Cause and Effect
October 12, 2004
Between now and the November 2nd election Ritual Reality will publish a four-part series examining what we believe is the true crisis facing this country and the world.
Part 2: Doomed to Repeat?
Hardly a day goes by without someone referring to the "post-9/11 world". This is a handy piece of shorthand that means everything from "plan to arrive at the airport at least two hours ahead of your scheduled departure time" to "Terror Alert Level: Orange - Elevated" crawling across the bottom of the television screen. The post-9/11 world is visceral, immediate, dangerous.
Vice President Dick Cheney recently attempted to define the difference between the world we live in now--America at risk and at war--and the world that was before. The greatest threat, he solemnly intoned, was that America would make the wrong choice, vote for the wrong presidential candidate, and slip into a "pre 9/11 mindset". Should that happen we are sure to suffer another catastrophic attack.
It's high time we discussed the the pre-9/11 world, the forces that created certain strains of international terrorism, and the reasons they are directed at the West and the USA in particular. It goes deeper than "they hate our freedom" or "America just wants their oil."
A number of scholars and journalists have tried to do plumb those depths. Many of them single out the Egyptian scholar, poet, and literary critic Sayyid Qutb as the godfather of the radical Islamist movement. By most accounts, Qutb was hardly an authority on Islamic law. But he was a scathing critic of the harsh imperialist influence on his native country and resulting oppression of his countrymen. He came to believe that the Egyptian government was corrupt and ultimately beholden to outside powers and he called for the removal of both by any means. His ideas caught on. Qutb's writings had an immediate effect and continue to be highly influential. Haneef James Oliver, author of The Wahhabi Myth, offers the following:
Qutb's lack of knowledge in Islam coupled by his jailing led him to change his understanding of Islam according to the circumstances he was faced with. Consequently, his writings became more and more radical as time went by. Eventually, his revolutionary ideology of takfir (excommunication) and setting out against the authorities became ingrained in the minds and hearts of a new generation of youth who were looking for something greater than the failed way of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun. To this day, Qutb is considered to be the head of this ideology for all insurrectionary groups.
Understanding the circumstances that led to Qutb's ideological transformation is key to understanding the present day crisis. The Arab world was beset by the forces of corruption. These were codified in part by Western imperialist powers, which not only interfered with but often dictated the internal affairs of Muslim states, but also present in Islamic regimes that colluded with the imperialist powers. This doesn't begin to penetrate the complexity of the issue but it does provide the basis for real understanding and further discussion. It is essential for Americans to understand what the "War on Terror(ism)" is selling, and how such a war hides origins which are deeper and more complex than a blind hatred of "American freedom."
If we examine the phenomenon of modern Islamic terrorism in a broader historical context, we must eventually acknowledge a causal relationship between the rise of extremism and centuries-old Western imperialism in the Muslim world. In his fascinating book Krakatoa, author Simon Winchester describes how the massive volcanic eruption that destroyed the namesake island and killed 40,000 people resulted in a bloody uprising among Muslims in Java. By his account a sect of fundamentalists radicalized the local population by preaching that the volcano's destruction was Allah punishing Muslims for accepting colonial rule. The violence was intended to purge the region of the Western establishment. That was in 1883. Qutb and the radical outbursts he inspired occurred in Egypt in the 1950s. Sporadic incidents of terrorist or revolutionary guerilla actions are recorded throughout the intervening years. The political and social forces of the late imperialist age clearly affected and reinforced the rise of modern terrorist ideology.
But one important event, in 1953, marks a profound shift in the course of history and bears a direct relationship to the present clash between the American government and radical Islamic terrorists. It happened in Iran.
The Eisenhower administration, specifically Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother CIA Director Alan Dulles, were persuaded by the British government to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh. Obstensibly, the British and Americans feared a Soviet-backed Communist coup that threatened Allied strategic interests. The underlying reason involved a long-term dispute between Britain and Iran over petroleum production and export, which Britain had controlled through a typical iron-fisted colonial arrangement. Mossadegh has secured the nationalization of his nation's oil resources and this was unconscionable to the British. The CIA orchestrated a coup that put Reza Shah in a position of undisputed authority. The American government provided unwavering support or the brutally despotic Shah until he was deposed in 1978.
Stephen Kinzer in his book All the Shah's Men cites a number of American historians and their views of the rammifications of U.S. involvement in the coup of 1953.
Nikki R. Keddie: Feelings against the United States government became far stronger when it became known that the United States was heavily involved in the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh. American support over twenty-five years for the Shah's dictatorship and nearly all its ways added to this anti-American feeling.Mary Ann Heiss:
By subverting Iranian nationalism, the oil dispute of the 1950s laid the seeds for the Islamic Revolution that would come twenty-five years later and that would usher in even more anti-Western regimes in Tehran than Mossadegh's. As a result, its consequences continue even now to cast a shadow over the Persian Gulf and beyond.James A. Bill:
This paved the way for the incubation of extremism, both of the left and of the right. This extremism became unalterably anti-American....The fall of Mossadegh marked the end of a century of friendship between the two countries, and began a new era of U.S. intervention and growing hostility against the United States among the weakened forces of Iranian nationalism.Mark J. Gasiorowski:
U.S. complicity in these events figured prominently in the terrorist attacks on American citizens and installations that occurred in Iran in the early 1970s, in the anti-American character o fthe 1978-79 revolution, and in the many anti-American incidents that emanated from Iran after the revolution, including, most notably, the embassy hostage crisis. Latter-day supporters of the coup frequently argue that it purchased twenty-five years of stability in Iran under a pro-American regime. As the dire consequences of the revolution for U.S. interests continue to unfold, one can wonder whether this has been worth the long-term cost.
What most Americans probably don't realize--if they know about the coup d'état in Iran at all--is that knowledge of the CIA action in 1953 is widespread in the muslim world as are the long term effects. These have directly and profoundly reflected U. S. policy in the region:
- - The rise of extremist groups backed by Iran, stationed in Syria, and hostile to Israel
- - Israel's invasion of Lebanon and subsequent terrorist attacks on American troops sent to that nation as peacekeepers
- - The Reagan-Bush policy of backing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in exchange for his beligerent policy toward Iran
The last is perhaps the most immediate and timely example of U. S. policy that seeks short term gain through shortsighted strategies with disastrous long term results. By encouraging Hussein to develop a chemical weapons program that would rival Iran's--including clearance for the sale of a veritable witch's brew threw U. S. corporations--America bolstered the regime's ability to create the very WMD stockpiles that the current administration asserted to be an imminent threat. Hussein was another experiment that backfired. The real danger now is that the goals of the current administration are guided by a sweeping, radical ideology that preaches the transformation, by force of arms or other forms of coercion, of the world's most volatile region. The radicalism is not lost on the leaders of that region, many of whom, and this cannot be understated, see both the United States and radical Islamists as threats to their security.
Since the fall of the European imperial powers after World War II the United States has filled the position as a primary global actor. In the last 60 years, the United States has consistently applied pressure to nations around the globe. This pressure has been more direct and severe in the region of the Middle East. That constant pressure and near occupation in the region resonates deeply in the Arab world. Unfortunately the American government consistently fails to understand the historical context that frames our actions and policies. To simply dismiss Islamic fundamentalism as a reaction to "freedom" obfuscates a very real source of contention. A solution to the problem of terrorism will not be produced through the mechanical execution of the "War on Terror(ism)", but will only serve to exacerbate existing suspicion and radicalize many others. Accepting America's actions in the complex and nuanced causal chain will allow a greater perspective on the problems that face the world and lead to solutions that are more lasting than simply unleashing the machines of war.
Comments: