The ghosts of the Cold War

asia times ^ | 10 August 2006 | Najum Mushtaq

[humint]

A core component of the United States' foreign policy since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US has been educational reform in Muslim countries to check the influence of extremist ideologies and fundamentalism. International obligations under the United Nations Security Council's anti-extremism resolutions also require curricular reform. Pakistan, as the birthplace of the Taliban and home to many a militant Islamic movement, finds itself at the center of policy debates and projects on curbing extremism and promoting "moderate Islam" through education. A growing pile of policy proposals in the United States, including a recent report from the US Institute for Peace (USIP), urges continued funding and support for such religious and education reforms in Muslim countries. In Pakistan, as in most other targeted Muslim countries, this text-based approach translates into US funding, political support, and advocacy for curriculum reform and government policies of "enlightened moderation".

[snip]

Religious texts and their interpretations are thus deemed to be at the root of the problem. So, the argument goes, give these texts new meanings; dig out the lost essence of the divine word; set off theological and juridical debates; scan the horizon for Islamic feminists and modernists; and rephrase what is popularly understood, gets published, or is taught in schools as "Islam". This might all sound good. In practice, though, these US policies have often come at the expense of democracy promotion. America's partners in this effort to reform Islam from within are medieval monarchies, military regimes, Islamic emirates, and controlled democracies. Whether supporting educational reform in Pakistan or engaging Islamist parties in Morocco, the United States may well be repeating the same errors of the Cold War era.

[snip]

[humint]

FPIF contributor Najum Mushtaq is a Nairobi-based journalist.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Reformed Islam = out of ammo.

[humint]

Do you believe the MEK were among those supported by the Soviets to overthrow the Shah? Looking at the original docs now it is not at all clear that intelligence agencies of the West were able to dissociate the various groups and their ideologies. It looks as though they were labeled “bad guys” and no one ever looked back. These days, a great many of us are. Looking back now it’s clear why this group remains while the communists and Marxists imploded. Either way you look at this issue, it's been hard on Soviet inventions after the USSR broke down. Those groups with no legs of their own aren't standing any more any way.

RESEARCH EXCERPT 1: CIA Saw Rebel Group Winning in Iraq

Takeover could compound U.S. problems, '84 memo reported - LA Times March 19, 1987

[snip]

According to a CIA memo cited by the presidential commition headed by former Sen. John Tower (R Tex.), the agency's deputy director for operations considered the group known as the Moujahadeen "to be well organized, influenced by the Sovites and likely to succeed Khomeini."

[snip]

RESEARCH EXCERPT 2: Interview with Masoud Rajavi of the Mojahedine e-Khalq, Merip Reports, March-April 1982.

[snip]

Q: You are accused by your opponents of being "Islamic Marxists." What is your relation to Marxism?

A: These are two things which I would like to make absolutely clear. The first is that we are not Marxists: we reject the materialism of Marxism. But we are willing to discuss with Marxists. The sixth Imam in the kaaba in Mecca and debated with the materialists. Secondly, we are not allied to the Soviet Union. We are an independent organization. Those in Iran who are allied to the USSR are the Tudeh Party and Ihe so-called Majority fedayi: these groups have no social base and have had to seek protection under Khomeini. We condemn their policies.

[snip]

[FARS]

Since Alan and I were inside J2 at senior levels trying to stop the revolution, I had very exact knowledge of the players. MEK were the major ones with Fedayeen close behind, usin gIslam to drag in followers but never true believers. The "Islamism" was a tool for them.

Carter's CIA was better thn Clinton's but did not have much of a clue about Iran. They offered 30 various scenarios of what would happen if the Shah were overthrown and Khomeini took over. Not ONE of them came close to the mark. And led to what we face today via Carter's ineptness and personal antipathy toward the Shah, who refused to wheel and deal with him and received the brunt of Carter's wrath and influence of America, including gathering the Brits, French And Germans at Guadeloupe and cementing the removal of the Shah.

As for the MEK taking over from Khomeini, in the 1980's the Mullahs killed 30,000 of them in prisons to eradicate them and avoid the threat they posed. Even today, aafter they have evolved into a cult - literally - the Mullahs are the only ones who fear them. Though I would not wish them on the Iranian people either. Better than the mullahs but not by much. On the other hand they are the only viable group that has "boots on the ground" inside Iran and can oppose and kill the Mullahs.

Other opposition groups are too soft, too reformist "politically from within" and incapable of the violence needed to displace the Mullahs. The Monarchy cannot afford to spill blood and remain as an umbrella/catalyst under which politcal groups can play at democracy in the future.

Alan's "Iran- Final, Justified Solution" on AntiMullah probably provides the most prctical solution but will anybody have the political courage and stamina to do it?