WSJ(Op-ed): Was Osama Right?

[jpillian]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010080

Was Osama Right?

Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view.

BY BERNARD LEWIS

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"

A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals--notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.

These different responses evoked different treatment. While American policies, institutions and individuals were subject to unremitting criticism and sometimes deadly attack, the Soviets were immune. Their retention of the vast, largely Muslim colonial empire accumulated by the czars in Asia passed unnoticed, as did their propaganda and sometimes action against Muslim beliefs and institutions.

Most remarkable of all was the response of the Arab and other Muslim countries to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. Washington's handling of the Tehran hostage crisis assured the Soviets that they had nothing to fear from the U.S. They already knew that they need not worry about the Arab and other Muslim governments. The Soviets already ruled--or misruled--half a dozen Muslim countries in Asia, without arousing any opposition or criticism. Initially, their decision and action to invade and conquer Afghanistan and install a puppet regime in Kabul went almost unresisted. After weeks of debate, the U.N. General Assembly finally was persuaded to pass a resolution "strongly deploring the recent armed intervention in Afghanistan." The words "condemn" and "aggression" were not used, and the source of the "intervention" was not named. Even this anodyne resolution was too much for some of the Arab states. South Yemen voted no; Algeria and Syria abstained; Libya was absent; the nonvoting PLO observer to the Assembly even made a speech defending the Soviets.

One might have expected that the recently established Organization of the Islamic Conference would take a tougher line. It did not. After a month of negotiation and manipulation, the organization finally held a meeting in Pakistan to discuss the Afghan question. Two of the Arab states, South Yemen and Syria, boycotted the meeting. The representative of the PLO, a full member of this organization, was present, but abstained from voting on a resolution critical of the Soviet action; the Libyan delegate went further, and used this occasion to denounce the U.S.

The Muslim willingness to submit to Soviet authority, though widespread, was not unanimous. The Afghan people, who had successfully defied the British Empire in its prime, found a way to resist the Soviet invaders. An organization known as the Taliban (literally, "the students") began to organize resistance and even guerilla warfare against the Soviet occupiers and their puppets. For this, they were able to attract some support from the Muslim world--some grants of money, and growing numbers of volunteers to fight in the Holy War against the infidel conqueror. Notable among these was a group led by a Saudi of Yemeni origin called Osama bin Laden.

To accomplish their purpose, they did not disdain to turn to the U.S. for help, which they got. In the Muslim perception there has been, since the time of the Prophet, an ongoing struggle between the two world religions, Christendom and Islam, for the privilege and opportunity to bring salvation to the rest of humankind, removing whatever obstacles there might be in their path. For a long time, the main enemy was seen, with some plausibility, as being the West, and some Muslims were, naturally enough, willing to accept what help they could get against that enemy. This explains the widespread support in the Arab countries and in some other places first for the Third Reich and, after its collapse, for the Soviet Union. These were the main enemies of the West, and therefore natural allies.

Now the situation had changed. The more immediate, more dangerous enemy was the Soviet Union, already ruling a number of Muslim countries, and daily increasing its influence and presence in others. It was therefore natural to seek and accept American help. As Osama bin Laden explained, in this final phase of the millennial struggle, the world of the unbelievers was divided between two superpowers. The first task was to deal with the more deadly and more dangerous of the two, the Soviet Union. After that, dealing with the pampered and degenerate Americans would be easy.

We in the Western world see the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as a Western, more specifically an American, victory in the Cold War. For Osama bin Laden and his followers, it was a Muslim victory in a jihad, and, given the circumstances, this perception does not lack plausibility.

From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.

Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.

More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I hate to admit this, and it really saddens me, but YES this is totally correct.... The United States is a PAPER TIGER in the vast majority of situations.

We fail to PUNISH those people and countries that act or speak out against us on the world stage. We fail to punish them both militarily AND financially/economically. We act in half-measures and our words have nothing behind them. We have no backbone and fail to understand that 1 AMERICAN life is worth more than the entire rest of the world's population combined.

Until we begin to get these concepts into our heads and start acting on them, we will continue to be mocked, derided, and laughed at by those people in the world who are willing to ACT against us.

[E-Dog Night]

Well this thread should evolve nicely into a sane, calm exchange of opinions.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Yup, and he'll soon be right about Pakistan

[AsburySkinsFan]

Soooo, we're supposed to be like the Cold War Soviets????

This whole thing is soooo confusing!

actually its not, that was just a clever rhetorical ploy to highlight the absurdity of the idea that the US policy needs to be tougher, as if that helps.

Oh, FYI check out the Soviet Union today, not quite the bastion of freedom. oy vey!

[AsburySkinsFan]

Until we begin to get these concepts into our heads and start acting on them, we will continue to be mocked, derided, and laughed at by those people in the world who are willing to ACT against us.

They're All Going To Laugh At You!!!!

[SkinsHokieFan]

Soooo, we're supposed to be like the Cold War Soviets????

This whole thing is soooo confusing!

actually its not, that was just a clever rhetorical ploy to highlight the absurdity of the idea that the US policy needs to be tougher, as if that helps.

The point is pretty simple. The extreme elements think America is weak and will eventually fold like it did during Vietnam, and Somalia. They just need to dig in.

Now if tactics like kidnapping families of terrorist leaders were used, there may be a noticeable difference.

[Henry]

Oddly, we're still here and the Soviets aren't. Why should we be modelling our foreign policy on a government that collapsed and died trying to sustain their foriegn policy?

I don't see recent poltical trends directing us out of the middle east, or out of Afganistan, or going soft on terrorism. I see political trends suggesting Bush's handling of Iraq was a big cluster****. I guess that makes us look weak, but relly only in the short term. I'm more interested in the long term myself.

[ACW]

...1 AMERICAN life is worth more than the entire rest of the world's population combined.

:doh:

[Henry]

The point is pretty simple. The extreme elements think America is weak and will eventually fold like it did during Vietnam, and Somalia. They just need to dig in.

Now if tactics like kidnapping families of terrorist leaders were used, there may be a noticeable difference.

Again, what was the point of us going into Vietnam?

My guess would be to stop the spread of communism.

I'm pretty sure that goal has been achieved, even if Vietnam itself was not a roaring success.

It's possible to lose a battle and still win the war.

We didn't fold during Vietnam. We fell back and regrouped. And hit our enemy elsewhere. And our enemy folded. If our current enemy thinks Vietnam is the model one should follow in order to defeat the US, they are short-sighted, and mistaken.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The point is pretty simple. The extreme elements think America is weak and will eventually fold like it did during Vietnam, and Somalia. They just need to dig in.

Oh I get the point, but digging in for a war that was sold on pure propaganda is not going to prove that the US is right, because that is honestly what we need in the world, we need to be right, and fighting harder, and shouting louder does not make that so. The point is that fighting harder in Iraq will not make the US right, sure it makes us tough, but then that's not really what we want to be about....or is it?

[AsburySkinsFan]

:doh:

Yeah, don't even bother ACW, its totally not worth the effort.

[Sarge]

Oh I get the point, but digging in for a war that was sold on pure propaganda is not going to prove that the US is right, because that is honestly what we need in the world, we need to be right, and fighting harder, and shouting louder does not make that so. The point is that fighting harder in Iraq will not make the US right, sure it makes us tough, but then that's not really what we want to be about....or is it?

Considerin who we're dealing with, it's exactly the way we need to be

[AsburySkinsFan]

Considerin who we're dealing with, it's exactly the way we need to be

Riiiiiight, so let me ask you Sarge what are we fighting against in the Middle East?

[alexey]

hmmmm no mention of Soviet Union selling weapons to arab countries... or economic ties between them... or their SU's position in relation to Israel...

I smell serious credibility issues for one BERNARD LEWIS.

[AsburySkinsFan]

hmmmm no mention of Soviet Union selling weapons to arab countries... or economic ties between them... or their SU's position in relation to Israel...

I smell serious credibility issues for one BERNARD LEWIS.

Interesting how this is the most popular weapon seen in the hands of those fighting against the US in the Middle East. Anyone want to guess where its made?

[alexey]

heh who knew, Lewis advocated toppling of Saddam shortly after 9/11 in the WSJ, and spent quite a bit of time with Mr. Cheney talking about his "shock and awe" ideas...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.hirsh.html

Iraq and its poster villain, Saddam Hussein, offered a unique opportunity for achieving this transformation in one bold stroke (remember "shock and awe"?) while regaining the offensive against the terrorists. So, it was no surprise that in the critical months of 2002 and 2003, while the Bush administration shunned deep thinking and banned State Department Arabists from its councils of power, Bernard Lewis was persona grata, delivering spine-stiffening lectures to Cheney over dinner in undisclosed locations. Abandoning his former scholarly caution, Lewis was among the earliest prominent voices after September 11 to press for a confrontation with Saddam, doing so in a series of op-ed pieces in The Wall Street Journal with titles like "A War of Resolve" and "Time for Toppling." An official who sat in on some of the Lewis-Cheney discussions recalled, "His view was: 'Get on with it. Don't dither.'" Animated by such grandiose concepts, and like Lewis quite certain they were right, the strategists of the Bush administration in the end thought it unnecessary to prove there were operational links between Saddam and al Qaeda. These were good "bureaucratic" reasons for selling the war to the public, to use Wolfowitz's words, but the real links were deeper: America was taking on a sick civilization, one that it had to beat into submission. Bin Laden's supposedly broad Muslim base, and Saddam's recalcitrance to the West, were part of the same pathology.

[jpillian]

Sorry -- didn't mean to post the article and just run away from the thread. Gotta actually do some work, ya know

I think there certainly is a bit of a slippery slope ideologically -- where we don't want to become the enemy we are fighting. Or something even worse than the enemy we're fighting.

On the other hand, we don't want to be eternally bringing a knife to a gun fight. We must find ways to effectively counter the islamic extremist movement worldwide, and effectively leverage our many overwhelming advantages. The Soviets did so by being ruthless. In the end, however, I'd argue this ruthlessness ended up permeating many aspects of their society. That's a high price to pay for security.

So, if not ruthlessness -- what are the effective alternatives?

[corsair_joe]

Interesting how this is the most popular weapon seen in the hands of those fighting against the US in the Middle East. Anyone want to guess where its made?

Actually, probably China.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

They're All Going To Laugh At You!!!!

What you obviously miss is the fact that if these people are 'laughing' at us, they feel we are no threat to them, and will act accordingly. Which means that that they will continue to attack us. Until we show them the SEVERE CONSEQUENCES of crossing us, it will continue.

[jpillian]

hmmmm no mention of Soviet Union selling weapons to arab countries... or economic ties between them... or their SU's position in relation to Israel...

I smell serious credibility issues for one BERNARD LEWIS.

You're right -- what could Bernard Lewis ever know compared to us enlightened internet forum posters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis

Bernard Lewis (born May 31, 1916, London) is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He specializes in the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West and is especially famous for his works on the history of the Ottoman Empire.

Lewis is one of the most widely-read scholars of the Middle East, whose advice is frequently sought by policymakers. In the Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing Martin Kramer wrote that, over a 60-year career, he has emerged as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East." [1]

[AsburySkinsFan]

Actually, probably China.

Nope, even checked myself before posting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

"The AK-47 (shortened from Russian: Автомат Калашникова образца 1947 года, Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947 English) is a gas-operated assault rifle that was used in many Eastern bloc nations during the Cold War. Adopted and standardized in 1947, it was designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov and originally produced by Soviet manufacturer Izhevsk Mechanical Works."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izhevsk_Mechanical_Works

Izhevsk Mechanical Works (RTS:IGMA) (Russian: Ижевский Mашзавод) or IZhMASh (Russian: ИЖМАШ) is a weapon manufacturer based in Izhevsk, founded in 1807 at the decree of Tsar Alexander I, and is now one of the largest corporations in its field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izhevsk

[alexey]

On the other hand, we don't want to be eternally bringing a knife to a gun fight. We must find ways to effectively counter the islamic extremist movement worldwide, and effectively leverage our many overwhelming advantages. The Soviets did so by being ruthless. In the end, however, I'd argue this ruthlessness ended up permeating many aspects of their society. That's a high price to pay for security.

Soviets did not do that by just being ruthless, a HUGE part of it was economic ties and weapon sales.... I didn't know you had me on ignore

[Mass_SkinsFan]

:doh:

That's what I believe. It's what I have always believed and what I will always believe. There is nothing and nobody in this world worth as much as a single American life. Which is why I think we should have just carpet-nuked the entire country of Iraq after they assisted in planning an assassination attempt against an American citizen who just happened to be a former President.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You're right -- what could Bernard Lewis ever know compared to us enlightened internet forum posters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis

Lots of education and experience does not prevent you from being wrong. Me thinks a couple of politicians would prove that.