THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

The Backlash Paradox

By Jim Hoagland
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page A31

The 21st century announces itself as an era of backlash and paradox. This owes much to an uneasily shifting equilibrium between religion and politics, a disturbed equilibrium that was on display this week in capitals as dissimilar as Rome, Baghdad, Jerusalem and Washington.

Often a source of advancement throughout history, religion in its many forms has become a primary force of political backlash in the era of globalization. As social and economic change becomes more dramatic, intrusive and unpredictable, people seek out seemingly eternal certainties.


Backlash is an engine of paradox. It is easy to confound reaction with action -- to mistake a loud gasp of despair for a rallying cry, or to confuse the chicken and the egg. This could be particularly true for Americans trained to compartmentalize religion and politics but who confront global trends going in the other direction.

Militant Islam responds to the increasing secularization of Muslim societies with a jihad against all things modern, and it appears to be on an advancing march. Christian evangelicals lash out against the undeniable spread of profane and vulgar behavior and speech in American public life and are pilloried for making religion and "moral values" the center of U.S. politics.

Pope John Paul II lay in state at the Vatican this week to be venerated across Europe, even as churches on that continent continue to lose regular worshipers or already stand empty. The pope was mourned, rightfully, as one of the past century's most consequential political figures while being denounced by many for religious orthodoxy.

In Israel, religious zealots profaned with graffiti the tombs of Yitzhak Rabin and other Israeli political leaders over the weekend, apparently to manifest opposition to Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza. In Baghdad, Iraqi clerics maneuvered to enshrine a privileged position for Islam in a new Iraqi constitution, even as Sunni extremists waged a barely disguised religious war on their Shiite brethren.

Religion has long played a major role in politics in most societies, even if unacknowledged. But that role is changing today in many places -- and especially in the Middle East -- where religion has become politics to a great extent. To be more precise, religion is filling a vacuum left by the failure of state politics to explain, moderate or accommodate the forces of change unleashed in the superconnected and superstimulated world of globalization.

One of the essential functions of politics in modern societies is to mediate between the religious and the secular -- to offer a peaceful, consensual method for redrawing boundaries as local and national codes of social behavior evolve and church hierarchies do not.

This process has often been one of "defining out," of lawmakers withdrawing the monopoly that organized religions claim over prohibited or prescribed behavior by redefining that behavior as a matter primarily of civil concern.

In the rural American South of my childhood, segregation was spuriously portrayed by many whites and their clergy as a religious duty. Political leadership was needed to consign racism to legal and secular realms. Today's struggles over abortion and gay marriage in this country are contentious examples of defining issues out of one sphere into another.

But such intermediation is difficult where Islam or any other religion functions as both a faith and a code of conduct for all aspects of life. The political realm withers as increased communication brings home to more people the inadequacies and essential unfairness, if not corruption, of those who rule them.

Far from bringing Orwell's "1984," the intrusiveness of modern technology and media into daily life undermines the power of, and respect for, the state and by extension politics everywhere, argues historian John Lukacs in his provocative 2002 essay "At the End of an Age."

Paradox rules in this time of enduring "dualities" and stubborn "coexistence between continuity and change," writes Lukacs.

The world has never had more communication and yet produced so little understanding and wisdom. In advanced manufacturing societies, Lukacs notes, "the production of consumption has become more important than the production of goods." While "constitutions and courts have extended lawfulness to private acts of all kinds . . . fewer and fewer people appreciate or are able to cultivate privacy."

Lukacs concludes this literate survey of the seeming contradictions of the new age that he sees upon us by explaining his own continuing deep religious faith. Agree with Lukacs or not on that point, as you will. But his work provides a valuable framework for understanding the consequences of change that reorders the world and our perceptions of it.

[email protected]

"There is reason to believe that we were sucked into an ill-conceived initial attack aimed at Saddam himself by double agents planted by the regime. And as we now know the estimate of Saddam's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was substantially wrong."

...That's right, we were tricked into attacking by Saddam. That's his excuse. I'm so furious right now my hands are shaking. I can't believe these sons of bitches...Cycloptichorn

President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists.

9-11 Commission, Chapters 10.2 and 10.3, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

Bin Ladin seemed willing to include in the confederation terrorists from almost every corner of the Muslim world. His vision mirrored that of Sudan's Islamist leader, Turabi, who convened a series of meetings under the label Popular Arab and Islamic Conference around the time of Bin Ladin's arrival in that country. Delegations of violent Islamist extremists came from all the groups represented in Bin Ladin's Islamic Army Shura. Representatives also came from organizations such as the Palestine Liberation Organization, Hamas, and Hezbollah.51

Turabi sought to persuade Shiites and Sunnis to put aside their divisions and join against the common enemy. In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support-even if only training-for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States.

...

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

...

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.

...

Now effectively merged with Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad,82 al Qaeda promised to become the general headquarters for international terrorism, without the need for the Islamic Army Shura. Bin Ladin was prepared to pick up where he had left off in Sudan. He was ready to strike at "the head of the snake."

Al Qaeda's role in organizing terrorist operations had also changed. Before the move to Afghanistan, it had concentrated on providing funds, training, and weapons for actions carried out by members of allied groups. The attacks on the U.S. embassies in East Africa in the summer of 1998 would take a different form-planned, directed, and executed by al Qaeda, under the direct supervision of Bin Ladin and his chief aides.

9-11 Commission, Chapters 2.4 and 2.5, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

Middle East - AP
AP
U.S. Military Detains Cameraman in Iraq

Sat Apr 9, 4:48 AM ET

Add to My Yahoo! Middle East - AP

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A cameraman carrying CBS press credentials was detained in Iraq earlier this week on suspicion of insurgent activity, the U.S. military said Friday, while the network issued a statement saying it was investigating the incident.
Special Coverages
Latest headlines:
· Shiites Mark Anniversary of Baghdad's Fall
AP - 35 minutes ago
· Shi'ites Protest on Anniversary of Saddam's Fall
Reuters - 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
· Fifteen soldiers killed in roadside bomb south of Baghdad
AFP - 2 hours, 30 minutes ago
Special Coverage



The cameraman suffered minor injuries Tuesday during a battle between U.S. soldiers and suspected insurgents, and was standing next to an alleged insurgent who was killed during the shootout, the military said.

The military issued a statement at the time saying the cameraman was shot because his equipment was mistaken for a weapon. But on Friday, the military said the cameraman was detained because there was probable cause to believe he posed "an imperative threat to coalition forces."

"He is currently detained and will be processed as any other security detainee," the military said.

In a statement released Friday, CBS News said the man had worked as a freelancer for CBS for three months and that he was videotaping for the network when he was shot.

"It is common practice in Iraq for Western news organizations to hire local cameramen in places considered too dangerous for Westerners to work effectively. The very nature of their work often puts them in the middle of very volatile situations," the statement said.

"CBS News continues to investigate the situation, and when more information becomes available, we will report it."

Washington Sketch
Same Committee, Same Combatants, Different Tune

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page A10

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. is a conservative Republican from North Carolina who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. So it jarred all the more yesterday when Jones turned his fury on Richard N. Perle, the Pentagon adviser who provided the Bush administration with brainpower for the Iraq war.

Jones, who said he has signed more than 900 condolence letters to kin of fallen soldiers, pronounced himself "incensed" with Perle. "It is just amazing to me how we as a Congress were told we had to remove this man . . . but the reason we were given was not accurate," Jones told Perle at a House Armed Services Committee hearing. Jones said the administration should "apologize for the misinformation that was given. To me there should be somebody who is large enough to say 'We've made a mistake.' I've not heard that yet."

As chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Perle had gone before the same committee in 2002 and smugly portrayed retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who urged caution in Iraq, as "hopelessly confused" and spouting "fuzzy stuff" and "dumb cliches."

Thirty months and one war later, Perle and Clark returned to the committee yesterday. But this time lawmakers on both sides hectored Perle, while Clark didn't bother to suppress an "I told you so."

Perle wasn't about to provide the apology Jones sought. He disavowed any responsibility for his confident prewar assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, heaping the blame instead on "appalling incompetence" at the CIA. "There is reason to believe that we were sucked into an ill-conceived initial attack aimed at Saddam himself by double agents planted by the regime. And as we now know the estimate of Saddam's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was substantially wrong."

Jones, nearly in tears as he held up Perle's testimony, glared at the witness. "I went to a Marine's funeral who left a wife and three children, twins he never saw, and I'll tell you, I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I am just incensed with this statement."

Clark, an unsuccessful 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, could not resist piling on Perle. Intelligence estimates "are never accurate, they are never going to be accurate, and I think policymakers bear responsibility for what use they make of intelligence," the retired general lectured.

Sometimes life imitates art. Yesterday, it imitated an episode of "Crossfire." For more than three hours, Clark and Perle reprised their confrontation before the committee in September 2002. The two men entered in twin gray suits and red ties, and took adjacent chairs at the witness table. Clark scribbled in pencil, Perle with a fountain pen. Only Perle's reading material -- he put on the witness table a copy of "Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly" -- suggested he was not expecting what was to come.

Perle opened by acknowledging mistakes -- though not his own. "The occupation of Iraq did much to vitiate the goodwill we earned," he said, and, "The grand ambition of the Coalition Provisional Authority was profoundly mistaken."

The two belligerents then went after each other, taking the hearing out of the control of the lawmakers. Perle wondered "why in the world" Clark would talk to Syria. Clark said Perle should learn to "eat the elephant one bite at a time." "What are you talking about?" Perle demanded.

Finally, Rep. Victor F. Snyder (D-Ark.) tried to regain the floor. "It is illegal to fight dogs in Arkansas," he said. "I'm not going to get in the middle."

Democrats lobbed softballs to Clark and fired darts at Perle, who made little effort to ingratiate himself, calling one questioner "careless" and saying another cited "substantially incorrect accounts."

"You need a few more allies," observed Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

It was not always thus. At the September 2002 hearing, GOP lawmakers joined in Perle's dismissal of Clark's argument that "time is on our side" in Iraq and that force should be used only as a "last resort."

Perle said Clark was "wildly optimistic" and called it "one of the dumber cliches, frankly, to say that force must always be a last resort." While Clark fiddled, "Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has."

In retrospect, Clark's forecasts proved more accurate than Perle's, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark. The exception was Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who pressed Clark to acknowledge that the Iraq invasion should get some credit for signs of democracy in the region.

"We've got to do a lot less crowing about the sunrise," Clark rejoined.

When Hunter's GOP colleagues didn't join his line of questioning, he took another turn grilling Clark. The chairman likened President Bush's Middle East policies to those of President Ronald Reagan in Eastern Europe.

"Reagan never invaded Eastern Europe," Clark retorted.

In another try, Hunter said Clark was "overstating" the risk in challenging other countries in the Middle East. Clark smiled and showed his trump card -- reminding Hunter of their exchange at the 2002 hearing. "I kept saying time was on our side," Clark said. "I could never quite satisfy you."

As for who proved correct, the general said, "I'll let the record speak for itself."

The threat that YOU see is not the threat that was presented to the world.

The threat that I see now is exactly the threat I saw in September 2001 as a consequence of Bush's two speeches, 9/11/2001 and 9/20/2001. The speech given by Bush Thursday night, 9/20/2001, to the world, to the US Congress, and to the American People told us all what the real threat was and, by implication, still is. I agreed with both speeches. I still do.

I disagreed with the whole WMD part of Powell's speech to the UN 2/5/2003. I still do. I thought then and I think now the whole WMD part of his pitch was a synthesis of Newsmedia hysteria and Administration gullibility. Even Bush before he yielded to the media's terminology first referred not to Weapons of Mass Distruction, but instead to Weapons of Mass Murder. The al Qaeda terrorists killed 3,000 people in America in less than 3 hours by seizing four airliners with plastic boxcutters, and newsmedia and administration fools are preoccupied with alleged ready-to-use WMD (e.g., toxic chemicals and biologicals), not actual WMM (e.g., plastic boxcutters).

The al Qaeda terrorists were known to be based in Afghanistan and Iraq. We invaded Afghanistan a month later to remove the al Qaeda based in Afghanistan and the government of Afghanistan that chose to do nothing about removing the al Qaeda based in Afghanistan. We fooled around for 18 months trying to convince the UN that Saddam possessed ready-to-use WMD before we finally also went after the al Qaeda based in Iraq and the government of Iraq that chose to do nothing about removing the al Qaeda based in Iraq. That delay cost many lives and just didn't and doesn't make sense.

It's not the facts about terrorism that I take task with, Ican, it's the lies. You can't trust liars. Therefore, you cannot trust them to tackle the WoT. Look to our despicable defenses if you want to see that. Look to our failure to curb OBL if you want to do that...Cycloptichorn

You are convince they lied. I am convinced they are gullible fools easily distracted and misled by gullible fools. Generally speaking, one cannot trust fools any more than one can trust liars. The liar knowingly falsely characterizes reality; the fool unknowingly falsely characterizes reality. Yet you among others are more concerned about collecting persuasive evidence that they are liars than you are about discussing how we should attempt to rectify the consequences of the specific actual mistakes, errors, bungles, blunders (whatever), they have made. I think that very foolish of you.

Again, if you know of someone, Democrat or Republican, who you think can more effectively deal with these realities, please name him or her, already.