The Danger! The Danger!

I've been reading a lot recently about the danger posed by "extreme fundamentalist Muslims", and about the nations that harbor them. I have several problems with this, as I will explain. The first problem is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. For example - in our own, religiously fundamentalist country, half of the population believes in "Young Earth Creationism": Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 28-29, 2007. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 "Which one of the following statements come closest to your views about the origin and development of human beings? 1. Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. OR, 2. Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. OR, 3. God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." God Guided The Process - 30% God Had No Part - 13% Created In Present Form - 48% Other (vol.)/Unsure - 9% This is obvious adherence to the Biblical description of the creation of the earth. This has led to very elaborate analysis of such scientific pursuits as carbon dating, where the conclusion is that the existence of dinosaurs is not in conflict with Genesis's description of a 6,000 year old earth. (???) This is certianly an example of religious fundamentalism over reason, but it not by any means the only one. So, apart from existence itself, many people condemn Islamic law, particularly Sharia law. Long associated in the non-Muslim world with severe punishments such as stoning and amputations, the system of traditional Islamic law known as Sharia is often criticised but rarely understood. Recently, there has been much attention drawn to marcabre punishments meted out by Muslims under Sharia Law. Nobody in a civilized society would condone such actions. However, in a recurrence of the "pot and kettle" analogy, the Bible also perscribes similar brutal punishments in the laws of Moses (recall the attempted stoning of Mary Magdelene for "impurity" - what we currently assume to be sex with multiple partners). If reactionary Christianists were somehow able to codify Biblical law into US law (as some are trying desprately to do), we could see similar displays of brutatity against gays, athiests, and the like. Beyond the ideological similarities between extremist Muslims and a large segment of America, a second dichotimy manifests itself in the form of government policy. If indeed, we were serious about combating Islamic fundamentalism (and I am not at all convinced that we are, as you will see), we would do 3 things: 1. Find the perpetrators of the trigger for this "war" (9/11), and eliminate them and those who harbor and support them (as the President said he would). 2. Determine which regions in the world contained the greatest fundamentalism, and expand our "war" there first. 3. Help to develop secular Arab nationalism (as opposed to Islamic fundamentalism) in the region. Fortunately, item 1 is already known. However, we don't seem particularly interested in Osama Bin Laden any more. In terms of dealing with governments who sanction and harbor terror, the simplist analysis comes from looking at the 9/11 hijackers. the vast perponderance of them came from a single nation: Saudi Arabia. As it happens, Saudi Arabia fits the bill for item 2 as well, being one of the most extreme fundamentalist Islamic countries on earth. It would stand to reason, then, that sanctions, threats, and possibly invasion and occupation should be right around the corner for us in Saudi Arabia, right? Not even close. As we know, the US has significant economic interests in Saudi Arabia. Also, the Saudi royal family has over $100 BILLION invested in the US economy, as well as a laundry list of other political and economic entanglements. Clearly, economics overrules national security (again, assuming national security and Islamic fundamentalism are somehow connected.) As a matter of fact, our stance toward Islam has flip-flopped many times in the last 50 years, and each time the flip or flop can be directly traced to economics. This is true in the Middle east, as well as elsewhere. The saga of the Middle East is fairly well-known. I will start a short synopsis in 1953, when the US helped to depose the secular government in Iran and install the Shah (a dictator - so much for our love of democracy in the Cold War era). Predictably, the Shah was very friendly to US business interests, and our relationship was good. In the same time period, secular Arab nationalism was developing in the Middel east region, centerd in Egypt under Gamal Abdul Nasser. This movement threatened to elevate the needs of the people above our economic interests, so obviously this democratic, grass-roots populism could not be allowed (a similar tale can be told regarding Communism in the Cold War). This problem was neatly eliminated for is in 1967, however, when the Israeli military destroyed Egyptian secular nationalism, effectively ending the "threat" to American economic interests. This is diametrically opposed to point 3, which is developing secular Arab nationalism, but I digress. Things moved along fairly nicely (some bumps in the road aside) until 1979, when the Iranian people had the audacity to overthrow the Shah and insert their own government in his place. The friendliness to US businesses dried up, almost overnight, and the peace-loving, democratic US government was forced into action. Thus began the Iran-Iraq conflict of the 1980's with the US positioned firmly in the corner of Iraqi dictator Saddam Heussein. We continued to support Saddam through his worst atrocities, including the use of poison gas. This was all supported by the US government, as the infamous Rumsfeld-Heussein handshake photo will attest. While all of this is occuring, we are still fighting the evils of Communism in the Cold War. The Soviets were battling insurgents in Afghanistan, and the US saw a chance to weaken our anti-capitalistic enemies. We provided support for Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan against the Soviets (whether or not this support was material or merely moral is not conclusive, but we certianly did not DIScourage it). We even made glorious Hollywood movies about it (Rambo 3). In essence, we stimulated the growth of Islamic fundamentalism that was to fill the void left by the destruction of secular Arab nationalism in 1967. We didn't like the Soviets, because communism is anti-capitalist, and we didn't like the Iranians, because they refused to submit to the US-imposed Shah dictatorship. That was our status throughout the 1980's. All of this changes in 1991. Saddam Heussein invades Kuwait (read, stops following instructions), and disrupts the flow of oil in the region. the Saudi royals (remember them?) write to the US government and demand action. Osama bin Laden also visits the Saudi royal family - fresh from his fighting in Afghanistan - and asks for money to fight against Saddam. The Saudis choose US muscle over Osama's fighters (and allows a significant US military force to remain after the fighting), prompting Bin Laden to leave Saudi Arabia and to declare "war" on the non-Islamic occupiers, the United States. We now don't like Saddam, but it has nothing to do with Islamism, as we know Saddam and Bin Laden are enemies. It has nothing to do with genocide, human rights, or moral atrocities, since we supported Saddam through his worst violations. Transparently, it is purely economic. Some people are even willing to recoginze the hypocrisy. I will cite this interview becuase of it's excellent (and succinct) explanation: Henry Kissinger’s answer, when asked recently about Iranian nuclear programs, is very revealing. In the 1970s, the U.S. very strongly supported the development of nuclear energy in Iran. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger, (former deputy Defense Secretary Paul) Wolfowitz thought it was wonderful and they were giving plenty of aid and support. Kissinger’s argument was that Iran should not use up oil for energy; it should save it. It needs another source of energy – nuclear power. Today, the same people are making the opposite argument, saying Iran has plenty of oil and natural gas, and if it is trying to enrich uranium, it must be for weapons. Kissinger was asked by the Washington Post why he was saying the opposite now from what he had said then. And he answered frankly and honestly, saying they were allies then, so they needed nuclear energy, and now they are enemies, so they don’t need nuclear energy. The answer runs through with considerable consistency. Even more disappointing than this, however, is that the Muslim fiend/foe trend is not isolated to the Middle East. Take Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim population. Is Indonesia a friend or enemy? I will cite this interview again: Look at the history. Up until 1965, it (Indonesia) was an enemy because it was independent nationalist. President Sukarno was a nationalist and was part of the non-aligned movement, wasn’t following orders. In September 1965, Suharto came along, carried out one of the major massacres of the 20th century. The CIA compared it to the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. The West was euphoric because he massacred hundreds of thousands of landless peasants and eliminated the only mass-based political party, a party of the poor as it is described by scholarship, and opened the country up to Western robbery and extortion. So he was the greatest friend ever, practically to the end. The Clinton administration described him as “our kind of guy,” and meanwhile, apart from compiling a horrendous human rights record at home, he invaded East Timor and carried out the atrocities that probably come as close to genocide as anything in the postwar period, always with strong U.S. support. He was loved. We can see again that the economic considerations outweigh any sort of Islamic, genocidal, human rights, democratic, moral, or any other pale argument as to why our battle against this Islamic fundamentalist evil is "right". As the famous quote goes, "just follow the money".