Road to 9/11: Fundamentalism Run Amuck

In the days after 9/11 it was fashionable to say "we condemn the atrocity but..." and then lecture down to America that America practically invited the attack. The reasons offered were projections of each persons own animosity towards America. Ranging from Sujatha Ranagarajan writing for a South Indian vernacular magazine to Noam Chomsky, considered the greatest genius in Cognitive psychology, the advices were variations of a meme: America's super power attitude, propping up dictatorial regimes, middle east policy, military adventurism etc. That the 19 suicide attackers left no note made it convenient for each person to trot out his or her own theory as to why they did it. Recently I finished reading Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer winning "The Looming Tower:Al Qaeda and The Road To 9/11". Around the same time Osama's killing happened and Washington Post published an article titled "Five Myths about Osama Bin Laden". The first myth was that Osama was trained by CIA.

A columnist for Frontline, a fortnightly from Chennai, helpfully wrote about the possible motivations of the hijackers, "Betrayal of the Palestinians, the destruction of Iraq! One can reasonably assume that these two great devastations of the Arabo-Muslim world were vivid in the memory of those 19 hijackers on September 11 this year". (Note the Iraq war the author refers here is the 1991 Gulf War that was fully supported by UN, Gulf States etc). Palestine. Iraq. Support of US to middle east potentates were all the most repeated reasons.

Lawrence Wright, based on extensive interviews and deep research, unravels the puzzle of who the actors and what were  their 'possible' motivations. As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches I thought I shall write a few blogs on this topic and allied issues not just as a book review but as a history that not many are aware of and would lack the patience to accumulate by reading a 600 page book (its a page turner).

The suppression of free speech, the military state etc are offered as reasons that fueled terrorism since legitimate expression of dissent was prohibited. The support offered by US to such middle east oligarchies notably the Saudi Royal family is cited as cause. Bollocks.

Anger at suppression of democracy or democratic processes was the least of concerns for the hijackers or Al Qaeda. In fact Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Azzam all pay fealty to fundamentalist Wahhabi sect that was founded by US educated Sayyid Qutb. Sayyid Qutb quit USA only because he was disgusted that USA was un-Islamic. Most left wing people who espouse social justice, affirmative action etc decried what they called US hegemony and used 9/11 to pillory US. What is worse is that they did not realize that Al Qaeda'a intellectual godfather Sayyid Qutb,Wright notes, hated egalitarianism. Qutb used to quote the Koran, "we have created you class upon class".

Sayyid Qutb rebelled against Nasser, not for more democracy, but because he said Nasser's Egypt was not Islamic enough and required to be overthrown. Sayyid was arrested, tortured and finally hanged.

Anwar Sadat is supposed to have told Golda Meir, "if you make peace with me you will go back to Israel a hero. If I make peace with you when I go back to Egypt I will be assassinated". Sadat's wife had made it easier for women to get divorce. Sadat, after the Yom Kippur War, made historical peace with Israel. His prophecy came true tragically. Sadat was assassinated. How was his killing justified? How did they justify killing a fellow Muslim? Sayyid Qutb's ideology of 'takfir' helped. By declaring that a muslim has become un-islamic by his/her acts, a takfir, the respective person is removed from being protected as a fellow muslim. Wright acidly notes, "the pious Anwar Sadat was the first pro-medern victim of the reverse logic of takfir".

Democracy was repugnant to the followers of Qutb. "Democracy was un-islamic. Therefore anyone who voted was an apostate and forfeited his life". Naguib Mahfouz, Egyptian Nobel laureate, was declared an 'infidel' and suffered a near fatal knife attack.

Often the apologists for terrorism speak fondly of how youth get attracted to terrorism due to lack of education and opportunities in life. Wright quotes a study of political prisoners in 1970's Egypt, "majority were sons of middle-level government officials, educated in science and engineering,...,They were not the alienated, marginalized youth that a sociologist might expect. While tomes are written excoriating the CIA coup in Iran to install the Shah as examples of US hegemony and US support of totalitarian regimes little have we heard on how Islamists engineered a coup in Sudan to install a Islamic regime. It is Sudan that was home later to Bin Laden before he ventured to Afghanistan.

In the murky world of middle east the attempt on Mubarak was another watershed event. Egyptian police abused a thirteen year old boy and blackmailed him into infiltrating Zawahiri's organization that was suspected of a hand in the attempt on Mubarak. The boy and another friend were used by Egyptian agencies to kill Zaawahiri and his associates in Sudan during a meeting. Sudanese intelligence discovered the plot and the boys were abandoned by the Egyptians. Many members of Al Qaeda objected to putting the boys on trial. Zawahiri, to prove that the boys had attained manhood, stripped them and then shot them. The boys confession and shooting was videotaped. The outrage infuriated the Sudanese government which chased Zawahiri out.

Bin Laden's own journey was an odyssey that culminated in 9/11. Incidentally, Wright says, Bin Laden hated Yasser Arafat. In Bin Laden's opinion Arafat was a secular and not islamic enough.

The presence of American troops in Saudi after the 1991 Persian Gulf War is cited consistently by Bin Laden as something that offended him. It did not matter that American army was stationed in Suadi at the behest of the government which feared Saddam more. Bin Laden loathed the fact that the gulf states took US help to stop Saddam Hussein. Incidentally Bin Laden hated Saddam (Iraq was more westernized than any other gulf state). Bin Laden tried convincing the Saudi king that he would stop Saddam with his mujahideens from Afghanistan. By the way nowhere in the book Wright establishes any link between CIA and Bin Laden (a fact confirmed by Peter Bergen, the only US journalist who interviewed Bin Laden).

What not many lay readers know is that Americans troops stationed in Saudi, not anywhere near Mecca, is nothing compared to how French troops entered Mecca itself at the behest of Saudi king. In 1979, yet another Islamist group, took Mecca by siege during Haj period. It shook the Islamic world. Saudi King after vacillating and unable to clear the holiest shrine invited French troops who then entered Mecca where no non-Muslim could ever go. (Saudi Arabia denies this happened). For something that the US had nothing to do with Khomeini blamed US and for good measure blamed Israel too. Needless  to say Anti-American demonstrations including burning down of an embassy ensued. It was the Bin Laden family that provided vital clues to the French on the building details.

An event that crystallized Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization was, according to Wright, the botched bombing in Amen on Dec 29th 1992. The bombing was supposed to kill American soldiers going to Somalia as part of an international relief effort to that impoverished country. The bomb went off but killed no American. A Yemeni and and and Australian had died. Bin Laden's deputy and mentor, Abu Hajer, justified it based on a fatwa by Ibn Tamiyyah. In a chilling rationale that defied any sane logic killing of innocents was justified. Wright, ends the chapter with a ominous note, "Al Qaeda would concentrate not on fighting armies but on killing civilians".

The last chapter, titled, "Revelations" rounds it all of. On 9/12, the day after the carnage, Soufan a Muslim FBI agent went to interrogate Abu Jandal who was apprehended for the Nairobi Embassy bombing. Abu Jandal, Wright says, 'was confounded by Soufan and what he represented: A Muslim who could argue religion with him, who was in the FBI, who loved America'. Sofan asked about the innocent women and children who died in that bombing. In particular Soufan asks about a woman on a bus 'who was clutching her baby, trying to protect him from the flames. Both had been incinerated'. Jandals reply was "God will give them rewards in the Hereafter". About them being innocent he reasoned cruelly, that the bombings took place on a Friday when Muslims were supposed to have been in mosques. If she was not in a mosque what was she doing on a bus. She was not a Muslim then but a 'takfir' and deserved to die.

Time and again the recurrent theme in the biography of each actor is a fiendish fundamentalism that cloaked itself in causes that were never consistent or helpful to the people they were supposed to help. Palestine, American imperialism etc were all fig leaf causes only to hide their desire of establishing a Caliphate. Re-establishing an Ottoman style Caliphate was their desire. In a post cold-war world the only remaining obstacle was USA.

No wonder Lawrence Wright got a Pulitzer for a landmark book. Wright patiently pieces together the jigsaw puzzle and leads us through the twisted world of terrorism. I shall continue with a couple more blogs. The 9/11 hijackers chose to meet in Hamburg for a reason. After 9/11 US citizenry was aghast at how agencies did not share information. The reasons for that and more await a little.

Wikileaks: American Diplomacy At Work

The wikileaks saga has two perspectives to it. One, to judge  the revelations themselves. Two, the raging debate over secrecy, First Amendment rights, whistle-blowing etc. I'll restrict this blog to the revelations themselves. America, undoubtedly, is the laughing stock of the world right now. America's ability to guard secrets is in complete tatters. The reactions from the commentariat, the serious non-partisan ones, ranged from "it shows diplomacy at work" to "harm has been done". In fact Fareed Zakaria gushed that the revelations "show an American diplomatic establishment that is pretty good at analysis" (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034284,00.html) . Zakaria cites a British scholar's column in Guardian as writing that his opinion of the State Department has gone up several notches.Zakaria, sums, "When foreigners encounter U.S. diplomats and listen to their bland recitation of policy, they would do well to keep in mind that behind the facade lie some very clever minds."

That nations keep secrets, that diplomats say in private what they can NEVER say in public, that nations say one thing in public while expressing their concerns in private etc etc are not surprising. Only the naive would be shocked by such things. Fareed Zakaria and many others have discounted to put this episode alongside the "Pentagon Papers" affair. The Pentagon Papers affair relates to leaking a confidential study of Vietnam War. Those papers "exposed" American government's duplicity in promoting the Vietnam War, how the public was lied to. It exposed a systemic rot. Wikileaks has not "exposed" anything unknown. There is no gotcha moment here. If, for instance, there was a smoking gun about America going into Iraq at the behest of some oil company now THAT would have had the world sit up and heap scorn and vitriol. 

The cables pretty much confirm that American diplomats pursued in private what were well known public stands. The real surprise is the Arab street. When US invade Iraq, Bush and US were hated as 'islamophobic'. US concerns on Iran were labeled as 'islamophobia'. The cables reveal that Saudi Arabia actually was trying to get US to do something more than sanctions against Iran. What is jaw dropping is that some of that was coordinated with Israel. When India voted alongwith US against Iran the decrepit commies cried "foul" at the behest of Indian Muslims. Fareed Zakaria highlights, "We now have official confirmation of something many of us have been saying for years: Arab regimes share Israel's concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran. In fact, since they do not have the massive nuclear deterrent that Israel possesses, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are probably even more nervous about an Iranian bomb".

I was browsing Der Spiegel (Germany's leading news paper) and the special section on wikileaks had articles with interesting headlines:

• Cables Show Arab Leaders Fear a Nuclear Iran

• A Difficult US Fight to Choke Off Terror Finance

• On the Trail of Weapons Smugglers 

None of the above are really reprehensible goals in themselves. None of the above show any duplicity on part of America between what it said in public versus what it said in private.

The real clincher is the one on Iraq. While the 'oil' angle in Iraq is undeniable it was a complete trope that America was interested 'ONLY' in oil. I remember reading an article in NYT long back that amongst the oil contracts given by free Iraq only a minuscule came to US companies. Der Spiegel in an article titled "A lot of Blood for Little Oil". The following excerpt is compelling:

""No Blood for Oil" had been a slogan used by protesters against George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. A SPIEGEL cover story in January 2003 even carried the title "Blood for Oil" and analyzed Iraq's role as an oil power. Neoconservatives in Washington had always said that the money from Iraq's oil would be used to pay for the war and the reconstruction......

But the opposite came true. A lot of blood was spilled, but very little oil flowed for the US. With production of 2.5 million barrels of crude oil daily, production in Iraq has returned to close to its prewar levels. Forecasts now suggest it will take 20 years before that production is doubled or tripled, however. The US spent more than $700 billion on Iraq, but now Iraq's oil profits are going to other countries"


There has been no revelation that has given grounds for any diplomatic uproar between countries. Of course this has embarrassed the US and has seriously undermined how other nations feel let down in their trust of America's ability to keep diplomatic negotiations secret. Every great power, Russia and China especially indulge in exactly the same diplomatic maneuvers. The unmasking of Chinese hacking of Google is the only real meaty stuff and that's more concerning to the Chinese than to Americans.

To indulge in cheerleading of wikileaks as some vanguard against governmental abuse is sheer chicanery and absolutely puerile. There is no unearthing of some Katyn or My Lai kind of episode. There is not even something of the nature of Abhu Ghraib. There is no smoking gun here.

So much for the exposes themselves. How did America confront it? Was freedom of opinion or First Amendment breached in how wikileaks was dealt with by America? Is this on par with Pentagon Papers or even the Watergate expose? Is Julian Assange the digital equivalent of Bob Woodward's 'Deep Throat'? Await my next blog on that.

Elections in Iraq and Oscars for "The Hurt Locker"

March 7th made history at several levels on the subject of Iraq. Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman to win an Oscar for "Best Director". In a stunning rebuke to crassy hypocrisy laden pretentious 300 million dollar "Avatar", Bigelow's $11 million "The Hurt locker" took home the Oscar for "Best Picture". 'Hurt Locker' is a grim movie on a bomb disposal squad in Iraq. The script by Mark Boal, also won the Oscar, does not get into the mud regarding the politics of the invasion. Instead the movie focuses on how the US army is arrayed against odds that are tearing the country asunder. Questions of whom to trust, whom to dislike all abound. Is somebody who is flipping open a cell phone is doing just to talk or...to signal an IED towards which a guy, heavily suited, is walking to defuse. Question, in that split second, is should the cell phone guy be shot down by a sniper, what if he was innocent and the shooting further inflames an alienated populace. On the other hand if a moment's hesitation leads to the death  of a fellow soldier who will then go home to a young son and wife in a body bag who can condone the hesitation. All this hangs in the balance in the minds of a very young, probably not even college educated, trained to kill soldier and this is not a classroom in UC Berkeley to debate over a cup of Starbucks latte. This is war torn Iraq. How does one deal with a man who wanders into the "Green Zone" arms raised and crying out "I dont want to die". He is strapped with intricately wired explosives and in an iron frame with bolts too tight to break. Of course he is married, he has children. He was hijacked and put up to this. Timer is running, more lives than just his is on the line, can he be shot dead at a safe distance, would saying "sorry I cannot help you" looking into his eyes ease the conscience of the soldier. A boy selling porn is kidnapped and while attempting to sew explosives into his stomach dies on the table. Searching for the killers soldiers barge into homes, guns flash, hurried ill translated questions, thumbs on trigger. No shots are fired but those families are not going to forget gun toting soldiers invading their private homes to search at will.

On a day when such a movie got the Oscar Iraqis braved acts of violence to vote in droves. UN observers and world press were impressed by a stunning defiance. Sunni's who had boycotted the previous election and became 'insurgents' now came back to vote. Women not only voted but contested elections too. This has been  labeled by all and sundry as a fair multi party election. At the heart of autocracy ridden middle east where women, in some countries, cannot drive or go out without burqa and elections are unheard of this is revolution. Yes it did not happen any sooner, did not happen under more amiable circumstances. Better late than never. Today Iraq has a quasi secular constitution, unthinkable 7 years ago.

America walked into a minefield in Iraq to put it mildly. Iran's ambitions, suspicions of Sunni led gulf states, a horrible history of seething rage that was bottled up with brutal tyranny were all unleashed  to clash on the field add to that botched planning, utopian projections etc you have an unenviable recipe for disaster. A pivotal moment came when the bipartisan 'Iraq study group" advised George Bush to pull out. Bush, in typical fashion, dug in his heels. He was cursed with every imaginable word in the dictionary. Bush ordered the Iraq surge and completely revamped the team on the ground and in DC. The results are there to see today. Thank you Mr President.

Watch this youtube posting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNKCcZmjlX4&NR=1 , especially see around time stamp 1:30 to see women, without burqa, onstage clasping hands with men as equals in an election rally. This video was taken by Al-Jazeera, which is, to put it mildly, unsympathetic towards USA. Recently a gossip writer, masquerading himself as writer, reviewing Bollywood staple "My Name is Khan" lamented that Islamic nations are being destroyed one after another. America stands tall today, I hope Iraqi's in due time will come to genuinely appreciate their liberation. Many cried hoarse "oil" when Bush ordered the invasion. I am not going to pretend that oil was not a factor at all but this was no colonisation expedition to plunder another country's resources. How many of those oil contracts were awarded to US companies? Not much in actuality. If destroying Iraq was the only concern US need not have spent hundreds of billion dollars or  5000 men and women. God bless America. God bless the brave Iraqis. God bless our men and women in the forces.

PS: The violence in Iraq claimed 36 precious lives. Still far lesser than what is lost in election related violence in India in the 80's or 90's until Election commission started running elections with platoons of army.

Obama and Afghanistan imbroglio

I'd like to state one thing at the outset, Obama is my president too, as an American citizen I'd like to see my President succeed for then America succeeds. A registered republican appearing on CNN said the same and David Broder, Washington Post's columnist, captured that correctly when he wrote "the average American wants his President to succeed".

I winced when, of all the press, the European press lectured Obama to decide soon enough on his strategy. The "Telegraph" from UK and "Der Spiegel" both ran less than flattering editorials. At home many in his own camp were uncomfortably wringing their hands as Obama took 90 days to decide. Republican commentators had a field day on his "dithering". Michael Moore who famously caricatured Bush for sitting quiet for 5 minutes after learning of the 9/11 attacks went incognito.

There were leaks and surmises. When General McChrystal went public with his request for troops there was animated discussion on whether Obama should fire him for violating the chain of command a la Truman firing MacArthur. His own cabinet was divided between non-escalation (Joe Biden et al) Vs escalation of troop levels (Secy of Defense Robert Gates and Hillary). Obama was unperturbed by the outside chatter, he coolly asked his team to evaluate, re-evaluate, go back to the drawing the board for more options etc.

Finally he gave a speech at West Point, America's most hallowed military academy. His left wing devotees winced at the very Bush like venue. The speech was a good one and as usual a tad longer. Obama addressed most concerns head on.

Obama gave McChrystal less than what he wanted, 30,000 troops versus 40000+ requested. This is public gamble. If the gambit pays off then Obama would have proved the wisdom behind civilian control over army. Else he would pay dearly for second guessing his own general. This is a risky gambit that every American President has had to contend with Truman upwards.

The sickening question of deadlines was addressed too but with some political wiggle room. An open ended commitment, like Bush, would have warmed the hearts of republicans but sent his left wing flock scurrying home to look for another messiah. I disagree with commentators parsing his commitment for withdrawal in summer 2011 provided ground conditions meet certain benchmarks. Many say this is contradiction. Some commentators point out that once we announce a date all that the Taliban have to do is just lie in wait for that date and then wreck havoc. Then they proceed to ridicule the wiggle room of "ground conditions permitting" after committing to a date. This is nothing to ridicule about. Obama is attempting a very tough sell here to an American public that, thanks to the increased security today, has become a little too complacent about threats and more importantly is concerned about job loss than another attack. The health care reform impact on an economy reeling from record deficits, not entirely of Obama's making, the unemployment and the costs of this escalation are valid concerns. Obama paraphrased Thomas Friedman when he said that America's economic prosperity is the cornerstone of its power status. Shoring up the dollar is as important as shoring up Iraq and Afghanistan.

The best part of the speech was when Obama put a stop to the Vietnam comparison. Very sharply worded he differentiated the Vietnam imbroglio with Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not seeing any populist surge. Afghans would still like to see Taliban wiped out, more schools built, women able to walk freely in the streets etc. There are challenges in the form of war lords etc but that is NOT populist insurrection.

Let us note that when Obama took office Afghanistan had less than 30,000 troops compared to 150,000 in Iraq. Afghanistan has the reputation of being the graveyard of empires, the Soviets left Afghanistan when their empire crumbled. Karl Rove is peeved that Obama did not credit Bush in his speech for the Iraq surge strategy which is being copied now in Afghanistan. Mr Rove should be happy that Obama did not justifiably excoriate Bush and his team for the Afghan mess.

All that apart here are some inconvenient truths. Most of the world took umbrage at the Iraq war as US imperialism, many wanted to impeach Bush for War crimes, many opined confidently that Iraq war was illegal, Michael Moore had a field day ridiculing Bush's claim of many allies in Iraq war front. Now lets look at Afghanistan, a war that was unanimously agreed to as 'justifiable and legal response', NATO had signed on, UN security council endorsed it. CNN's John King put up a map of troop deployments and made a telling point. NATO, non-US, troops were in regions which had almost zero conflicts while US troops were the ones mostly taking heat in Taliban infested regions. A fellow commentator ominously chimed in "this is America's war". A sad truth. Also Bush was often cited as a factor for other countries not stepping up their role in Afghanistan. Yet with Obama at the helm its no different. Its unfortunate that the world at large think of Afghanistan and Iraq as America's problems, especially Afghanistan.

Thomas Friedman's latest column beautifully stated one thing "Many big bad things happen in the world without America, but not a lot of big good things. If we become weak and enfeebled by economic decline and debt, as we slowly are, America may not be able to play its historic stabilizing role in the world. If you did'nt like a world of too-strong-America, you will really not like a world of too-weak-America — where China, Russia and Iran set more of the rules."

Friedman opposes Obama's strategy and chimes "Iraq was about “the war on terrorism.” The Afghanistan invasion, for me, was about the “war on terrorists.” To me, it was about getting bin Laden and depriving Al Qaeda of a sanctuary — period. I never thought we could make Afghanistan into Norway — and even if we did, it would not resonate beyond its borders the way". This from Friedman who consistently admonished Bush for Iraq and pouring so much resource into it.

For the sake of America and the world lets hope Obama succeeds in both Iraq and Afghanistan. To the American soldier who heads out to the front we say "Godspeed and God bless you all"

Eternal wounds - Partition

I just began reading Yasmin Khan's "The great Partition: The making of India and Pakistan". Economist had reviewed the book a year back and commended it as good read. In her introduction Yasmin emphasises that the partition had affected regions of the subcontinent far beyond the eastern (Bengal) and western (Punjab) borders. She cites various hot spots that too saw riots or some form of religious tension. The list includes Meerut, Lucknow, Mumbai, Godhra, Secunderabad (the only southern city) etc. Looking at the list I sadly realised that each one of them remain a communal hot spot till today, more than 60 years later. Each had seen so many more riots decades later, each riot was bloody and cost hundreds of lives.

Often we hear of loud harsh criticism of Iraq's civil war and how Bush was responsible for uncorking it by removing a tyrant who had kept the country...well...corked up. While he does deserve criticism for the hodge-podge post invasion planning much of what happens is entirely the country's own making. Again what is happening in Iraq, though very tragic, pales into comparision before the horrors of what India and Pakistan endured. The 24 hour news cycle with its penchant to give wisdom in a hurry has no patience for deeper historical knowledge.

Dissent Iraqi style - Bush and a pair of shoes.

The world of Bush-haters, across the world, had a hearty moment watching him duck a shoe thrown at him by an Iraqi journalist (really, was he one?) during a press conference. Today CNN's Candy Crowley, one of the few objective reporters out there, interviewed Bush and this episode came up. Bush told Crowley, ""First of all, it's got to be one of the most weird moments of my presidency," he said. "Here I am, getting ready to answer questions from a free press in a democratic Iraq, and a guy stands up and throws his shoe. And it was bizarre, and it was an interesting way for a person to express himself".

While everybody jeered at Bush for being so unpopular what was lost in the melee was that the event was historic from a much grander perspective than for that silly theatrics. This was a press conference where journalists in a middle-eastern country stood up and asked questions to not just the American President, the putative leader of the Free World, they also could question their own Prime Minister. No other country in that region can boast of that. Ahmedinejad holds press meet to rant against the Great Satan and of course Israel none can question him, much less throw a shoe and get out alive.

This so called thug in a journalist clothing needs the Saddam treatment that he so loves. Abhu Graib, while shameful on American standards, was picnic compared to Iraqi methods of torture which had acid baths, electrocution, nail pulling, execution of family members and of course no imagination is needed for what was done to women. This thug was escorted out and is being charged in a court. This being Iraq, in a rare show of brotherhood Sunnis AND Shias are rejoicing at this together putting away their own civil war of mutual kidnaps and torture of each other. Now the favorite method of torture amongst them is using mechanized drill bits for drilling at soft spots. If this kind of protest was shown to anybody else in the middle eastern world then the consequences would not be pleasant to the dissenter. For this the dissenters can kiss Bush "thanks".

For those who retort, "oh well Bush killed so many, what do you expect". I tell them "Saddam, Assad, Stalin, Mao all did much worse and with no shred of good intentions and this could not be done to any of them much less live to tell the tale afterward".