By PLS
The President says we’re fighting a protracted “ideological war.” Therefore, in this post-Rumsfeld phase, he wants a bigger army and more marines and soon, he promises, he’ll be calling for a beefed up presence in Iraq, too. To minimize negative reactions from those who are disillusioned with the Iraq adventure, W. and his like-minded advisors call this increased deployment a mere “surge.”
Deciders and Namers
Since ideology is strongly on the minds of our various tormenters, the President does have an inkling of the problem, but his surge-of-troops solution is baffling. We’re not “winning the war” anymore, he admits. We are now, it seems, “neither winning nor losing.” Which means what? Bogged down, perhaps? Swallowed up in quicksand?
The problem, of course, lies in the fact that the chief decider is an inept namer. George W. Bush took a major wrong turn after 9/11 when he declared a “war” against terrorism and expected to “win” it. Thus began the game of redefining the ever retreating goal of victory.
No doubt staging a global “war” against terrorism feels more dashing and heroic than dealing calmly, systematically with cells of nasties who are having trouble coping with massive social change in the Islamic world. That would require knowing something about these transformational societies. But there’s nothing gloriously martial about devising nuanced, culturally sophisticated responses to misguided religiosity. That’s the province of scholars, analysts and even—horrors!—diplomats. Wimps with mostly words as weapons.
Elephants and Gnats
The result of the Bush approach is that a Republican-branded US war elephant is fighting a swarm of very pesky no-see-‘ems. Such a no win situation is bound to drive the elephant buggy. But our change-averse President continues to think in grandiose terms: WAR—followed by VICTORY, or some kind of SUCCESS. Unfortunately, if you can’t name it and define it accurately, you aren’t likely to win on any terms.
Yes, there is a war, even an ideological war, but it’s not America’s to win or lose, though we can hurt ourselves and others badly in the course of complicating Islam’s protracted and painful process of re-formation. For the next generation, perhaps, the US, Europe and even India will have to deal with largely unpredictable, uncoordinated attacks by overwrought “holy warriors” making bloody, destructive propaganda points, but the real struggle will continue until the contradictions within Islam itself reach a new equilibrium.
Materialism's Older than America
Looked at from a less emotional, less ethnocentric angle than the President’s, then, the US is only a convenient scapegoat—and what happens to us is nothing but collateral damage. You see, for all the inflammatory al Qaeda propaganda about the West’s corrupting licentious ways, Muslim society never needed the US to provide examples of dishonest, extravagant or sensual behavior. This element of Muslim civilization predates America’s founding. Think medieval Damascus. Think Baghdad back in the glory days. Think of today’s Saudi princes at home in their palaces.
However, if a gnat can drive an elephant mad, it makes the absurd little gnat look very scarey, very impressive.
The Rice Cooker
Mr. President, we can never have enough men and women under muster to cope with all Muslim extremists. We cannot win a war against Muslim fanaticism. Think of rice simmering in a closed pot. The roiling and boiling that characterizes Islam today spills over on us. We have to find better ways to deal with the spillover, but the spillover isn’t the kettle of rice. And the feast of pilau to come isn’t ours.
Take Iran. The process of moderating a bloody revolution (that the US got caught in the middle of) has been long and convoluted. A reformist president who couldn’t accomplish enough was replaced by an incessantly ranting firebrand who won on a populist platform and who (talk of gnats with a pesky bite) likes to bait Israel and deny the Holocaust. But in the most recent elections to municipal and other offices in Iran, most candidates sympathetic to Bush nemesis Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were badly beaten. Even more recently, university students were so rowdily unsympathetic to his presentation that he cut short a speech designed especially for their ears. None of this means that someone in the Bush administration should bake a cake and fly it to some opportunistic Teheran “moderates” in the hopes of hurrying the evolution of Iranian politics. It is a sign that Iranian society is healthy enough to cure itself and that the process of modernization, consistent with national pride, will continue, though at the same slow pace of two steps forward, one (or more) steps back, unless the US decides to bomb Iranian nuclear installations. In that case, progress will be arrested for another generation, more or less. Meanwhile, not talking to Iran is obviously getting us nowhere.
As for Iran’s meddling in Iraq, instability in the neighborhood always invites meddling. The best way to marginalize Iran, vis-à-vis Iraq, is to stabilize Iraq. This is perhaps a chicken-or-egg-first conundrum. But to condition talks with Iran on Iran’s ceasing to be involved in Iraqi politics is laughable, except in so far as it’s another excuse way for the Bush administration to perpetuate its avoidance of talks with Iran. Period.
The Real Civil War
There’s much talk about civil war in Iraq—whether one’s under way already or on the horizon. In fact, there has been a civil war within Islam ever since the Shia-Sunni split occurred in the early years of the faith, and we seem to be entering a fresh violent phase of that unresolved schism that is riven, in turn, by numerous sects, schools and ideological dispositions on both Sunni and Shia sides. For us to tell the Iraqis who’s to be in the Shia alliance and who’s to be out, therefore, is to take a no-win stance in a family quarrel that doesn’t concern us. And to side with the Shia is to rouse even our Saudi allies to consider backing the Sunni cause in Iraq and even in Lebanon. Talk about civil war! Things are nasty in Iraq, but they can get much nastier, if we don’t get a little more savvy.
So how do we get out of a situation we shouldn’t be in? There’s no good way. There’s no honorable way. Worse, whatever we do in the near future, a lot more people are going to die who wouldn’t be under death sentence if we hadn’t destabilized the admittedly ugly status quo ante in Iraq. By invading and occupying Iraq—and by trying to transform Iraq (plus Afghanistan) on the cheap—the US released sectarian animosities that had been kept below ignition point by the ruthless secularist Saddan Hussein. Now, instead of spreading democracy, we are spreading war and we have strengthened the hand of the very fanatics George W. Bush has so fatuously vowed to vanquish.
Back to Chapter One, Please
Naming things right is very important. George W. Bush says his favorite book is the Bible, which begins with the Word and the naming of the creatures brought into being. Pity Dubya doesn’t take that part of the Good Book as seriously as the parts about smoting and smiting and retribution.