"Imperial Hubris" Author Says U.S. Is Deluded about Al Qaeda
Michael Scheuer, a retired CIA official and the author of several books on the "war on terror," offered a briskly stinging rebuke to essentially everything the United States is doing to counter Al Qaeda, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on September 18:
The government of the United States continues to fight an Islamist terrorist enemy--in al-Qaeda and its allies--that does not exist in the form Washington sees it; is not motivated by the factors Washington ascribes to it; and will not be defeated by the military forces and political toos Washington is deploying against it.
Scheuer's basic line of argument is that the United States has completely failed to grapple with the sole motivation of Al Qaeda, and the basis for its support:
...their perception that U.S. foreign policy is a deliberate attack on Islam and Muslms. From our enemies' perspective, therefore, this is preeminently a religious war, nothwithstanding the blather to the contrary of Western politicians, academics, policy makers and pundits.
Despite my appreciation for Scheuer's unmatched ability to take down government pieties about the war on terror, in less than a dozen words, I would maintain with the blatherers (as I have previously) that it is not quite right to call this a religious war and leave it at that.
First, the concept of religious war doesn't communicate at all correctly to American counterterrorism officials, who spend their time trying to pick apart the minutiae of Islamic jurisprudence (which they do not know), or seeking to use Islamic precepts (whose historical, cultural and linguistic bases they do not understand) against their adversaries in communications campaigns, and the like.
Scheuer's actual formulation of the grievance, which is that Al Qaeda's "perception that U.S. foreign policy is a deliberate attack on Islam and Muslims," places it in the realm of politics. Al Qaeda and their ilk feel that American policies are directed prejudicially against one particular group. The group -- the Islamic community -- is bound by religion, but their complaint lies in the realm of politics.
Al Qaeda's characterization of conflict as religious may be genuine, but the grievance itself is fundamentally political-- it is about relations between groups and nations and their governance. It may be recalled that the Iranian revolution, which was fundamentally a political event, was also carried out in a religious idiom.
Scheuer, in fact, recommends in the end that it is the policy end of the equation, rather than engagement with "other people's religious wars" to which we should attend:
It is worth considering whether it might be smarter, cheaper and less bloody to change the failed foreign policies that brought war with al-Qaeda and its Islamist allies, rather than maintaining those war-motivating policies as divine writ and building an ever-larger military to fight the ever-expanding wars that writ produces ... a much more narrowly defined set of genuine U.S. national interests would require far less frequent resort to war and would be umch more consonant with timelessly wise foreign policy goals of our country's Founding Fathers.
Comments
Unfortunately everyone thinks they are an expert. In the article you picked out several key points, one of which being:
“First, the concept of religious war doesn’t communicate at all correctly to American counterterrorism officials, who spend their time trying to pick apart the minutiae of Islamic jurisprudence (which they do not know)”
But then to say:
“Al Qaeda’s characterization of conflict as religious may be genuine, but the grievance itself is fundamentally political– it is about relations between groups and nations and their governance. It may be recalled that the Iranian revolution, which was fundamentally a political event, was also carried out in a religious idiom.”
Which as a Muslim i can tell you is not near the driving factor. An Islamic community is gathered together by a creed. Much as your disgusting moral debauchery which allows all kinds of menaces and produces the worst evils: you call it “liberal democracy”. Without picking that title to pieces, for the sake of brevity, You need to understand that Islam is the true creed and system brought to us by God. In the Quran we have everything needed to create a fully functional,in fact the longest ever standing ideology which has practical manifestation, much longer than the fast burn capitalism which is on its current slope into oblivion. After 1000 years of crusades, up to the current one, Islam has suffered greatly. 100’s of millions have been raped and slaughtered according to the history books, the ones that manage to stay out of standard education anyway. Yet Islam Lives in the hearts an Jihad is the peakof the matter. The Muslim believes this and that to die fighting to defend the muslims is rewarded with paradise, beautiful women of paradise and many other rewards. We believe this as you believe that your mother is your mother. We dont care if you dont wish to find out why, educated people in their masses believe this, whether there is evience or whether you have an ounce of sincerity in contemplating your existance.
This is why you can never win. Allah tells us “victory in the end is for the believers” and our history speaks volumes. When ever
we are weak, Jihad becomes obligatory, and as when The romans were confronted by the great companion of muhammad, this desert arab
thin and sun worn, at the height of roman
imperialism, the aske, “what o you want,
money?” He replied “we have come to drink
your blood” and they destroyed the roman empire in battles. So I say to you, We will drink your blood as well.
Dear Yusuf,
Thank you for your comment. I can appreciate your irritation that “everyone thinks they’re an expert.” But I don’t appreciate your eagerness to cut off dialogue by claiming the ultimate ability to speak for all Muslims about how to interpret Islam’s intent.
If you look back at the history of Islamic civilization, you will find that one of the qualities that kept it enduring and vibrant among so many people has been its inclusiveness and capacity to sustain dialogue, among Muslims and between Muslims and non-Muslims.
The religious texts of all three Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) offer believers the opportunity to find either liberal, inclusive messages or xenophobic and violent messages. How we interpret those texts is an individual and community choice.
Best regards,
Amy