Historian's Take on Islam Steers U.S. Policy

Wall St Journal ^ | 2-02-04 | PETER WALDMAN

[SJackson]

A Princeton historian's diagnosis of the Muslim world's malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed democracy in the Mideast, have helped define the boldest shift in U.S. foreign policy in 50 years.

Bernard Lewis often tells audiences about an encounter he once had in Jordan. The Princeton University historian, author of more than 20 books on Islam and the Middle East, says he was chatting with Arab friends in Amman when one of them trotted out an argument familiar in that part of the world.

[Triple Word Score]

Fantastic Find!

This is a great article.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[prairiebreeze]

Good article.

[prairiebreeze]

interesting read ping!

[G L Tirebiter]

bump

[Rummyfan]

Hearing this claim "one too many times," Mr. Lewis says, he politely shot back, "Excuse me, but you've got your history wrong. The Turks got rid of the Crusaders. The British got rid of the Turks. The Jews got rid of the British. I wonder who is coming here next."

Touche for Mr Lewis. We could a lot worse than following his advice as to the Middle East.

[Publius6961]

"Excuse me, but you've got your history wrong. The Turks got rid of the Crusaders. The British got rid of the Turks. The Jews got rid of the British. I wonder who is coming here next."

Mr Lewis is an Islamist. He truly has boundless knowledge and admiration for Islam, but he is an honest man.
He is loath to make statements like that one (I have never heard one on tape). I have read most of his books.

Of course, historically, he is spot on, but has never "lost it" that way in print, that I know of.
Islam, as a combination culture/political system/imperialist movement is truly hopeless. It never gets wiser, just finds better weapons.

[Cronos]

The Brits are the biggest hypocrites in the world. in the 1800s they fought the Crimean war against the Russians and WITH the Slamic Turks to prevent Russia, a Christian country, from conquering Istanbul and restoring it to Christendom. If the English hadn't propped up the Turks the GReeks would have been free a lot earlier, the Russians would have restored Constantinople as a center of christendom and communism may never have occureed (going out on the limb on that one).

Next, the British had the mandate of Israel and didn't really do much to help the formation of the Jewish state. Instead the Jews had to launch an armed rebellion to kick them out.

The Brits were also the ones who created Iraq out of 3 distinct provinces of the Ottoman Empire, laying the seeds of future troubles and they were also the ones who created the firstIslmaic state-- Pak'istan (which lead to the creation of the theocratic states of Iran and Taliban Afgh)

[azhenfud]

"Mr. Lewis is also close to government circles in Israel and Turkey -- non-Arab lands he describes as the only successful modern states in the region. He warmly praises Kemal Attaturk, who made Turkey a secular republic after World War I by suppressing Islam. (He has also said the Ottoman Turks' killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 wasn't genocide but the brutal byproduct of war. It was a stance for which a French court convicted Mr. Lewis in 1995 under France's Holocaust-denial statute, imposing a token penalty.) Israeli experts say Mr. Lewis's contacts with Turkish generals and politicians helped cement Israeli-Turkish military ties in the 1990s."

A Middle-Eastern friend of mine said if anyone from President Bush's intelligence agencies had known as much about Al Queida, Iraq, and Saddam Hussein as they had claimed, they would understand why Hussein was a ruthless dictator and why Al Queida could not effectually operate in/from Iraq. He said that they too would realize why Saddam would never outrightly state to the world he had no WMD's was the fear of losing control of Iraq to organizations like Al Queida. It was not that there was any commendable intention on Saddam's behalf, but that Saddam relished and protected his power and control more than he had respect for Islamic clerics.

My friend said Al Queida insists "Allah" has given it the sole and total responsibility to rule, to execute judgement, and/or wage war (or terror). He said a basic understanding of the greed of Hussein as a dictator and the control Al Queida's religious zealots demand, made the two like an oil and water mix. Saddam would never have given Al Queida control of Iraq and acted only as a "figurehead"; Al Queida would never allow a dictator to have as much control over a people as Saddam had. He said the pre-war differences between Afghanistan and Iraq rule should have been an indication to that fact.

He also said as horrible as it seems from a Western POV, for Saddam to have kept his power intact within the country, many of those killing fields were a necessity. Iraq cannot be fully understood based on Western standards. It just doesn't work.

America's intelligence failure in this area could resultantly have a negative/opposite effect from our intentions because there is no longer the ruthless controlling body in Iraq to resist the insurgence of Al Queida terror cells. Their main target is Westerners (Americans) and now Iraq is full of American targets. Al Queida's history has demonstrated the only muzzle it fears is the iron glove of retribution taken upon the relatives of conspirators - which America nor our allies will engage in. Any form of Western democracy will take years, most possibly decades, for the Iraqi people to accomplish, even with Allied America's continued help. Currently, only complete marshal law will be effective in Iraq and will be until a formidable governing body, an effective police force, and a loyal citizenry is established. But it will not be formed under Western influence until the people of Iraq are ready to do it for themselves. The "killing fields" of the Middle East proves this.

I'm not saying his is a totally right POV, but I'm guilty of having viewed Iraq from Western eyes, myself..

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[Publius6961]

A bit of an oversimplification ya think?
Yes, all your facts are accurate, but you left out the critical ingredient: all nations historically, specially since the 16th century, have been driven by trade and economics, and the shifting alliances in retrospect make no sense when viewed by the prism of hindsight.

This is the sort of statement I would expect from a person truly ignorant of the dynamics of history and nations.
It is, essentially, the mindless "progressive's" mantra repeated for contemporary political advantage.
You know better than that.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Fascinating---thanks for the post.

[Publius6961]

Next, the British had the mandate of Israel and didn't really do much to help the formation of the Jewish state. Instead the Jews had to launch an armed rebellion to kick them out.

Between the formation of the British mandate right after WWI, and the creation of Israel, OIL became a major game piece in the game of world politics, and yes, the British did everything possible to prevent the Jewish State since they viewed the Arabs, with whom they had "agreements", as much more profitable for Great Britain.
They clearly sold out the Jews in spite of Lord Balfour's clear and "official" intent of splitting "Palestine" equally between Arab and Jew.

A glance at any map can confirm the depth of perfidy of the British actions.

[Triple Word Score]

All you say is true, but at least they're OUR hypocrites...

(The Russians weren't exactly good guys, either!)

[NordP]

Wow, this was interesting. I sure hope many read it. THANKS for posting!!!!!

[carton253]

Our Middle East Policy could not be in finer shape if Bernard Lewis is being heeded.

[Publius6961]

I hope we can keep this thread bumped long enough for wider readership than 5:30 am PST provides...

[dennisw]

ping

[carton253]

I hope so too...