Prose, Violence, and Problems with Aslan’s Cosmic War

In a post-college world, looking at grad school and gainful employment on the horizon, it appears I need to step up my reading habits. So in an effort to make this a more regular segment of the blog, I’m going to read and review at least one book a month. This month, I bring to you How To Win a Cosmic War by Reza Aslan, author of No God But God,  who was one of my favorite Islamic authors when I was just starting out in the field.

He’s a young articulate scholar of religion and so its no wonder he’s been invited to the Daily Show and the Colbert Report a few times as well as numerous other media appearances. While I’m happy that there is such an Islamic scholar who’s so acceptable and successful in mainstream America, I continuously wonder whether or not he is someone I would want representing myself, my colleagues, and other academics in the field of religion, Islam, and global affairs.

The Premise

In Aslan’s own words, the book is a proclamation:

The War on Terror, conceived by the previous administration as a cosmic contest between the forces of good and evil for the future of civilization, is over. It is time to strip this ideological conflict of its religious connotations, to reject the religiously polarizing rhetoric of our leaders and theirs, to focus on the material matters at stake, and to address the earthly issues that always lie behind the cosmic impulse…Because in the end, there is only one way to win a cosmic war: refuse to fight in it. (11)

After taking a hard, unpleasant look at the plight of European Muslims, Aslan declares that America now has a great opportunity to become the champions of the slaughtered and reframe the War on Terror not as a war between good and evil, but an “earthly contest between the advocates of freedom and the agents of oppression”. He declares that Bush was right, only democratic reform can defeat the Global Jihadists. America must “strive to create an open religious and political environment in the Muslim world that will blunt the appeal of Jihadist ideologies”.

Honestly, when I first heard that was what the book was about, my initial reaction was that this topic has been done…like five years ago. My own personal favorite is of course Dr. Akbar Ahmed’s Islam Under Siege. With the War on Terror being in its eigth year now and the Bush Administration a thing of the past, do we really need another study on violent Islamic fundamentalism and the mistakes the US has made in dealing with it? I decided it was worth it to see if he could add anything new. Cosmic War unfortunately fails to deliver on that front, but it absolutely delivers on Aslan’s many talents as a writer.

Violence, Its Like, Whatever

Speaking as someone who’s undergraduate studies frequently lead me to explore the relationship between religion and conflict, I also was fairly disappointed that much of Aslan’s look at the role of Islam and religion in general dealt with only with its destructive aspects. I was even more deeply disturbed by the brevity of his nod to Gandhi and the Civil Rights Movement.

Religion of course can be just as effective in promoting nonviolence and civil disobedience, as was the case with America’s civil right’s movement or India’s movement for independence from Britain. But for movements that operate in societies where democratic institutions are either wholly absent or brutally repressed by the ruling regime, countries where legitimate opposition is simply not allowed, collective violence may be the sole means for a social movement to pursue its goals of radical social transformation. (137)**

It is my belief that these societies are in the most need of nonviolent social movements. While it is certainly understandable that the populations under such regimes would accept collective violence as the best means of affecting change, it is becoming increasingly clear that the only way to break these cycles of brutality is through nonviolence. What’s more, I think the author is dangerously close to diminishing the brutality that the groups involved in the Civil Rights Movement and India’s demand for indepence were up against.

The Hype of Moderate Islam

If the Islamic fundamentalism that is implied is the extremist violent and intolerant kind, the one Bin Laden has become the icon of, then its polar opposite is not secularism or even “moderate” Islamism. These are near antonyms, many steps removed but not completely antithetical. The true opposite is a tolerant and nonviolent Islamic fundamentalism, militarism for peace.

Chaiwat Satha-Anand, a Thai expert on nonviolence and Islam, argues that because of the nature of modern warfare, nonviolence is not just the best option, but also the only option. If the violence used cannot discriminate between soldiers (real or self-identified) and civilians, then it is not keeping with Islamic principles. With modern technology being what it is,  that kind of discrimination virtually impossible at present. (Islam and Nonviolence)

One of my favorite quotes on the subject comes from Michael N. Nagler, whom I discovered while reading Mohamed Abu Nimer’s (one of my favorite former professors) seminal work on nonviolence and Islam:

There is no theological reason that an Islamic society could not take a lead in developing nonviolence today, and there is every reason that some of them should. (War and Its Discontents)

The Verdict

How To Win A Cosmic War, while artfully and thoughtfully written, but it reads a bit like a jumbled mess of good but inadequately explored ideas. It jumps from the author’s own experiences in becoming an American citizen to the Arab-Israeli conflict to the hardships of Muslims in Western Europe without ever really tying it all together in a satisfying way. Even the epilogue feels out of place as Aslan describes his excitement at the election of Barack Obama. While certainly all such subjects have common elements, they never seemed to fit really well with the overarching theme of the dangers of buying into the violent militant’s black and white cosmic world view.

My conclusion is therefore that Mr. Aslan’s How To Win A Cosmic War is not a very good “how-to” book nor is it a comprehensive look at Islam in the Age of Globalization or the War on Terror. However, if you are in the market to read something about the current state of the world in lovely prose and fresh eyes this is the book for you.

Sources

1. Chaiwat Satha-Anand, “The Nonviolent Crescent: Eight Theses on Muslim Nonviolent Actions,” in Islam and Nonviolence, ed. Glenn D. Paige (Honolulu: Center for Global Nonviolence, 1986), 22.

2. Michael N. Nagler, “Is There a Tradition of Nonviolence in Islam?”, in War and its Discontents: Pacifism and Quietism in the Abrahamic Traditions, ed. J Patout Burns (D.C.: Geo. U. Press 1996), 165.

Notes

**It was at that point in the book I wrote in the margins “WTF?!”

The Bible, The Constitution, and the Treatment of Prisoners of War

This blog post comes to you from a lengthy discussion via Facebook about a chain letter that was sent around. And you know, I just had to comment on it.

When Chain Letters Get Political

The original letter claims to have been written by a Canadian Christian woman. Here are the relevant excerpts from the chain letter that caught my eye:

“Are we fighting a war on terror or aren’t we?…

And I’m supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency [?]

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a CANADIAN soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:

I don’t care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:

I don’t care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat and ‘fed special’ food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being ‘mishandled,’ you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts:

I don’t care.”

Objection!

My objection to the letter was that it seemed to indicate that apathy or even encouragement of the alleged human rights abuses of terrorist prisoners is justifiable and perhaps even morally superior. It is a notion that I think goes against the values of justice in both the US Constitution and the Bible. I cited the imprisonment and trial of Saddam Hussein and the Nuremberg Trials as examples of modern day cases that I feel met the minimum requirements with respect to human rights. Arguments over the execution I am setting aside because my intent is to focus on the treatment of prisoners while they are alive. The counter-arguments raised against my statement are as follows:

1. I should be arguing in light of UN Resolutions and Geneva Conventions instead of the US Constitution.
2. The US Constitution does not address prisoners of war. The guidelines for the rights of prisoners in the US Constitution do not apply to non-citizens.
3. Arguments against torture are understandable and there is precedent for trials via military tribunals. Bringing them to the US is perhaps dangerous and unecessary.
4. God commanded the Israelites to destroy or enslave their enemies. Deut. 2:31-4; Deut. 20:16-18; Esther 9:5-10, 16-17; Numbers 21:1-3.

US and International Law

I should perhaps clarify my invocation of the US Constitution and say that I was referring to the values of justice within it. Many people may cringe at the idea of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions because of foreign involvement, so by keeping the discussion with American law I hope to find the lowest common denominator. That being said, both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Geneva Conventions are still relevant because the US was involved in the drafting of the UDHR and voted in favor of its adoption. The US is also a signatory of the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the issue of torture and the treatment of prisoners of war speaks to our international credibility. For some, however, international credibility means nothing.

When I speak of the values of justice in the Constitution, I am interpreting it to be a living document which speaks to our values as a nation and as a society. Perhaps our values do not dictate that we must give non-citizens exactly the same rights as citizens, but we treat them in a way that is consistent with our values. For example, allowing them to practice their own religion while on US soil or in US custody. With respect to US custody, guaranteeing them their right to adequate food, shelter, a right to know why they are in custody, and some sort of trial. Not the exact same trial that we might give a citizen, but something in keeping with our values. If none of those values can be applied to non-citizens, then they are weak indeed.

There is indeed precedent for putting terrorists on trial, and the debate over what kind of trial it should be is not important to my argument right now. The important thing is to recognize their right to trial, or better yet, our right to put them on trial and to publicly in a court of law hold them accountable for their crimes. I have not found anything in American law that would not support putting them on trial. Please feel free to add anything that proves otherwise.

Closing Gitmo, and Bringing the Terrorists to US Soil

The debate on closing Gitmo has raised issues of military utility, efficient use of funds, advantages and disadvantages in fighting the war on terror, and bringing dangerous terrorists onto US soil. I would like to focus on the aspect of closing Gitmo as a way of ending torture. Obviously, torture will not disappear just because its closed. But the act of closing it does send a message on the use of torture: that we are not going to use it nor tolerate it. If I have to go into a discussion of why torture is bad in the first place, I will. But I think it might be safe to assume that many of my readers who tend to disagree with me agree that torture is bad and shouldn’t be used. Again, here’s an invitation to tell me I’m wrong.

About bringing those prisoners to the US to stand trial…why not? I understand there are concerns over safety and many probably think Obama would bungle it and these guys would escape somehow. Such a statement seems a bit on the ridiculous side to me so I’m not going to even address it. But what evidence do we have to show that these prisoners will bring harm to the US while still in detention and the threat level of “rescue operations”?

It seems to me that the terrorists in American custody are worth more to their respective organizations while they are in custody. They’ll become martyrs to their cause because their organizations would spin it that way no matter what the circumstances. Terrorists don’t really do “rescue missions” in any real sense of the word. They might call something a rescue mission that is really just a “kill everyone you can” mission. And unless Obama has or will do  something awful to our homeland security in the next year, I think we can handle it. I think we have to handle it, because it is important for all of us to put them on trial and publicly hold them accountable for their crimes and follow that with whatever punishment is appropriate.

Prisoners of War and the Bible

Perhaps it was a mistake for me to make the statement that the Bible does not support the use of torture or a violation of human rights. Because I believe there’s an element of truth in something called “the ambivalence of the sacred”, which means the ability of both violence and nonviolence to be justified under religion. Someone who says, “The Bible condones slavery” is just as correct as the one who says it doesn’t.

I don’t know how to respond to the verses stated above, whether I should believe that we are to kill not just the enemy but to kill or enslave their families and fellow citizens as well. I don’t know. How would you (the readers) interpret those verses? How would you advise me to interpret them?

I am of course, a very amateurish and highly inadequate theologian because of some of my agnostic tendencies. But even if someone did prove to me that God has declared I kill the women and children of my enemies, I still wouldn’t do it.

And there it is, my slightly nonsensical thesis on religion, law, and prisoners of war. Let the debate commence.

Somalia and the Role of International Peacekeeping Forces

I’ve been avoiding posting about Somalia because I’m kind of lazy. It seems apparent to me that Somalia poses a greater threat to the war on terror than Iraq was ever thought/proven to have been. Why? Because it has no government and its population has been devastated by conflict after conflict. All this makes Somalia an ideal terrorist hub. Poor people are not the source of terrorism, but they are the means by which many terrorists feed their existence.

But today, I decided to finally broach the topic because of a particularly disturbing headlines I saw about Somalia’s “hidden genocide”.

The UN envoy to Somalia, Ahmedou Ould Abdallah, on Monday described the country’s problem as a “problem for the whole region”.

“There is a hidden genocide in Somalia which has sacrificed entire generations,” he was quoted by AFP as saying.

I’m sure it must be fairly difficult to gather information on exactly what is happening in Somalia, but I’m going to keep a closer eye on it. Because, yikes!

Somalia is also the latest example of a debate over the role of peacekeeping forces. I am undecided, but I’ll toss the question out to all of you: Do you think military forces, UN or otherwise, should be deployed to countries experiencing conflict? Or does that set a dangerous precedent for violations of state sovereignty? Or is the risk of the state/organization becoming too involved in the conflict and possibly even making it worse too high to get involved in the first place?

Obama’s Election Didn’t Defeat al-Qaeda, Surprise!

Al-Qaeda has released a new tape directed at the US administration, and many are calling it a “mild” approach.

In the tape, the leader of al-Qaeda’s Iraqi division “calls on the incoming US administration and allied Western leaders to embrace Islam, withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and release Muslim prisoners from there and from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba”. The tape also implores America to return to its “impartiality” and even offers not to disrupt Western oil supplies if its conditions are met.

But certainly this “mild” approach can’t be due simply to Obama’s election, could it? It would be naive to think so. The BBC reports that al-Qaeda in Iraq has suffered some major setbacks as of late, “having been largely driven out of their former strongholds in central and western Iraq by a combination of US firepower and, more significantly, a tribal uprising by predominately Sunni Iraqis who rejected al-Qaeda’s extreme brutality”.

The BBC quotes several jihadist sources saying:

We are not interested in who’s won because they all follow the same strategy which is a war against Islam and Muslims.

…

Muslims in Waziristan, Pakistan and Afghanistan must brace themselves…Obama’s dogs will be preparing to fight you even harder soon.

So there you have it. Obama, for all his merits, has not single handedly defeated militants just by being elected. Any decline in militant efforts is due to a number of factors that have less to do with US action than the internal debates within the Islamic world. That doesn’t mean we can relax, but we as fellow human beings, Abrahamic brethren, and Americans should continue to provide support to those who are fighting extremism in their own societies.

Rediscovering Iraq: Triple Bombing, Working with Locals

Today, when I looked at the news headlines I saw a story about iraq. Its been a long time since I’ve paid attention to Iraq. In Fall 2006, I took a class entitled Post Saddam Iraq and it was one of the most intense classes I’ve ever taken. Since then, I’ve been largely unaware of current events though I have retained a decent amount of pre-2003 invasion Iraqi history.

So I’m going to start a little project to re-acquaint myself with what’s going on, how we’ve gotten to the places we have, and what are the plans for the future.

Al-Qaeda Strikes in Baghdad, Kills 28

A triple bombing in the capital of Baghdad has killed 28 and wounded 68. Two car bombs exploded simultaneously and as police and civilians rushed to help, a suicide bomber blew himself up. This is one of the deadliest attacks to take place in Iraq in months. The neighborhood where the bombs went off is full of tea shops and restaurants and was a popular spot for students.

Such coordinated and massive strikes have become rare but steady reminders of the capacity of militants to unleash mayhem in Iraq, even though they no longer control whole swathes of towns and villages and violence overall has fallen sharply.

Using Local Militias

The BBC reports that there are suspicions that this was an al-Qaeda attempt to reignite sectarian violence in Baghdad. Such conflict was rife throughout the city in 2006-7, but has since subsided as local militias have joined Awakening Councils set up by US forces.

The US military has been transferring control of the Awakening Council militias to the Iraqis since October 1st. The government has just begun paying the salaries of these militias. These councils, along with the US troop surge have been credited with the dramatic improvements in security.

According to the New York Times, the councils are comprised of groups of Sunnis, many who are former militants themselves, who have bonded together against the most violent Sunnis insurgents. They are also called Concerned Local Citizens, Iraqi Sunni Volunteers, and Sahwas in Arabic.

Female Suicide Bomber

A separate suicide bombing also occurred in Baquba at a checkpoint staffed by the local Awakening Council militia. Six militia members were killed and 14 were wounded. The bomber is believed to have been a 13 year old girl.

The attack by a female suicide bomber in Baquba is part of a trend that has increased this year. U.S. forces say al Qaeda Sunni Islamist militants are increasingly recruiting female bombers — often teenaged girls — to thwart security checks.

Many of the female bombers have lost male relatives and are seen as psychologically vulnerable to recruitment for suicide missions. (Reuters)

Conclusions

I was not previously aware of the existence of the councils, but I am impressed at the ability of military commanders to tap into social groups already in place to build up security. It is very encouraging to see that there are Iraqis who are committed to bringing about a change and are actively doing so. It is also very encouraging from the perspective of someone studying peacebuilding that such organizations may be extremely helpful in bringing about the security needed to rebuild Iraq.

Winning Minds in Afghanistan

Here’s a story that demonstrates that there’s much more than just a fight for security at stake in Afghanistan.

BBC reporter Jill McGivering interviewed a local shopkeeper in the province of Helmand. He says the international forces have not helped, but instead made violence worse. Asked if he would rather have the Taleban in control, he replied that it did not matter. All that mattered was security.

Its not surprising that this would be the attitude of many Afghans, who for over 30 years have known nothing but war. But it also speaks to American efforts to uproot the Taliban and bring democracy. Something obviously is not working, and I can’t say that I know what it is. What I can say is that the Afghans are in need of some kind of assurance, and if we don’t provide them with it democracy will suffer a huge blow. That assurance, I believe, won’t come from just the military but the international community and most importantly, from within.

Let us hope that President-elect Barack Obama and his administration will be able to acheive that, and keep reminding them that they must. A failed Afghanistan is a danger to all of us.

Negotiating With Militants

Yesterday, I wrote about the debate over whether the US, Afghanistan, and Pakistan should begin negotiations with select militants that would include the Taliban. Well it looks like its actually happening.

The [joint statement issued by the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan] statement said that each would continue to deny providing a sanctuary to terrorists and that the council would meet in three months time to evaluate the progress on issues decided.

It said there was an “urgent and imperative need for dialogue and negotiations with the opposition groups in both countries with a view to finding a peaceful settlement of the ongoing conflict, upholding the supremacy of the constitutions of both countries”.

Interesting development to keep an eye on.

Aid and Afghanistan

Hooray! Another (self described) “crazy conservative” has responded to my blog! And its a good one. The response was to a previous post, “Human Security Over Military Security in Afghanistan?”.

Doesn’t the military presence there help a little with some of that security stuff? So shouldn’t it be we’re spending $107M a day on human security in Afghanistan? Even if you want to prorate that $100M somehow because we’re acting to advance our own interests as well, I think it should still count as helping them out to some degree.

Contrasting the two numbers as if it’s an either/or thing or a case of mixed up priorities doesn’t seem right. I seriously doubt the $2.5B a year (one of the highest rates of aid to a country in the world) could be used to very good effect to relieve suffering in Afghanistan without the (imperfect) stability provided by the miltary presence there. The Taliban didn’t seem like they were too keen on facilitating the free flow of aid in the country.

I’m not sure what goes into those figures, but my guess is a military deployment comes with a fairly high fixed cost. What with salaries and leases and food and fuel and extra wear and tear on equipment and such. So implying that we might be able to flip it or something and spend $7M a day on the military presence and $100M a day on other aid seems naive at best.

I’d also be interested to know what they’re spending that $2.5B a year in aid on. Are they able to efficiently process all that aid and get it to the right people? Is it getting siphoned off by government officials on the way down? Are their spending priorities right? Are they spending it to build a new building in the capitol when people need food out in the mountains? Do they have enough food but they aren’t able to get it to the people that need it? Are they doing everything right but they just need more? How much more?

And all of this doesn’t even begin to address things like whether aid actually works in the long run or where it should come from.

To Respond…

First let me say that I chose poorly for the title of that post. It did indeed read like an either/or situation and in retrospect, not such a great idea. Even if there was a question mark at the end.

You’re right to say that the money spent on the military is part of human security, but the $100m is being spent on one type of security and even in a very narrow way at that. As I understand it, our troops are there to defeat the Taliban and train Afghans to do so as well but to do any general policing. The American troops are not subject to the orders of the Afghan government, and the American government can only govern Afghanistan in a limited fashion and not without risking a perception of colonialism. The best way to improve all aspects of human security is to do as much as possible in each sector simultaneously and not put one over the other or even act on them one at a time.

The Need for Military and Police

While an increased international troop presence for a substantial period of time can go a long way in protecting local populations while the police forces build up, it may not be the most practical option. The region is not supportive of a prolonged US and NATO presence and their cooperation is key.

“Proposals for improving the security situation focus on sending additional international forces, building larger national security forces in Afghanistan, and training and equipping Pakistan’s security forces, which are organized for conflict with India, for domestic counterinsurgency. But none of these proposals is sufficient to meet the current, let alone future, threats…Securing Afghanistan and its region will require an international presence for many years, but only a regional diplomatic initiative that creates a consensus to place stabilizing Afghanistan ahead of other objectives could make a long-term international deployment possible.” (Ahmed and Rubin)

There is debate on whether the US and the Afghan government should seek to negotiate with some Taliban forces. But these voices acknowledge this is not the only solution and that the military is still needed even if there are negotiations. The question is whether or not such a “quick-fix” solution would yield positive long term results.

The Economist does not rule out negotiations, but takes a cautious approach:

“A more realistic strategy is to isolate the hardliners by cutting deals with individual insurgent commanders, and wooing disaffected tribal groups over to the government side. But that will not happen on a significant scale without two things: greater security, to keep the support of the population and protect those who throw in their lot with the government; and a government that looks credible, legitimate and effective enough to offer a more attractive alternative to the Taliban.” (Wobbly)

In another article from the Economist:

“There is a difference between saying there is no military solution and believing the mission is bound to fail; between trying to draw individual commanders away from the Taliban and sharing power with their leader, Mullah Omar.” (Pessimism)

The Challenge of Rebuilding

Salon writer, Damien Cave, writes that rebuilding Afghanistan is less of a nation-building project than it is a nation-creating one.

“Decades of civil war and foreign invasions have destroyed what little infrastructure previously existed, even as a two-year drought has ruined the country’s ability to feed itself. Most of the educated class that might be willing to create stable government left long ago, and even if they returned, Afghanistan has little history of self-government to fall back on. Add to all of this a rugged terrain that makes any kind of geographic cohesion extremely difficult and you end up with a quagmire that defies description.” (Cave)

If we’re going to build roads in Afghanistan, there must be more than just people with guns. There needs to be a credible, legitimate government which may very well not be Karzai’s. There is also something to be said by the danger posed by a population who has known nothing but war.

“The demographics of the country make extended war even more probable. Afghanistan today is a society of warriors, men who know nothing but war. Not only do many families have no primary breadwinner, because he’s been killed, but “for those men who are still there, the retraining mission is extremely daunting,” says Martha Brill Olcott of the Carnegie Foundation. “They’re not even military men who have experience with discipline. They’re guerrillas.” Getting them to put down their guns will require huge effort, and may not ever succeed. With a ready supply of funders and with so many caves and other places to hide, Taliban soldiers could become guerrillas once again. Even if most of the country wants peace, a small, well-armed minority could disrupt any attempt to rebuild.” (Cave)

The Role of International Aid

There should be no flipping of the numbers, from $100m a day in military and $7m in other areas to $7m in military and then $100m in other areas. Peacebuilders and nation-makers in Afghanistan cannot work without the military, and the success of the military would be extremely limited without them. I don’t know if the $100m is being spent effectively nor do I know if the $7m is being spent effectively as well. I’m not sure you or I can know some of those things, but its always a good idea to put pressure on the administration to make sure no dollar is wasted.

We do know that corruption is a major factor in the distribution of the aid. But like all forms of international aid, it is best done selectively in certain areas of life and subject to conditions. There is no one perfect fit for all countries and they must be evaluated on a case by case basis. But in all cases, the success of the aid is dependent not only on the donors but on the receivers as well. There is no question as to whether international aid in principle works, the question is when does it work best.

References

• Rashid, Ahmed and Rubin, Barnett R. “From Great Game to Grand Bargain: Ending Chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan”. Foreign Affairs, November/December 2008.
• “No time to go wobbly“. The Economist, October 16, 2008.
• “A surge of pessimism“. The Economist, October 16, 2008.
• Cave, Damien. “Can we rebuild Afghanistan?” Salon.com

Let Bin Laden Cast A Vote?

There’s been a lot of buzz around the news media (the online stuff I read at least) about what the appearance of a new Bin Laden tape would do to this election. Its been said the nail in the coffin for the 2004 Kerry campaign was a Bin Laden tape and how Kerry failed to act authoritatively in response to it. Another tape could also influence the 2008 election, but in who’s favor?

First off, I think its a little stupid to take the comments of an internationally wanted man at face value. But I understand that how the candidate reacts to it speaks volumes about his leadership abilities. One BBC blogger says Bin Laden would be more afraid of an Obama presidency because it would be a “new face” of America and hinder al-Qaeda’s recruitment:

It brings us back to the hypothetical question. “If Osama Bin Laden had the vote, how would he use it?” Some people answer that he would surely vote for Obama because he believes in “soft power” before military force. But usually the conversation evolves along these lines. Osama Bin Laden would fear Barack Obama more because he will present a different face to the world. With his diverse background he will be a new American. Barack Obama will be a poor recruiter for al-Qaeda. It’s the Colin Powell point that “Obama would be a transformational president…it would electrify the world”. So might Osama Bin Laden then try to strengthen John McCain’s hand?

A Newsweek columnist goes a little further in postulating what the Obama camp would do. Its good advice I suppose, but its a little too much hypothetical speaking for me.

After condemning the new tape, Obama could launch right into renewed criticism of the failure to catch Al Qaeda’s mastermind seven years after 9/11. Instead of making him look like another weak Democrat, a new tape would give Obama a chance to seem muscular on national security. McCain would try to argue that the country would be safer with him, but it probably wouldn’t have the potency of Bush’s similar claim in 2004.

I also don’t know if it would be true that an Obama presidency would still the minds of potential militants. Obama, for all his charm, cannot heal anti-Americanism. He could give more people an incentive to question their hatred, but those who have already made up their minds will not be persuaded. Their hatred is rooted in perceived inustices that have been going on for the past few decades and coded in religious fervor. A bi-racial multicultural American president cannot change that. If anything he could further embolden the allies we already have.

Allies or Victims?

I was just reading this article in Newsweek about a little town in Pakistan that is reportedly a place of refuge for terrorists given that is so close to the Afghanistan border. American troops are already in the region taking out as many terrorists they can find.

I may be just a damned Civvie, as Colonel Tigh would say, but I think there are some inefficient methods going on. Approximately 100 people have been killed by American soldiers since 2006, and the inhabitants say that many of them were innocent bystanders including children. The soldiers claim they examine their targets very carefully.

“But in practice their definition of a legitimate target includes those who make it possible for militants to thrive. “If people in those communities are truly concerned about their welfare, they should not harbor terrorists, and they should oppose those who do,” says one U.S. official.”

I’m not saying that our men and women conducting these operations don’t care about taking innocent lives, but I do think there is significantly less value attached to the lives of the locals. When it comes to fighting terror and bringing justice to the still living victims of terrorists (that includes the followers they lie to), the targets should be the ones who are committed to violent action. I don’t think its fair to include those who feed and clothe them. By all means, subject them to the necessary legal punishments if a case can be proven against, but don’t save any bullets for them.

The term “terrorist” over there is not so black and white in the way we think of it over here. We think of people who deliberately want to kill civilians for political gain. We debate over what organizations actually want to do that, but we have a clear understanding of the defining goal. Over in Pakistan, and many other developing democracies, “terrorist” is used very loosely to include opposition of the sitting regimes. Unfortunately, many western governments don’t even try to understand such groups and are happy to go along with the terrorist label. Its always nice to tell the public that you’ve detained and/or killed a bunch of Islamic terrorists, so why spoil it?

The article goes on, and I love it.

“But Pakistan’s new civilian leadership complains that the U.S. strikes—and the collateral damage they’ve caused—are making the job of pacifying the area harder. At ground level, in mountain hamlets like Damadola, things aren’t always as clear as they may seem through the viewfinder of a deadly, high-flying drone.

Villagers in Damadola say it’s hard to say no to men with guns, especially when many of those men are your neighbors and relatives. It’s even tougher in Pakistan’s tribal areas, where the Pashtuns’ ancient ethical code requires that every visitor be treated hospitably. “Even if a bloodthirsty enemy comes to your door you have to welcome him,” says a gray-bearded villager named Bakhti Gul. He can’t help adding: “Especially those who are chased by the U.S.” His nephew was among the victims of the most recent Predator attack, early on the morning of May 14. The young man had joined the militants, Bakhti Gul admits, but only after an earlier Predator strike on a nearby madrassa had killed more than 80 of his schoolmates.

“Could the villagers of Damadola save themselves by simply not “harboring terrorists,” as the Americans say? Mohammed Abdul Mateen, a retired science teacher who left Damadola several years ago but visits frequently, agrees the militants are destroying the place, but says the Hellfire attacks only increase their strength. “Soon the last educated villagers will be gone, leaving an illiterate people in the hands of narrow-minded mullahs,” he says. Kids in once quiet Damadola are now terrified by loud noises, which could signal an incoming U.S. spy plane. “The land under our feet is on fire,” says shopkeeper Haji Omar Shah. “Where can we run?” Since mid-May, villagers say U.S. choppers and drones have been flying over Damadola regularly, swooping low to the ground. They’re sure more trouble is coming.”

Oh Newsweek, this almost makes up for your earlier article on Islam. =-)