[Reader-list] War on Islam? Oil..Stupid, Pt 2

[Lehar ..]

friends, 
this interesting article from chowk.com.
>how USAID funded books on 'getting atheist commies'
were used for the
>Taliban madarsa syllabus. and a letter to Editor on
the same issue.

----
Dear Editor, 
Why are India, the world's largest democracy and Saudi
Arabia, the world's most fundamentalist state, the
only places on the planet( from Seoul to London,
Moscow to Washington DC) to have NO antiwar protests??
(To date, more than 5 million people have demonstrated
peacefully across the world opposing Bush's bombing of
Iraq. A majority in The US itself)
We know the reasons for Saudi Arabia.. but the leader
of the world's freedom movement and the voice of the
colonies..stays in a sinister silence..
India.. Speak.
---


Is It A War On Islam?
>by Pervez  Hoodbhoy
>
>Street opinion in Pakistan, and  probably most Muslim
countries, holds
>that
>Islam is the sole target of America`s  new wars. Even
moderate Muslims
>are
>worried. The profiling of Muslims by the  INS, the
placing of Muslim
>states
>on the US register of rogues, and the blanket
approval given to Israeli
>bulldozers as they level Palestinian neighborhoods 
appear dangerous
>indicators of a religious war. But Muslims
undeservedly award
>themselves
>special status and imagine what is not true.
America`s goal goes much
>beyond
>subjugating inconsequential Muslim states. Instead it
seeks to remake
>the
>world according to its needs, preference, and
convenience. The war on
>Iraq
>is  but the first step.
>
>Aggressive militarism has been openly endorsed by 
America`s corporate
>and
>political establishment. Mainstream commentators in
the  US press now
>argue
>that, given its awesome military might, American
ambition has  been
>insufficient. Max Boot, editor of the Wall Street
Journal, writes that
>"Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out
for the sort of
>enlightened  foreign administration once provided by
self-confident
>Englishmen in jodhpurs  and pith helmets". The
Washington Post calls for
>an
>"imperialist revival" and  the need for Americans to
"impose their own
>institutions on disorderly ones".  The Atlantic
Monthly remarks that
>American policy makers should learn from the  Greek,
Roman, and British
>empires for tips on how to run American foreign 
policy.
>
>Although many Americans still cling to the belief
that their  country`s
>new
>unilateralism is no more than "injured innocence",
and a natural
>response
>of any victim of terror, the Establishment does not
suffer from such
>naivety. Empire has been part of the American way of
life for a long
>time.
>
>The difference after 911 - and it is a significant
one - is that
>America no
>longer sees need to battle for the hearts and minds
of those it would
>dominate; there is no other superpower to whom the
weak can turn. In
>today`s
>   Washington, a US-based diplomat recently confided
to me, the United
>Nations has  become a dirty word. International law
is on the way to
>irrelevancy, except when  it can be used to further
US goals.
>
>Still, none of this amounts to a war  on Islam. Some
will disagree. The
>fanatical hordes spilling out of Pakistan`s 
madrassas imagine seeing
>Richard the Lion Hearted bearing down upon them.
Sword  in hand they
>pray to
>Allah to grant war and send the modern Saladin, one
who can
>miraculously dodge cruise missiles and hurl them back
to their
>launchers.
>
>On the other side, Christian-Jewish extremists,
extending from  the
>Jerry
>Falwells and Pat Robertsons to the leaders of
Israel`s Likud, yearn  for
>yet
>another crusade. They too are convinced that
inter-civilizational
>religious
>war is not only inevitable but also desirable. Belief
in final victory
>is,
>of course, never doubted by the faithful.
>
>But the counter-evidence to  a civilizational war is
much stronger.
>Between
>1945 and 2000 the US has fought  28 major, and
countless minor, wars.
>Korea,
>Guatemala, Congo, Laos, Peru,  Vietnam, Cambodia, El
Salvador,
>Nicaragua,
>Yugoslavia, and Iraq are only some of  the countries
which the US has
>bombed
>or invaded. The Vietnam War alone claimed  a million
lives.
>
>By comparison, America`s wars on Muslim states have
been  far less
>bloody.
>Iraqi deaths during the Gulf War, and the recent
victims of  bombing in
>Afghanistan, amount to fewer than 70 thousand. Even
if one throws in
>casualties from the Israeli-Arab wars of 1967 and
1971 and attributes
>them
>to  the US, Muslim deaths are only a few percent of
the Vietnam War
>total.
>
>Material self-interest, and not antipathy to Islam,
has been the
>driving
>force behind US foreign policy. A list of America`s
Muslim foes and
>friends
>makes this crystal clear. America`s foes during the
1950`s and 1960`s
>were
>secular nationalist leaders. Mohammed Mossadeq of
Iran, who opposed
>Standard Oil`s grab at Iran`s oil resources, was
removed by a CIA coup.
>Ahmed  Sukarno of Indonesia, accused of being a
communist, was removed
>by US
>   intervention and a resulting bloodbath that
consumed about eight
>hundred
>thousand lives. Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt, who had
Islamic
>fundamentalists
>   like Saiyyid Qutb publicly executed, fell foul of
the US and Britain
>after
>the  Suez Crisis. On the other hand, until very
recently, America`s
>friends
>were the  sheikhs of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
states, all of whom
>practiced
>highly  conservative forms of Islam but were the
darlings of Western oil
>
>companies.
>
>Nevertheless, Washington has occasionally
misunderstood  American
>self-interests - sometimes fatally so. "Mission
myopia", as the CIA now
>wanly admits, led to the network of global jihad in
the early 1980`s.
>With
>William Casey as CIA director, the largest covert
operation in history
>was
>launched after Reagan signed the "National Security
Decision Directive
>166",
>   calling for American efforts to drive Soviet
forces from Afghanistan
>"by
>all  means available". US counter-insurgency experts
worked closely with
>the
>   Pakistani ISI in bringing men and material from
around the Arab world
>and
>beyond. All this is well known. Less known is the
ideological help
>provided
>by  US institutions, including universities.
>
>Readers browsing through book  bazaars in Rawalpindi
and Peshawar can,
>even
>today, find textbooks written as  part of the series
underwritten by a
>USAID
>$50 million grant to the University  of Nebraska in
the 1980`s. These
>textbooks sought to counterbalance Marxism  through
creating enthusiasm
>in
>Islamic militancy. They exhorted Afghan children  to
"pluck out the eyes
>of
>the Soviet enemy and cut off his legs". Years after 
the books were
>first
>printed they were approved by the Taliban for use in 
madrassas - a
>stamp of
>their ideological correctness.
>
>The cost of  America`s mission myopia has been a
staggering one. The
>network of Islamic  militant organizations created
primarily out of the
>need to fight the Soviets in  Afghanistan did not
disappear after the
>immediate goal was achieved but,  instead, like any
good
>military-industrial
>complex, grew from strength to  strength.
Nevertheless,
>until 11 September, US policy makers were
unrepentant,  even proud of
>their
>winning strategy. It took a cataclysm to bring them
down to  earth.
>
>But militant organizations have done far greater harm
to Muslims,  whose
>causes they claim to promote, than to those who they
battle against.
>Killing tourists and bombing churches is the work of
moral cretins and
>is
>not  just cowardly and inhumane, but also a strategic
disaster. Indeed,
>fanatical  acts can sting the American colossus but
never seriously hurt
>it.
>Though  perfectly planned and executed, the 911
operation was a
>strategic
>blunder of  colossal proportions. It vastly
strengthened American
>militarism, gave Ariel  Sharon the license to
ethnically cleanse
>Palestine,
>and allowed state-sponsored  pogroms of Muslims in
Gujarat to get by
>with
>only a squeak of international  condemnation.
>
>The absence of a modern political culture and the
weakness  of Muslim
>civil
>society have long rendered Muslim states
inconsequential players  on the
>
>world stage. An encircled, enfeebled dictator is
scarcely a threat to
>his
>neighbors as he struggles to save his skin.
Tragically, Muslim leaders,
>out
>of  fear and greed, publicly wring their hands but
collude with the US
>and
>offer  their territory for bases as it now bears down
on Iraq.
>Significantly, no Muslim  country has proposed an oil
embargo or a
>serious
>boycott of American  companies.
>
>What, then, should be the strategy for all those who
believe  in a just
>world and are appalled by America`s war on the weak?
>
>Vietnam,  to my mind, offers the only viable model of
resistance. A
>stern
>regard for  morality, said their strategists, is the
best defense of the
>
>weak. Even though  B-52s were carpet-bombing his
country, Ho Chi Minh
>did
>not call for hijacking  airliners or blowing up
buses. On the contrary
>the
>Vietnamese reached out to the  American people,
making a clear
>distinction
>between them and their government.  By inviting media
celebrities like
>Jane
>Fonda and Joan Baez, Vietnam generated  enormous
goodwill. On the other
>hand, can you imagine the consequences of  Vietnam`s
leadership being
>with
>Osama bin Laden rather than Ho Chi Minh? That 
country would surely have
>
>been a radioactive wasteland, rather than the unique 
victor against
>imperialism.
>
>Only a global peace movement that explicitly 
condemns terrorism against
>non-combatants can slow, and perhaps halt, George 
Bush`s madly speeding
>chariot of war. Massive anti-war demonstrations in 
Washington, New
>York,
>London, Florence, and other western cities have
brought  out hundreds of
>
>thousands at a time. A sense of commitment to human
principles  and
>peace -
>not fear or fanaticism - impelled these
demonstrators.  But why are  the
>
>streets of Islamabad, Cairo, Riyadh, Damascus, and
Jakarta empty? Why do
>
>only fanatics demonstrate in our cities? Let us hang


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com