THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

MacNamara if correctly quoted is wrong again. Bush did not act unilaterally. Bush acted without the support of three countries proven to have had vested interests in keeping Hussein in power despite his continuing murder of thousands of Iraqies. Those three countries are well known to the US public now: France, Germany, and Russia. Russia and France are both capable of vetoing UN support for anything they do not support. Absence of their support is not proof of the absence of multilateralism.

Bernard Lewis is a hack.

Review of Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response"
Juan Cole, Global Dialogue, 27 January 2003

Bernard Lewis. What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. 172 pp. Index to p. 180. Hard covers, $23.

Bernard Lewis's What Went Wrong? is a very bad book from a usually very good author. How a profoundly learned and highly respected historian, whose career spans some sixty years, could produce such a hodgepodge of muddled thinking, inaccurate assertions and one-sided punditry is a profound mystery. While I cannot hope to resolve the puzzle, I can explain why I come to this conclusion.

Lewis never defines his terms, and he paints with a brush so broad that he may as well have brought a broom to the easel. He begins by speaking of the "Islamic world," and of "what went wrong" with it. He contrasts this culture region to "the West," and implies that things went right with the latter. But what does he mean by the "Islamic world?" He seldom speaks of the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, who form a very substantial proportion of the whole. Malaysia and Indonesia are never instanced. He seems to mean "the Muslim Middle East," but if so he would have been better advised to say so. With regard to the Middle East, what does he mean by the question "what went wrong?" Does he mean to ask about economic underdevelopment? About lack of democracy? About a failure to contribute to scientific and technological advances? About ethnocentrism? All of these themes are mentioned in passing, but none is formulated as a research design. If "what went wrong" was mainly economic, political and scientific, then why pose the question with regard to a religious category? Lewis straightforwardly says that Islam in and of itself cannot be blamed for what went wrong (whatever that was). Since Islam is not the independent variable in his explanation, why make "the Islamic world" the unit of analysis? Discerning exactly what Lewis is attempting to explain, and what he thinks the variables are that might explain it, is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Lewis has a tendency to lump things under a broad rubric together that are actually diverse and perhaps not much related to one another. Speaking of classical "Islam," presumably about 632-1258, Lewis says that the "armies" of "Islam" "at the very same time, were invading Europe and Africa, India and China" (p. 6). Here he makes it sound as though "Islam" was a single unit with a unified military. Later, (p. 12) he actually speaks of the Crusaders' successes impressing "Muslim war departments," as if medieval institutions were so reified. In fact, Moroccan Berbers fighting in Spain are highly unlikely even to have known about the Turkic raids down into India. Nor is it clear that those Turks were motivated primarily by Islam (pastoralists have been invading India from Central Asia for millennia). Moreover, tribal alliances across religious boundaries bring into question the firmness of the military boundaries suggested by speaking of "Islam." Even the early Ottoman conquests in Anatolia were accomplished in part through alliances with Christians. Finally, much of the advance of Islam occurred quite peacefully, through Sufi missionary work for example.

I always wonder, why all the other countries, which didn't support Bush, are obviously forgotten.

Main Entry: mul·ti·lat·er·al
Pronunciation: "m&l-ti-'la-t(&-)r&l, -"tI-
Function: adjective
1 : having many sides
2 : involving or participated in by more than two nations or parties <multilateral agreements>
- mul·ti·lat·er·al·ism /-'la-t(&-)r&-"li-z&m/ noun
- mul·ti·lat·er·al·ist /-list/ noun
- mul·ti·lat·er·al·ly adverb

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I always wonder, why all the other countries, which didn't support Bush, are obviously forgotten.

First, "all the other countries, which didn't support Bush", are NOT obviously forgotten.

Second, all the countries that do support Bush are not forgotten either. Thus, Bush acted multilaterally.

It is clear that some are confused about the meaning of multilateralism.

Does everybody remember the arm twisting and Bullying Bush had to do to get his pathetic "coalition" together?

Every major race, religion, ethnicity in the world is represented along with nations from every continent on the globe. Unilateral is a pretty silly definition in light of the facts.

I did. I took them with a large grain of salt. I also noted that Turkey was on the list, which says a lot about the honesty of the administation and people who believe them.?

Now, some homework for you, frat-boy...

... exactly what is each "member" contributing, and how much were they compensated for their participation?

MORE QUESTIONS FOR THOSE ON THE LEFT