With a U.S. invasion of Iraq now all but inevitable in the wake of President George W. Bush’s ultimatum Monday night to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to leave the country within 48 hours, Williams College professors reflected on the repercussions of war — without U.N. participation or approval — in the volatile Middle East.
They spoke of a U.S. attack as galvanizing radical Muslim opposition and, indeed, creating cohesiveness among all Muslims. Some said a U.S. invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam would provide Al Qaeda with waves of new recruits.
They pointed to the American short attention span once military conquest is complete, citing Afghanistan as an example.
They warned that American aims of establishing a democracy in Iraq are either window-dressing for an exercise in military power or naive missionary zeal. And they cited the example of an earlier empire whose farflung legions could not guard its crumbling frontiers.
According to a story in Monday’s Boston Globe, Muslim clerics who had previously denounced Osama bin Laden after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are now calling for holy war or jihad against the United States. Religion Professor William R. Darrow, whose specialty is Islam, said “The Islamic community, especially the Arab Islamic community, thinks of itself as one whole, an attack on any part elicits as much response as we saw in America on 9/11.â€
“The usual term for the community, umma, stems from the notion of ‘mother,’ “ said Darrow.
“In terms of what a call for jihad means, that’s an open question,†said Darrow. “We have a knee-jerk, fearful reaction which I think gets us into more trouble than understanding. The likelihood of demonstrations throughout the Muslim world being large and destabilizing is there,†he said.
“One of the costs we’ll have to pay is either our complicity in measures of repression by governments, or the overthrow of these governments,†he said.
“The U.S. government has convinced itself that the war will be 100 hours, and will be followed by a victory celebration,†said Darrow. “I don’t believe that.“ A victory this time will be far more ambiguous than kicking Iraq out of Kuwait in the Gulf War.
Darrow and others see the U.S. invasion as the product of “an unfortunate alliance between unilateralist users of military force and what I call Wilsonian idealism of the most naive and dangerous sort.â€
“[U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald ] Rumsfeld’s not the least bit interested in a new democracy but in making sure American power is supreme. He’s made an alliance with a group that with missionary zeal thinks they can remake other parts of the world.
“We’ve been trying to remake that part of the world since World War I, and we’ve not been successful,†said Darrow. “The whole Middle East sometimes takes a generation to pay the consequences.
“I recently read that Americans have a wonderful habit of thinking they can start history whenever they want, and it’s probably just Americans who do that. Others by instinct and education know better,†he said.
And Darrow noted the irony of CIA involvement in a coup that overthrew a former Iraqi leader, enabling Saddam Hussein’s eventual rise to power.
“Residually, no one will be sorry to see Saddam gone,†said Darrow. “Everyone in Iran is surrounded by Americans, Americans in Central Asia, in Afghanistan, now in Iraq. They are going to feel surrounded, and that’s likely to encourage anti-Americanism and the hardliners.â€
As for Iraq itself, Darrow noted, “The British gave up on it.â€
“That’s how you bankrupt empires,†he said. “You get them to overreach, and then bleed them dry.â€
In the Muslim world, said Darrow, “I think the primary two emotions are anger and fear.â€
Gloomy post-war scenario
Assistant professor of political science Marc Lynch painted a gloomy scenario in the aftermath of war. Lynch, who specializes in Middle Eastern affairs, said “when you look at fighting without a U.N. resolution and alienating the entire world, it’s extremely negative.â€
But, he said, “it’s a good thing that the Security Council didn’t authorize the invasion. The relevance of the Security Council will always be there. If the U.S. doesn’t want to engage with the views of other states, it shouldn’t expect a blank check. Bush should have worked through the U.N., but the invasion doesn’t destroy the U.N.â€
“In terms of the war itself, I think it will probably be won fairly quickly, although war is always unpredictable,†said Lynch. “I also think the war won’t solve America’s real problems, and it’s going to create new problems.
“The real problem the U.S. has in the Middle East is growing fear and resentment of the United States, and Al Qaeda is part of that,†he said. “Virtually everybody, even our friends are angry and frightened, and war is only going to make that worse.
“With Al Qaeda, we need to protect ourselves against them, and for that we need cooperation with a lot of states, and I think there will be less cooperation as a result of the war,†he said.
“I don’t, as many people do, think the war will lead immediately to an upsurge of terrorism. I don’t think if you make a Muslim angry he’ll turn into a terrorist,†he said, adding, “I think that way of thinking is kind of racist.â€
“But public opinion in the Arab world is getting angrier and angrier, and I think Arab and Islamist governments will become less democratic as a result of war. Down the road, in a few years, I think there’ll be significantly more terrorism as a result of the war as people become radicalized, as a result of repressive, non-democratic governments.â€
“I think the occupation of Iraq is going to be messy and very expensive,†said Lynch. “I see absolutely no reason to believe the United States is serious about creating democracy in Iraq.â€
“My bottom line on this is that the war is not going to solve any of our problems,†he said. “Iraq was never a particularly serious issue. I think it was exaggerated. Winning the war won’t make much difference, and it’s going to create a lot of new problems.
“At this point, it’s difficult to see how war can be avoided,†he said. “I really don’t think that there’s a strong argument for war, and I’m really quite frightened about where things might go. The only positive thing is that getting to this war has been so difficult for Bush, hopefully it could discourage him from proceeding on to other wars.â€
“And I don’t think the war will be that important in the 2004 elections,†said Lynch. “I don’t think people should think the war will mean Bush is guaranteed re-election. I think by Christmas people will have forgotten all about Iraq.â€
Doubts about U.S. nation building
Anthropology Professor David B. Edwards said the United States attention span is too short for nation-building, and that the pattern visible in Afghanistan is less than reassuring.
“I’m very pessimistic about it,†said Edwards, whose area of concentration is Afghanistan. “I think the situation in Afghanistan is relevant, the way it just dropped off the face of the earth. Last year it was the center of the world, now you can’t find a story about it. The administration has forgotten about it, too. The Bush budget appropriation request to Congress omitted funds for Afghanistan.
“It’s important in that it tells you that if we can’t stay the course in Afghanistan, where the situation is relatively speaking less complicated than in Iraq, if we’re unable to handle the situation in Afghanistan, what makes us think we can restructure Iraq? Hubris and naivete.
“It has all the earmarks of a disaster. It’s particularly dangerous because of the reaction that’s going to ensue in the Middle East,†said Edwards.
“When the Taliban fell as quickly as it did, it eliminated the protests rising up,†he said. “Nobody expected the Taliban to abandon Kabul as quickly as it did, so the protests in the Muslim world vanished. But Afghanistan is off on the margins, and that’s simply not true with Iraq, which is the Arab heartland.
“I think you’re going to see lots of scenes of casualties on Al-Jazeera television. Saddam will manipulate those images, and he may not even have to manipulate them, because there will be casualties, and a lot of European journalists, as well as Muslim journalists, will circulate them,†he said.
“The war will be messy and protracted, because although Iraqi Army resistance may not be that long-lived, . . . I don’t know how we would put together a coalition that has legitimacy, because the very fact we put it in power would make it dependent upon us for the indefinite future. We can’t extricate ourselves from this one. If we do, we abandon Iraq to ethnic strife and chaos.
“Either the United States gets more and more enmeshed in the region, or, if we once more wipe our hands clean and leave our messes behind, it will be a tremendous recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. There’s more than frustration, there’s anger at that presumption.
“All of Bush’s high moral statements ring hollow in the Middle East,†said Edwards. “Our track record isn’t good. We’ve never held Israel accountable when Israel is disdainful of a U.N. resolution. We have a double standard. And none of this is good for our reputation,†he said.
“I predicted this last time around,†said Edwards. “The Afghans after two decades of war were eager to be rid of the Taliban, so we had about as favorable a situation as we could hope for. But this time, it’s not the same. That being said, Saddam is a tyrant, a bad guy.â€
Force is necessary
Sociology Professor Robert Jackall, who is an expert on terrorism, said that despite the fact that a U.S. invasion of Iraq increases the likelihood of terrorism, he believes war is necessary.
“We’ve been in danger of subsequent attacks from Al Qaeda, and [an imminent] invasion has raised the stakes higher, there’s no gainsaying that,†said Jackall. “The increased security alert indicates that Yes, there is a likelihood of retaliatory attacks. I don’t think that can be denied.
“This does increase likelihood of terrorist attacks, but I don’t want that to be used as an argument for not going to war,†said Jackall.
“I think there are times when decisive action is necessary, and when force has to be used to resolve impossible situations, and I think this is one of them.â€
If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.
Your Comments
iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.
No Comments
Winter Storm Warning Issued for Berkshires
Another snowstorm is expected to move through the region overnight on Friday, bringing 5 to 8 inches of snow. This is updated from Thursday's winter weather advisory.
The National Weather Service in Albany, N.Y., has posted a winter storm warning for all of Berkshire County and parts of eastern New York State beginning Friday at 4 p.m. through Saturday at 1 p.m.
The region could see heavy to moderate snowfall rates of 1 to 2 inches per hour overnight, tapering off Saturday morning to flurries.
Drivers should exercise caution on Friday night and Saturday morning, as travel conditions may be hazardous.
Saturday night should be clear and calm, but warming temperatures means freezing rain Sunday night and rain through Monday with highs in the 40s. The forecast isn't much better through the week as temperatures dip back into the teens with New Year's Eve looking cloudy and frigid.
Many homeowners are showing their holiday spirit by decorating their houses. We asked for submissions so those in the community can check out these fanciful lights and decor when they're out.
click for more
