move US troops and weapons into Berbera and send over $40 million in military aid to the Barre government. Somalia quickly became a US client state. In subsequent years the US delivered an average of $80 million in economic and military aid per year (through 1987), topping $115 million in 1984 and 1985. Somalia became one of the leading recipients of US military assistance in all of Africa in the eighties, and received almost $700 million in overall aid during the decade. In addition to US support, Barre enjoyed assistancefrom Italy, West Germany, China, and South Africa. Barre employed much of this aid to fight Ethiopia over the Ogaden region and to suppress resistance movements within the country. He used massive aerial bombardment of the north to crush Somali resistance fighters, killing and displacing thousands in the process. However, Barre was unable to contain the growing insurgency, fueled by widespread hatred of his regime. Moreover, by the late eighties, Somalia's strategic importance began to wane as Moscow's influence in the region decreased and Saudi and Egyptian compliance with the US increased. By 1990, Barre had almost no support inside or outside the country, except for continued American logistical support, small-scale economic support, and military training. The extent of the rebellion and civil war was so widespread that Barre had little authority outside of the capital Mogadishu, an ignominious fact that earned him the derisory moniker "the Mayor of Mogadishu." Barre's power slipped rapidly, and he was finally overthrown by a coalition of guerilla groups in early 1991. Somalia has not seen a central government since.

Black Hawk Down

The Somalia of US and Barre's creation was one of shambles. It was a nation of refugees, with over 40% of the population classified as such at any given time. The country's political structure was nonexistent, with bandits and guerillas roaming and controlling the lawless countryside. Inflation soared, the formal economy collapsed, and there was no national banking system to speak of. Most of the population owned weapons and were ready to pledge allegiance to whichever forces could provide stability and protection. Clan divisions, which Barre so ruthlessly exploited, gave birth to independent and armed factions fighting for regional and local control. By 1992, widespread famine and drought devastated the country. Years of economic mismanagement, cronyism, graft, war, and repression, under Barre's direction and with the sometimes tacit, sometimes explicit support of the US, had taken their toll. Yet, with the Western media dutifully supplying decontextualized images of emaciated Somali children, the US began the steady drumbeat of intervention. The worst of the famine and drought passed in the summer, and the situation steadily improved towards the close of the year. Nonetheless, in December 1992, Washington launched "Operation Restore Hope," with the mandate of "creating a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian relief." And thus began the US's greatest military defeat in twenty years.

The intervention in Somalia, together with the first Gulf War, was actually the opening salvo of a battle of a different kind. This was a battle against the prevalent public perception, since Vietnam, that US force should be used sparingly, if at all. The Somali intervention marked the first in a series of "humanitarian interventions," designed to render open, substantial intervention and even war once again fit for public consumption. Indeed, as then Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense for Africa Affairs revealed, a plan for a smaller, more aid-oriented intervention was scrapped because "it failed to meet the US military's new insistence on the application of massive, overwhelming force." Intervention would also provide a sorely needed stability for US business interests in the region, especially the four major oil companies with concessions in the country. Sure enough, during the US stay in Somalia the new US embassy operated from the compounds of oil multinational Conoco.

The Americans, connected in many Somalis' minds with the detested Barre dictatorship, did little to win friends. In June of 1993, US and UN forces attacked a civilian hospital with over 500 occupants. In July, US helicopters fired into a meeting of political, religious, and clan leaders, killing 54. In September, American forces opened fire into a crowd, killing over 50 civilians. Other UN troops' hands were unclean as well. Belgian soldiers engaged in hundreds of incidents of rape, torture, and murder. Canadian troops frequently used unnecessary force, killing scores of civilians. Malaysian, Pakistani, French, Nigerian, and Tunisian forces were all accused of vandalism, property destruction, and civilian attacks. It is only in this context that the famous events of 3 October, where eighteen US rangers were killed and one captured, are sensible. The violent Somali reaction, flashed across television screens worldwide and later fictionalized in Black Hawk Down, was built upon a searing hatred for repeated US and international intervention in local affairs. What the news clips failed to show, however, was the Americans' disproportionably violent reaction in which hundreds of Somalis were murdered.

The War on Terror

US intervention in Somalia ended in disaster for all sides concerned; as American forces sped away from Somalia, tail firmly between legs, Somalia continued its precipitous descent into anarchy and chaos. Various warlords and clans parceled Somalia between themselves, and civilians often bore the brunt of internecine fighting. In 1999, the most influential warlords made the first attempts at forming a national transitional government (TNG); Ethiopia (and by extension, the US) withdrew support, however, and soon the effort lost its feet. Ethiopians preferred to support a transitional government in which it could play a more influential role, and after 2000 Addis Ababa and Washington both supported the rival Somalia Restoration and Reconciliation Council (SRRC).

Under Siad Barre's tightly controlled regime, mosques and religious figures were often the only source of uncensored information. Under such conditions the population turned increasingly to political Islam, and, by the mid-eighties, al Ittihad al Islami established themselves as the foremost Islamist organization. By the mid-nineties, a warlord alliance headed by Abdilliahi Yusef and Ethiopia (anxious to quell its own restive Muslim population) succeeded in partially crushing al Ittihad. In the process, parts of al Itthad dissolved into a series of independent Islamic courts, courts that would -- under the banner of law and order -- eventually unify as the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) and take power in June of 2006. Yusef, on the other hand, began a long and fruitful collaboration with Ethiopia and the US. Yusef was at the head of an Ethiopian-backed effort to unite the TNG, SRRC, and other factions, culminating in the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of 2004.

The US, for its part, views Somalia as a major theatre of the War on Terror. When a group of regional warlords with a sense of marketability formed the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism (ARPCT), the US was quick to provide funding. The Bush administration has frequently levied the charge that the UIC has ties to al Qaeda, an accusation that the warlords are only too happy to trumpet. The US-backed ARPCT fought in bloody clashes with the UIC in May of 2006, leaving hundreds dead. The UIC managed to capture Mogadishu in June, and almost immediately UIC leaders accused Ethiopian troops of crossing the border. The US began to meet regularly with Ethiopian officials and by late 2006 gave the go-ahead for the Ethiopian invasion and occupation of Somalia, with Yusef's TFG as the sponsored government. The TFG has an extremely weak base in Somalia, most notably in the capital city, and most likely cannot survive without direct Ethiopian intervention and indirect US support (a fact which Yusef clearly recognizes -- he is demanding that Ethiopian troops remain in Somalia for months).

As US AC-130s target suspected al Qaeda fighters in southern Somalia and scores lie dead in the bombers' wake, Somalis' oppression under imperialism and misgovernment seems destined to play on repeat. Moreover, Washington's repeated overtures to the least popular in Somalia -- dictators like Barre and warlords like Yusef -- ensure that anti-Americanism will continue to do well in Somali hearts and minds. As the US strives to make Somalia safe for multinationals, the Somali horizon looks bleak indeed. But perhaps some will find a silver lining; deep in the heart of Mogadishu, the Black Hawk Down lady will continue to have steady profits, and possibly even more souvenirs, for years to come.

Image From:
Washington Post

News Analysis: Bush's Iraq Plan

President Bush recently gave an address to the United States about “new” strategies for the Iraq war. Immediately people from around the world voiced their opinions about whether his plan would work or not. Most opinion in the U.S. was negative, even from his own Republican base, such as Kansas Senator Brownback, who is by no means a liberal Republican. Whether or not Bush’s plans will work is yet to be seen but it’s safe to say that in all likelihood the plans will most likely fall short of their stated objective. While I see the prudent and wise arguments that pulling troops out of Iraq will lead to a bloodbath (all though that bloodbath is going on as we speak) and will make Iraq a haven for terrorists even more than it is, at the same time, will leaving troops in Iraq make a difference at all? It seems to me that the point America is in right now was the point we were in with Vietnam during the period between 1967-1968. Back then it was argued that if we pulled troops out it would lead to a domino effect and that communism would overtake all of Southeast Asia. Yet the cost for keeping our troops there was also high. In the end the U.S. ended up pulling out, which lead many to state that if they ended up pulling out fully in 1975 why not have pulled out when it was being argued that it would have been wise to pull out, such as in1967. With Iraq it seems that there is really only two realistic choices: (1) either stay in Iraq and try and quell the violence, which will most likely not work, and end up staying in the country for another decade or so. And even if we end up choosing that option we will end up pulling out regardless, and it will more than likely be a pull out due to the situation in Iraq getting so bad that there was no choice but to pull out. Or, (2) we pull out troops now while we still can. Yet if we pull out troops now there will always be that “what if” nagging at the back of many peoples minds, such as “What if we had stayed in Iraq? Would the full brink civil war have been avoided?” I believe that if we do end up staying in the country it will be at the costs of many Iraqi and U.S. lives and that in the end, we will have to pull out due to ever increasing violence. Below is a selection of news articles and editorials from around the world on Bush’s Iraq speech.

North America:

Christian Science Monitor
Jan. 12, 2007
Bush's Iraq Plan: Is It Enough?
By Howard LaFranchi
WASHINGTON – The first of 21,500 additional American troops are set to arrive in Iraq as early as next week - a prospect that could allow President Bush to blunt congressional opposition to his new plan while reassuring allies in the region that the US is not about to give up the fight.

But what had been billed ahead of Mr. Bush's speech as a major strategy shift is turning out to be more a set of tactical adjustments for addressing Iraq's deteriorating security...(Read More)

Los Angeles Times
Jan. 15, 2007
Bush's Plan to Add Troops Fueling Iraq Insurgency, Sunni Scholar Says
By Borzou Daragahi
MMAN, JORDAN — President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq has inflamed passions among the restive Sunni Arab minority, bringing new recruits to insurgent cells and outpourings of popular anger toward the U.S., the spokesman for the country's most hard-line Sunni clerical group declared Sunday.

"Iraq is like a fire," said Mohammed Bashar Faidi, spokesman for the Muslim Scholars Assn. "Instead of putting water on the fire, Bush is pouring gasoline."...(Read More)

New York Times
Jan. 14, 2007
Picking Up the Pieces
Editorial

It was surreal how disconnected President Bush was the other night, both from Iraq’s horrifying reality and America’s anguish over this unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable war. Indeed, most Americans seem far ahead of the president. They understand that what the country urgently needs is for Mr. Bush to chart a way out of Iraq that also limits the chaos that will be left behind.

The president’s disconnect goes far to explain the harshly critical reaction of Congress and the public to his plan to further bleed America’s overstretched forces by sending some 20,000 additional troops in an attempt to impose peace on Baghdad’s vengeful streets. He proposes to do that without any enforceable commitments from the Iraqi government that it will take the necessary political steps that are the only hope for tamping down a spiraling civil war...(Read More)

Washington Post
Jan. 12, 2007
Fight and Talk
Editorial
PRESIDENT BUSH promised in his speech Wednesday night to "use America's full diplomatic resources" in support of his new plan to stabilize Iraq. But the tour of the region that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is beginning today looks like a sideshow. Ms. Rice will talk with Israelis and Palestinians and meet with ministers from Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states; her idea, she told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, is "to work with those governments that share our idea of where the Middle East should be going." Since that excludes two of Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria, as well as the two countries that now stand in the way of progress in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- again, Iran and Syria -- it's hard to see how her diplomacy can accomplish much...(Read More)

Middle East:

Middle East Online
Jan. 15, 2007
Top U.S. Officials: No Gurantee of Baghdad Success
BAGHDAD - A new US plan to boost American forces and secure Baghdad will target Iranian and Syrian networks in Iraq but its success is not guaranteed, top US officials said in the Iraqi capital on Monday.

The plan presented by US President George W. Bush last week has "no guarantees of success and it's not going to happen overnight," General George Casey acknowledged...(Read More)

Daily Star (Lebanon)
Jan. 12, 2007
Bush Admits Mistakes in the Past But Signs on for More in the Future
Editorial
In the earliest days of the invasion of Iraq, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who has recently been appointed as the top US military commander in Iraq, would repeatedly pose a riddle to a Washington Post reporter embedded in his unit: "Tell me how this ends." Four years later, the answer to Petraeus' puzzle remains as elusive as it was in the earliest days of war.

US President George W. Bush has again suggested that Iraqis will witness a happy ending to the four-year war. The president has unveiled a "new way forward" for Iraq, a strategy that draws heavily, although not entirely, from a field manual on counterinsurgency prepared by Petraeus. The manual wisely advises that battling insurgents requires the kind of patience and intelligence hitherto unseen in US military strategies...(Read More)

Haaretz (Israel)
Jan. 15, 2007
U.S. Says It Will "Go After" Iran, Syria Networks in Iraq
BAGHDAD - The United States plans to "go after" what it said were networks of Iranian and Syrian agents in Iraq, U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Monday.

"We're going after their networks in Iraq," he told a news conference, as he laid out the new U.S. and Iraqi strategy to end sectarian violence at what Khalilzad called a "defining moment" for Iraq...(Read More)

Europe:

UK Guardian
Jan. 12, 2007
"America Is No Longer In the Driving Seat"
By Ian Black and Michael Howard
Iran and Syria both angrily denounced the US plan to send more troops to Iraq, complaining it would only prolong the "occupation" and extend insecurity in the country and the wider Middle East. But there was official silence coupled with signs of popular hostility in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, America's closest Arab allies. No one foresaw a US success.

With US-Iranian tensions running high after the arrest of Iranian diplomats by US forces in Kurdistan yesterday, Tehran stuck to its script in condemning George Bush's new approach. Syria, Iran's only Arab ally, followed suit. "Bush's strategy will be another catastrophe and the Iraqi people will be the only loser," predicted the state-run Syrian paper Tishrin. The country's vice-president, Farouk al-Sharaa, had already warned that the troop surge would only "pour oil on the fire"...(Read More)

Moscow Times
Jan. 17, 2007
Saudis Back U.S. Troop Increase
By Andrew Hammond (Rueters)

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- Saudi officials told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday that Arab countries were ready to back a U.S. plan to stabilize Iraq, but that success was the responsibility of the Iraqi government.

"We agree fully with the goals set by the new strategy, which in our view are the goals that -- if implemented -- would solve the problems that face Iraq," Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said at a joint news conference...(Read More)

South Asia:

Dawn (Pakistan)
Jan. 17, 2007
No End to Bush War Blues
By Mahir Ali
LAST month, the executioners of Saddam Hussein pulled off a small miracle when they succeeded in inducing a brief twinge of sympathy for the doomed dictator. Last week, some people found it hard not to feel at least a tiny bit sorry for another mass murderer as he stood there in the White House, determinedly digging himself deeper into a hole that no sensible person would have stepped into in the first place.

There was more than a hint of desperation last Wednesday in one of the most anticipated pronouncements of George W. Bush’s pathetic presidency. The gist of his 20-minute oration had been leaked by the White House over the preceding couple of weeks, so everyone knew about the coming surge, although the presidential speechwriters calculatedly left out that catchword. Nor did Bush mention the purge leading up to the surge, whereby the main military and civilian figures in charge of the occupation have been replaced. He concentrated instead on supplementing a dirge about the possibility of defeat with an overture to the Sunni side of the street...(Read More)

Times of India
Jan. 15, 2007
Give Alternative Iraq Plan, Bush Dares Critics
By Associated Press
WASHINGTON: US president Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers sceptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad. "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.

In a pitch to lawmakers and the American people, Bush said the US will keep the onus on the Iraqi government to take charge of security and reach a political reconciliation. He countered Democrats and his fellow Republicans who argue that Bush is sending 21,500 more US troops into Iraq on the same mission...(Read More)

Pacific:

New Zealand Herald
Jan. 16, 2007
This Plan Will Be Different, Says US Chiefs in Iraq
By Claudia Parsons

BAGHDAD - Washington's top general and diplomat in Iraq conceded today that past experience might breed doubts about a new US-backed Iraqi security plan for Baghdad but they insisted this time will be different.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shi'ite Islamist, announced the plan a week ago and President Bush has pledged 21,500 extra troops, most for Baghdad, saying the plan's success will "in large part determine the outcome in Iraq"...(Read More)

Sydney Morning Herald
Jan. 11, 2007
Howard Briefed on New Strategy
By Cynthia Banham

THE Prime Minister, John Howard, has been given a privileged presidential briefing on the new US plan for Iraq, but has been spared a demand from Washington to contribute more troops to the military effort.

George Bush shared his revised strategy with Mr Howard in a telephone conversation yesterday morning. They spoke for 20 minutes, a spokesman for Mr Howard said, and Mr Bush gave the Prime Minister "an assessment of the situation in Iraq"...(Read More)

Fundamentalist Christianity as Proxy to Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad, Part II

Because of all of these factors that I have stated in Part I Usama Bin Laden, and other like minded Jihadist leaders, have been able to create a popular following in the Middle East (and at the least, a tolerance to their actions and justifications).

Usama Bin Laden has stated:

These men [the September 11th hijackers] understood that jihad for the sake of God is the way to establish right and defeat falsehood. They understood that jihad for the sake of God is the way to deter the tyranny of the infidels...These men sought to prepare a response fo the Day of Reckoning. Faith in God and the Hereafter and emulating the traditions of Mohammed, may God’s peace be upon him, is what prompted them to leave their homes...So the case is easy, America will not be able to leave this ordeal unless it leaves the Arabian Peninsula, and stops involvement in Palestine, and all the Islamic world...[Because of] Bush’s actions the equation won’t be solved until the swords fall on their heads, with the permission of God.

Usama Bin Laden (in the eyes of the Jihadist Islamist) isn’t saying anything that is completely abhorrent to the society they are in and he isn’t saying something that couldn’t be justified by the Christian Bible if he was to use it for his spiritual and religious justifications. So coming from a Fundamentalist Christian perspective one would be able to wage a “Holy” war against a theoretical super power that was seen to commit atrocities against Christians every day and one could use the Bible to justify the means of violence (especially if one interpreted the Biblical passages above with a Fundamentalist slant). Hereupon we will now look at some quotes from Fundamentalist Christian preachers and from people who view the world in a Fundamentalist Christian slant. First we will look at the Baptist Reverend Jerry Falwell and his views of the world and of America:

The Bible is the inerrant...word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all manners pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science history, etc...We have never been so prosperous. Yet, we have never been so secular and pagan. We are becoming both amoral and immoral. We are making secularism our national religion. The government and the courts have become, not neutral to religion as the Founders intended, but openly hostile to Christianity. And as we look with sadness at our internal demise, we cannot any longer ignore that external enemies are growing. This administration has given our military and nuclear secretes to the Chinese and they to other American foes. We have been victimized by traitorous behavior on the part of our leaders.

Falwell is essentially taking the same view as Usama Bin Laden. Numerous times Bin Laden has stated the inerrant word of God is infallible in all things and he has used Islam as a focal point in his political attacks against the Saudi government. Bin Laden has stated that the Saudi government has become hostile to Islam and that it’s internal demise is due to the fact that it’s leaders opened up it’s borders to Western (i.e. infidel) occupation by allowing Western oil companies and an American military presence within it’s borders and by lending out it’s help to the “Zionist” American enemy and that faithful Muslims must take action. Essentially, Falwell, with his views as such, he is just as justified in using violence and war for his agenda as Bin Laden is in the Fundamentalist Christian perspective (of coarse, the way American history has worked itself out and in part with the way Europe brought itself from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance to Enlightenment, Falwell doesn’t take a stance for violence, but the way his theology works, and from the Biblical examples I’ve used above, he would be justified). Now we will look at the Virginia based televangelist Pat Robertson.

In 1992 Pat Robertson was quoted in the Washington Post saying:

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.

In many Islamic countries in the Middle East and Southeast Asia women are not treated as equals to their male counterparts, mainly because of pre-Islamic traditions and because of Islamic Sharia law. And in many of those countries when woman have tried to demand equal rights (such as in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan) they have been called heretics who are against the word of God and have been punished. Like Robertson, many fundamentalist Muslims believe that feminist are a menace to society and that they are against their value system. Robertson also uses the socialist accusation against feminists because socialists are seen as atheistic anarchists whom are against capitalism (capitalism being the perceived shining moral system of Christianity). Usama Bin Laden and many Jihadists Islamists have also spoken out against socialists and have sought their ouster from power in Egypt during the 1950s and 60s and when they fought to drive out the Soviet army from Afghanistan in the 1980s. Not incidentally, the CIA conducted operations in Egypt and Afghanistan which was meant to agitate the public and seek the overthrow of the two governments.

During a taping of his show the 700 Club on CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a head of state and a constant critic of America:

He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he’s going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent. You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war...this man is a terrific danger...

Here, instead of a quote that can lead to an abstract argument that states it’s on par with Jihadist Islam, we have a quote from a mainstream evangelical (who ran for president in 1988) who is openly calling for the killing of an enemy of America (which in turn means an enemy of Christianity and God). Since Chavez is a critic of American foreign policy (and since America, in the eyes of the Fundamentalist Christian, is the sovereign nation of God, Chavez has attacked God) and has set up socialist programs in the government (since socialism is considered a Godless ideology which God finds an affront to him)he needs to be taken care of by any means necessary, in this case, assassination.

What we have seen is that a Fundamentalist Christian perspective supplanted into Jihadist Islamic doctrine can yield the same results, with the same justifications, as the actions of an Jihadist Islamist. So what does this mean for the Fundamentalist Christian American who subscribes to the unequivocal view that the Bible, the Holy Bible, is the word of God which supersedes all other wisdom and law? It means: [1] that the Fundamentalist Christian must look within his or herself to see if there indeed is a difference between any form of fundamentalism, [2] look at the Bible with a critical eye to see its contradictions to find out what it means to be a “true” Christian, and [3] it means that in order to live in a rational modern world(1) one must accept certain truths about the Bible, about religion and fundamentalism, and modernity.

For the Fundamentalist Christian to look within one’s self to see that all forms of fundamentalism are the same he or she must acknowledge the paradox of being a Fundamentalist Christian.(2) Even though the Fundamentalist Christian claims that the Bible is the word of God and that God never changes over time the Fundamentalist Christian essentially chooses and discards certain Biblical precepts based on how he or she wants to see the world. For one, this explains why there are numerous Fundamentalist Christian sects (i.e. United Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, Jehova’s Witness, and numerous non-denominational churches) because not everyone agrees which precepts to follow and which to discard. Yet this also highlights the paradox, because, essentially, almost all churches with certain rules and regulations are Biblically correct (if one takes a fundamentalist look at the Bible) in having those rules and regulations; the dividing line between certain Fundamentalist Christian churches is what those churches leave out instead of keep in.

Some churches, especially older Baptist and pre-Vatican II Catholic churches, don’t or didn’t allow women into the church unless they had something covering their head, adhering to what is said in 1st Corinthians 11:6-10:

For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair...she should wear a veil...For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Over the years though many fundamentalist churches have become laxed with this rule, yet they still adhere to a fundamentalist tilt. Many of these churches are on the forefront of the “culture war,” that the mainstream media loves to talk about, speaking out against “attacks” on Biblical principles. Yet many of these churches allow women to go into church unveiled and to even have women preachers, contrary to Biblical precepts. 1st Corinthians 14:34-35 states:

Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Yet these same Fundamentalist Christians will speak out against homosexuality, abortion, secularism, and other religious faiths because of certain precepts in the Bible. When the Fundamentalist Christian truly acknowledges this paradox (hypothetically) of Fundamentalist Christianity he or she can see that deep down they don’t hold an all encompassing fundamentalist view of the Bible because of the certain absurdity that some of these precepts seem to the modern mind. So if certain Biblical precepts are indeed absurd in a modern day context, and in a Fundamentalist Christian view the Bible is the word of God, then there is something wrong with fundamentalism.

Many Fundamentalist Christians speak out against Islam(3) stating that it is based on a violent book and is based on violent, terrorist like, principles. Yet in this essay it is shown that the Bible is just as violent (if not more) then the Qu’ran, and that if a Jihadist Islamist wanted to use the Bible instead of the Qu’ran and other Muslim literature, to justify attacks against civilians, he or she could. Yet the Fundamentalist Christian speaks out against this Fundamentalist form of Islam. Since, essentially, all forms of fundamentalism are the same and fall apart after critical study, when the Fundamentalist Christian is attacking Fundamentalist Jihadist Islam he or she is, in actuality, attacking his or her own faith, the faith of fundamentalism with a Christian tilt.

Secondly, to look at the Bible with a critical eye in order to find out what it means to be a “true” Christian a Fundamentalist Christian must fully study what the Bible actually says in context to how it was created and in context to the history behind it. Modern day exegesis(4) has shown how the Bible was essentially created and edited over the centuries and has borrowed concepts and stories from many other religions in the area surrounding the land of the Israelites, such as the religion of the Canaanites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Mesopotamians, etc. Assuming that the Fundamentalist Christian accepted the fact of the Fundamentalist Christian paradox, and that all fundamentalism is essentially the same, he or she can now see how there are certain precepts to the Bible that do not make sense to the modern day mind. The Fundamentalist Christian, through modern day exegesis, can see and understand why certain Biblical precepts came about, such as woman not being allowed to be preachers or homosexuals being considered sinners. They came about because of the cultural beliefs at the time, and naturally, those cultural beliefs were written down into the religious texts. What the Fundamentalist Christian can do is look at the certain Biblical precepts as the products of past thought and culture, such as not allowing the consumption of pork and blood vengeance, and then try to find the precepts that transcend culture and time, such as a universal love for mankind and a compassion for the downtrodden, and use those as his or her corner stone for their own Christian thought.

Thirdly, and in conclusion to this long-winded seven paragraph wrap-up, the Fundamentalist Christian with the above stated truths of the Bible, can then accept certain facts about religion and fundamentalism in the modern day world. When a Fundamentalist Christian can see (after accepting the previous two steps) that a Jihadist Islamist can use precepts from the Christian Bible for purposes of terrorism and can justify those violent attacks Biblically (as the previous Christian Crusaders did during the Middle Ages) it should essentially give the Fundamentalist Christian pause to his or her fundamentalist religious beliefs in this modern day world and should give him or her pause to criticism of Islam and any other religion. Firstly, about religion and fundamentalism, the Fundamentalist Christian should see that all structured religions that purport to give the answers to all of life’s questions are always prone to fundamentalist perversions, whether the religion is Christian, Islamic, Hindu, etc. With structured religion there is always a hierarchy that naturally appears(5) and will try to mold the religion into a certain viewpoint, people such as a Pat Robertson or a James Dobson can affect many people with their religious rigidity and in turn they can mold their “flock” into their likening because structured religion forces the removal of critical thought from the Fundamentalist Christian who is apart of the “flock.” This is the essence of what fundamentalism is. With this newly attained view on fundamentalism the Fundamentalist Christian can then see the modern world with a clear view instead of through the prism of fundamentalist religiosity and can accept a more encompassing and critical view of his or her religion, the Bible, fundamentalism, and the world.

Now the Fundamentalist Christian who has (hypothetically) realized all three of these steps can get to the true essence of Christianity which had been kept out of his or her view because of the Fundamentalist Christian box they entrapped themselves in.(6) Realizing the context of the Bible and putting into perspective the teachings and miracles of Jesus and having them stand alone by themselves, the now ex-fundamentalist can realize the kernel of truth that is Christianity which was previously surrounded by a fundamentalist world view. He or she can now have a more compassionate Christianity that can allow for critical thought, self expression, true compassion for mankind, a genuine empathy for the oppressed, and a non-religious spiritual connect with God which couldn’t be previously realized before.

Notes

1. To not be divorced from the reality that is the world that surrounds him or her. To realize that turning into one’s self and using the Bible as a shield to “protect” one’s fundamentalist values is by no means healthy or the “answer” to the world.
2. Which is, being a Fundamentalist Christian (therefore adhering to all laws in the Bible) one must realize that he or she doesn’t actually live according to all of the Biblical principles. The Fundamentalist Christian lives by some principles that he or she (or his or her respective church) chooses and ignores others that he or she doesn’t deem important enough. This is the classic term for a paradox.
3. Not the Jihadist concept of Islam but of all of Islam. The whole religion of Islam.
4. Which I will not get into detail about because the subject of modern exegesis and critical study of the Bible would span a whole term paper, in fact, it could be a dissertation in itself.
5. One example of that is that the original ministry of Jesus turned, after Jesus’ death, from 12 apostles into a Catholic Church with a hierarchical system with a Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, and priests in charge of over 1 billion people (with similar systems in the Eastern Orthodox Church).
6. Similar to Plato’s Cave.

Fundamentalist Christianity as Proxy to Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad, Part I

“So the people flouted, when they had blowen trompets: for whé the people had heard the founde of the trompet, they flouted with a great fhoute: and the wall fel down flat: fo the people went vp into the citìe, euerie man fteight before him: and they toke the citie.

And they vtteily deftroyed all that was in the citie, bothe man and woman, yong, and olde, and oxe, and fhepe, and affe, with the edge of the fworde.”
-Iofúa 6:20-21 (Geneva Bible version 1560 AD)

America is a very unique country. It was founded by people who were fleeing religious persecution from Europe and, who in turn, founded colonies based on Fundamentalist Christian(1) religious precepts. Over the centuries America has created a unique Christian religious tradition that isn’t seen anywhere else in the Western world. Out of this religious tradition has come a Fundamentalist Christian tradition which holds the Bible as the inherent word of God and has morphed into a politically conservative social and world view. While America and the rest of the modern world has progressed this Fundamentalist Christian tradition has not(2) and has lead to a rigid religious system with a Christian tilt that is essentially harmful to the human mind and body, within this modern day world. At the same time, since the 1950s, there has been a rise in a fundamentalist form of Islam which uses Jihad as a political tool in reaction to the political realities surrounding the ones who hold a Jihadist Islamist(3) world view. Contrary to what many Fundamentalist Christians think and preach these two very distinct forms of religion are essentially very similar in their world, social, and religious views, and in order to understand Fundamentalist Christianity one has to also understand and juxtapose it with Jihadist Islam, and when one looks at Jihadist Islamic reasoning compared to the book of the Qu’ran and Muslim society one can see why Jihadist Islamists reason as they do, and if one contrasts Jihadist Islamic reasoning with Fundamentalist Christianity and it’s reasoning, the concept of Jihadist Islam isn’t as foreign as one might think. And by looking at Fundamentalist Christianity in this light it begs the question of whether such a brand of reasoning should even exist in an American form of Christianity in this day and age and how to answer the Fundamentalist Christian view.

First, on Jihadist Islam. To understand the reasoning of Jihadist Islamists and their hero like status to some in the Middle East one has to juxtapose that onto Fundamentalist Christianity and their reasoning for past actions, especially in the Old Testament, and in turn, this will make one understand Fundamentalist Christianity. What Jihadists Islamists sees in the Middle East is an American presence that has set itself up there since the 1950s when the American government overthrew President Mosaddeq of Iran and installed the American (and secular) friendly Shah in 1953, it also sees American support for what they consider an illegal Middle Eastern (non-Islamic) state that set itself up in 1948, Israel, un-Islamic presence of American troops in the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia, the site of Muhammad’s preaching of Islam and of the number one holy city in Islam, Mecca), and the twice invasion and now occupation of a Middle Eastern country that was the heart of civilization (Iraq). Of course, using violence as one’s driving force for change isn’t agreeable to the temporary Christian mind, but Fundamentalists Christians (if they dare so choose) could justify violence on their religious behalf. Fundamentalist Christians in the United States see the rise of a one world government in an ever secular Europe (the United Nations, the European Union, and the International Criminal Court), they see the destruction of God in public life,(4) they see a Middle East that is controlled by the Devil (Islam), etc. The Old Testament gives Fundamentalist Christians just as much right to attack as the Qu’ran gives Jihadists Islamists. And one step further, the Old Testament also gives Islamic Jihadists an excuse to attack as well. Both the Jihadists Islamists and the Fundamentalist Christians profess that their book is the true infallible word of God, and since it is, it must be acted upon with full fervor. And, hypothetically, if the only text the Jihadist Islamic had (instead of the Qu’ran) was the Christian Holy Bible, he or she too could justify attacks in the name of God, Islam, and Jihad.

Usama Bin Laden has argued that on their attacks of the United States mass civilian casualties are acceptable (despite the Qu’ran’s explanation that no innocent human life shall be killed [yet the Qu’ran isn’t without it’s loopholes]) and with an understanding of the Old Testament this argument can be justified. Looking at Joshua 6:20-21 Yehoshua (a servant and warrior of God) and his troops have surrounded the heathen (or by looking at it through the light of Islam or Fundamentalist Christianity, un-Islamic/un-Christian) city of Yericho and they shouted and their shouts caused the walls of the city to crumble and they then “devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys” They ended up killing everyone in the city whether they were children or old women (save the prostitute who had helped Yehoshua’s spies and her family) and they then burned the city down. Another story about genocide and the justification for the killing of mass innocence is from Numbers 31:7-11 and verses 14-18 when God told Moshe to make war with Midyan and when Moshe amassed an army of 12,000 the Old Testament said:

They did battle against Midyan, as YHWH had commanded Moshe, and killed every male. They killed the kings of Midyan: Evi, Rekem, Tzur, Hur, and Reva, the five kings of Midyan, in addition to others who were slain by them; and they also killed Bil’am son of Be’or with the sword. The children of Yisra’el took the women of Midyan and their little ones captive; and they took their cattle, their flakcs, and all their goods and booty. All their towns where they had settled, and all their encampments, they burned, but they took all the spoil and all the booty, both people and animal...Moshe became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come with service in the war. Moshe said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? These women here on Bil’am’s advice, made the children of Yisra’el act treacherously against YHWH in the affair of Pe’or, so that the plague came among the congregation of YHWH. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

With this understanding at hand one can see that the Jihadists Islamist perspective on the killing of innocent Americans isn’t out of line when it can be compared to a Fundamentalists Christian’s evangelical-infallible-word-of-God interpretation of the Holy Bible. Whether they are women or children, non-combatants or combatants, if they are in the nation that is sinning against God or hurting a nation of God they are the root causes of the problem. The Jihadist Islamist sees America as one of the root causes of the problems in the Middle East, he or she sees that America is propping up dictatorial despots or elected officials whom are viewed as harming Islam(5) so the appropriate action of Jihad almost requires one (or gives cover of innocence for) to kill the innocents of a nation that is your enemy and the enemy of your religion. So mass killing and genocide through the use of unconventional weapons (hijacked airplanes and suicide bombers) and possibly conventional (a nuclear devise) by Jihadists Islamists has a precedent and a justification within Fundamentalist Christianity.

Of coarse, this isn’t the only account in the Bible on the killing of mass innocents, nor is it the only account of the killing of innocents to advance the cause of a people in which the death of innocent people is used as a massive cultural shock to the system they are trying to fight against. The attacks of September 11th against American innocents were supposed to be a huge cultural, and economic, shock to the American system that the Jihadists Islamists were trying to fight against. And it worked almost perfectly; Americans were appalled by the amount of innocent life that was lost and many lashed out not only against the attackers but also against the administration for not preventing the attacks from happening due to a lack of solid intelligence and the stock market took more than a year to fully recover. A perfect example of this in the Bible is in Exodus 12:29-32 during the killing of every innocent firstborn child in Egypt in order to shock the Egyptians and outrage them in order to move the Pharaoh to release the Jews from Egypt:

In the middle of the night YHWH struck down all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of the Pharaoh who sat on the throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of the cattle. And Pharaoh arose in the night, with all his courtiers and all the Egyptians-because there was a loud cry in Egypt; for there was no house where there was not someone dead. He summoned Moshe and Aharon in the night and said, “Up, depart from among my people, you and the children of Yisrael with you! Go, worship YHWH as you said! Take also your flocks and your herds, as you said, and begone! And may you bring a blessing upon me also!”

Looking at this passage with a Fundamentalist Christian perspective (which is that the Torah was written by Moshe and was dictated to by God and therefore it is the infallible word of God and that everything in the Bible is truth and should be heeded by all God fearing Christians) this can easily be interpreted by a Fundamentalist Christian that even though all life is precious, the killing of mass innocents in a country that oppresses you and affronts your Christian values and God can be justified in order to shock the whole cultural and political system to cave into your demands. So supplanting this Fundamentalist Christian perspective on this passage from the Torah onto the Jihadist Islamic who planned the September 11th attacks that killed over 3,000 innocent Americans you can see how the Jihadist Islamic could justify himself in the killing of innocent people. While Usama Bin Laden most definitely didn’t think that this would cause America to cave in to his demands just as the Pharaoh had to Moshe and Aharon he could have used that example in order to justify this political and cultural shock to America in order to catapult his Islamic ideals and demands onto the rest of the world, and most importantly, to the Muslim community.

The Jihadist Islamist perceives that his own fellow Muslims are being hurt by the United States through the actions of the United States in the region of the Middle East and of Muslim Africa. Because the Jihadist Islamist perceives the world as this way, with his people being oppressed and wronged, the Jihadist Islamist justifies that the only way to get results is to strike back, and this too, whether the Jihadist Islamist kills innocents or not can be justified with a Fundamentalist Christian’s perspective of the Bible, an example of this would be in Psalms 137: 6-9:

Remember, O YHWH, against the Edomites, the day of Jerusalem’s fall; how they cried, “Strip her, strip her to her very foundations!” Fair Babylon, you predator, blessing on him who repays you in kind, what you have inflicted on us; blessing on him who seizes your babies and dashes them against the rocks!

As with all of the other scriptures of the Bible, in the hands of a Jihadist Islamist whom looks at the Bible with a Fundamentalist Christian perspective (and even a Fundamentalist Christian whom would want to justify such acts Biblically) the Jihadist would and could justify revenge against America for it’s actions in the United States and he could also justify the destroying of innocent children in the process as it inflicts pain upon the enemy and is payback for the death of his own Muslim children.

Notes:

1. I use the term “Fundamentalist Christian/Christianity” to denote a certain type of form of Christianity. I put the moniker “Fundamentalist” before the term “Christian/Christianity” in order to state that for someone who holds a Fundamentalist Christian view they actually practice Fundamentalism with a capital F before they practice Christianity. By Fundamentalist Christian I actually mean a much broader term of people then one might think: This is anyone who holds the view that the Bible is the inherent word of God written down verbatim and that all of its precepts must be followed and one who holds a conservative political outlook.
2. By that I mean it hasn’t progressed in a “progressive” fashion. It has progressed, but only internally, within the Fundamentalist Christian community in order to answer to the questions of the outside world.
3. I too use the term “Jihadist Islamist/Islam” to denote a certain type of form of Islam. I put the moniker “Jihadist” in front of “Islamist/Islam” in order to state that for someone who holds a Jihadist Islamist view they put the practice and thought of Jihad before the practice of Islam. As supposed to Fundamentalist Christian, Jihadist Islamist is a much narrower term: This is anyone who ascribes to the view that they must wage a “Holy War” or Jihad against an enemy in the view that God wants them to take innocent life in His name.
4. The ACLU suing city governments on the removal of nativity scenes near public buildings, no more prayer in public school, Roe v. Wade, an increase in religious tolerance in America with the rise of immigrants and therefore causing the worship of God to “backslide”, etc.
5. The House of al Saud which rules Saudi Arabia, President Mubarak of Egypt, President Karzai of Afghanistan, etc.