What Went Wrong with Islam

Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong, Interview with Brian Lamb 11/18/01, C-Span.org.

Notes:

Starts with historical Islam, from center of culture and innovation to being roundly defeated. This absolute defeat in 1699 started a debate, which has gone on ever since. "Hitherto we have defeated the infidels, now they are defeating us." Defeat on the battlefield preceeded defeat in market place, and defeat politically and scientifically.

Tried to emulate economy, political systems, militaries of West. Nothing has worked. Situation has gotten worse and worse. Have come to be dominated by the West.

A debate which has been going on for three centuries, getting more ramified lately.

Lewis was in His Majesty's Service during WWII, saw much of the Middle East.

Two articles were his biggest initial contributions: "Root of Muslim Rage", 1990, he had come to realize more and more that there was a hostility towards the West and the US in particular.

Second article appeared in 1998, on Osama's Declaration of War on the US.

"Old enough to believe that history consists of facts supported by evidence."

Analyzes the phrase, "That's history", implying that something in the past is unimportant. Says Americans are generally ignorant of history. A major difference between the US and the cultures in the Middle East, where they have a very keen awareness of history and the narrative they fit into.

For example, in the Iraq Iran war, the war propaganda made frequent allusions to events of the seventh century, in the secure knowledge that the listeners and readers on both sides would pick up these allusions and understand them. When Osama, in one of his recent pronouncements, says "we have suffered this shame and humiliation for 80 years...", his audience understood him. He was, of course, referring to the fall of the Ottoman empire, the occupation and partition of that empire, ultimate point of degradation and humiliation of the Muslim world. At its height, extended from the suburbs of Vienna to the east of Iran. Mustafa Kemal "Ataturk" led an uprising and reeoccupied Anatolia, led a secular revolution and set up secular military state. From a Muslim point of view, this was the worst that could happen, eliminated the Caliphate.

The Caliphate is the head of Islam. Theirs is a religion subdivided into nations, not nation subdivided into religion. They do not define themselves in national terms, but in religious identities and political allegiance.

Koran was revealed by the Archangel Gabriel to Mohammed, Koran is "divine and uncreated." Exile and return is a theme in Muslim history. Mecca to Medina and back again.

Non-Muslims are not allowed to go to Mecca. "Only one religion in Arabia" is the maxim, which caused Osama so much grief when America based troops there. Important difference between Mohammed and his "predecessors" was that Mohammed was successful during his lifetime. Was not he that was put to death but his enemies. Put together a state, conquered with the Sword, made peace and war, all things a head of state does. Forms part of the core of memories that all Muslims share. Therefore, Islam is political in a sense that Christianity and Judaism are not.

Mohammed was not divine, but he was a prophet, chosen to deliver God's message. They also revere Jesus as a prophet, but consider it blasphemy to consider him son of God.

Modern history of Middle East begins in 1798. The French Republic sent expeditionary force to Egypt under Bonaparte. Taught the first "appalling lesson" that even a small European army could enter, occupy, and govern the Middle East at their leisure. The departure of the French was second lesson: only another European power can get them out (driven out by Sir Horatio Nelson of Great Britain). Departure was not achieved by Egypt.

Middle East was more or less passive object of greater power games from outside the region. In the final phase it was the US v. USSR. But this was the end of it. Bush I and Gorbachev ended this Imperial rivalry over the Middle East. America because they wouldn't, Soviets because they couldn't.

When it comes to defining American interests in the Middle East, two big topics: 1) Oil, and 2) Israel.

Oil. Oil was found in the first part of the 20th century. The development of oil made a tremendous difference in every respect: the radical Islam originated in Arabia as far back in 18th century, but it would have remained there if not for oil. The unlimited wealth allowed them to set up schools and colleges all over the world to spread their ideology, their brand of fanatical, extremist Islam. Without oil money, this type of Islam would have remained on the fringe. By buying oil, we are indirectly contributing to the continuation of this problem.

Oil has been a curse to the Arab world. Provided vast wealth to an otherwise pastoral system. "No representation without taxation." Didn't need the people and their taxes to govern. Traditional Muslim government is authoritarian, but it wasn't dictatorial or tyrannical. Only recently has the power of the ruler been augmented by oil. Either they will run out of oil, or it will be superceded by some other tech. Oil has strengthened autocratic government, made it more effective in its oppression. Inhibited the development of other forms of gainful economic effort.

Came to Princeton because they "made me an offer I couldn't refuse, a New Jersey expression." There was a difference between the students at Princeton and in London. Undergraduate education is better in England, but graduate education is more rigorous here.

Israel. Israel/Palestine question is not really of primary importance. That and anti-Americanism are the only grievances that are allowed to be freely expressed in the Middle East. So it is of secondary importance, the primary factor being political oppression and the general feeling of Muslim discontent.

"Either get tough, or get out"

Kind of wishy-washy policies are not going to work. Why do they hate us is the wrong question, they've been hating us for centuries. You can't be rich, strong, successful...and loved, especially not by those who have nothing. The question should be why do they not fear and respect us. There has always been a struggle between these religions, and now the wrong one seems to be winning. The hatred is axiomatic.

Something that comes out in writings of bin Laden. There were always rival powers before, if they were unhappy with US they could turn to the Soviets. Can't do that anymore. It has concentrated their minds towards us, and they think they destroyed the Soviet Union. Saw this as stage one on the road to victory, were scared of the Soviets, thought they were the worst.

They thought dealing with the US would be comparatively easy. Litany is always repeated: Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, etc. They say that we were there to install Imperial Somalia, and were driven away by a few casualties. How do we get tough?

Continue good work we've started in Afghanistan, then deal with other countries and terrorist groups that are supported by them. The only other alternative is to get out completely. He prefers getting tough to getting out. Getting bullied then retreating is not a good idea.

People's goodwill is inverse to who the governments support. Divide Middle East into three regions. 1)Governments support America -- these countries have rabidly anti-American population. Notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia. "It's no accident" that a great majority of the hijackers come from these countries. Regard governments as American puppets. 2)Governments are anti-American -- people are very pro-American. Remarkable demonstrations in Iran after 9/11. If you have an unpopular government, and the government tells you America is bad, you will assume America is good.

He hopes that what has happened in Afghanistan continues into Iraq and Iran. He's been told that after seeing the scenes of rejoicing in Afghanistan, it would look like a funeral compared to what the celebrations would be in Iraq and Iran were they liberated from their present rulers.

The desire for freedom is very natural. Contitutional democracy is a Western idea, freedom as a political ideal is a Western idea. However, in Muslim world, the ideal government is one of justice, mean what we largely mean by justice, enough room to squeeze in the idea of freedom under this rubric.

Third group: where both government and people are friendly to US. Only two states, both democracies (oddly enough!), Israel and Turkey, where the government can be thrown out by the people if it becomes unpopular. This eliminates the inverse relationship between the opinions and assumptions of the people, and that of the government.

On media: much information that we get here is trivial. Is devoid of context, presented bare and naked, and therefore meaningless. Media is supposed to be intellectually useful. The paradigm has shifted to being one of stimulation. We are prodded with electricity and diverted by red meat. We are no longer educated. Sheep are treated such.

He speaks briefly of the role of women, and how Ataturk focused on the issue of women's rights. Quotes Muslim philosopher, "Society that eliminates the contribution of one half of its citizens is like a human body that is paralyzed on one side."

Quantum Morality

I think good and evil are helpful constructs, but they must be contextualized to have true meaning.

Killing, without context, is an amoral concept. Killing in war can be a good, likewise killing to protect your family. Were those imperatives universalized, without dilution, the world would be a better place. Even Kant could be convinced of their moral worth.

Murder, contextualized by its definition, is evil except at the extreme margins--where the victim, in life, had been a greater evil. (Of course, this leads into second order problems of who gets to decide who should be murdered. The answer, historically, has been to grant the authority to the State. Of course, the addition of "the State" into our matrix changes the context of the act, so the moral worth of the act changes. State "murder" becomes State-sanctioned execution.)

Good is that which is life-affirming. In any situation, it is defined by a matrix of contextualized data points.

Unfortunately, some of those data points exist in the future, as things that have not yet happened. Our knowledge of context is imperfect. Worse, we don't know if the unforeseen change in context will change the moral valuation--the good or evil of the act.

But the past is our glimpse of the future, and after a while certain patterns begin to form. With humans, these patterns became statistically sound maxims and moral rules of thumb: in other words, they became our Newtonian Ethics and Newtonian Morality.

But life is more complex than we can imagine, and at extreme pressures, Newtonian Morality breaks apart. Laws get flipped and turned upside down. Actions, amoral in nature, are rapidly reevaluated for moral worth. Murder becomes self-defense.

It is in the search for an underlying order in the chaos of high pressure where mankind cannot seem to find good answers. Until we get a statistical theory of morality, we never will.

Newtonian Ethics have worth, there is no doubt about it. It is just that they are shorthand for something else.

Where are the Savior Groups?

Wretchard posts on China and environmentalism.

There are many reasons why human rights and environmentalist groups focus on America to the near exclusion of China, and all of them have to do with economics.

China is ignored because it is impervious to attack. In normal circumstances, success creates visibility, and visibility brings in donations. In a world of opportunity cost, one cannot expect many people to expend resources on ventures with zero returns. The Savior Groups, knowing this, spend their time in greener pastures.

Attacking America is ubiquitous because returns on investment are so high. The entry barrier is low, and success is not even required to gain visibility. There is a constant, unwavering spotlight over here, a spotlight that has its own gravity on the annointed.

Also, one must look to the economics of ego. Success, or alternatively visibility, vindicates feelings of self-importance, and nothing is so dependent on sustenance as self-importance.

No Crisis of Knowledge Here

Cedarford, a commenter over at the Belmont Club, posted:

IN ten years, China has gone from producing less engineers and scientists to 6 times more, and have just surpassed America in producing hard science PhDs. Exceptional, too, more Asians now take those PhDs in America than native born Americans do.

I responded:

I wouldn't worry about that. Most of my complacency is based upon anecdotal evidence, but I am confident that America will not suffer a crisis of knowledge and expertise.

For instance: a Tibetan student I know who is over here getting an engineering degree. He kids us all the time about him finding an American wife to marry so he can stay here after he graduates. The earnestness in his eyes is heartbreaking when he talks about how lucky the rest of us are to be citizens in what he calls "the land of freedom."

I am not disputing the fact that many Chinese students arrive in America with nationalistic fervor and great pride in being Chinese. Many of these students are honoring their family and honoring their country by getting a first-rate education in America, and many of these students will not look back when they leave.

But many will look back. It is very similar to the greek myth of Orpheus, except these Orpheuses, these dynamos of their trade, are not leaving Hell, they are leaving heaven. The stakes are the same, though.

America is the great solvent. Once you let your guard down, once you look back in a moment of doubt, it is only a matter of time until the solvent breaks down all ties that bind. I have seen it happen. The longing starts while you are here, and it is relentless.

Iraq and the Scientific Method

Rumsfeld (Brought up by Wretchard):

For starters, it must be jarring for reporters to leave the United States, arrive in a country that is so different, where they have to worry about their personal safety, and then being rushed to a scene of a bomb, car bomb or a shooting and have little opportunity to see the rest of the country.

By contrast, the Iraqi people see things probably somewhat differently. They can compare Iraq as it is today to what it was three years ago: a brutal dictatorship, where the secret police would murder or mutilate a family member, sometimes in front of their children, and where hundreds of thousands of Iraqis disappeared into mass graves...

The situation in Iraq is terrible...and it's never been better.

The divergence in opinion on Iraq flows from a divergence in standards of observation (this only applies to honest observers--many care nothing for truth). Those who measure backwards, using history as the control group, are divided into two camps: those who use Iraq's history (either written or experienced), and those who use their personal history (either ideological or experienced). Those who use Iraq's past as the comparative standard are generally optimistic about what they see on the ground. As Rumsfeld notes, when one has knowledge of both Iraq's past and Iraq's present (e.g. Iraqis and our troops), the present looks miraculous by comparison.

On the other hand are those who choose to be less rigorous in their measurements. For these observers any standard will do, and snap-judgments abound. A misremembered past becomes the standard by which to measure a misperceived present (e.g. Snowcroft's "50 years of peace"). As has been shown, these non-Iraqis who calibrate their judgment from ego are vulnerable to the pessimism of privilege (an affliction of the affluent) and the inaccurate intuition of the ignorant.

Of course, there are those who eschew looking backwards at all, judging everything by that which has not yet arrived. These chronic discontents, whose control group is possibility, will forever be disappointed and sceptical. Untethered by amnesia and distracted by perfection, these men know nothing at all.

This is true for more issues than Iraq.

Thine Eyes Have Seen the Coming...

On Wretchard's Belmont Club, one of his posters, Ash, had this to say:

On the larger historical scale the event is really quite small. I repeat that approx. 3000 dead is not a big deal in the grand sweep of history.

I said this, and I thought it aptly represented my state of mind at the time, though it may sound like stream of consciousness when you read it:

Do you really believe that the number "3000 dead" is an exhaustive list of what happened that day? Perhaps if you narrowed the spaces in your filter, you would pick up the finer grains of truth and consequence that 9/11 came to symbolize.

Let me give you a less truncated account of that day, though it is still hopelessly abridged.

On September 11, 2001, a group of 19 terrorists boarded 4 airliners. They had nothing in their arsenal but box-cutters, hatred, and a willingness to die for their cause. These terrorists were beholden to a perverted, radical interpretation of the global region Islam, a religion that has over 1 billion adherents and not a few brainwashed radicals who dream of conquest and subjugation.

A mere 19 men. A mere 19 did that to us. 19 men killed three thousand American civilians, on American soil, during a time of peace. 19 men, using nothing but razors and airplane tickets, murdered 157 times their number and destroyed the lives of countless more, people who would show up at ground zero for weeks, with blank stares and vacant expressions, hoping against hope that they would find a loved one's body so they could have a proper burial and be at peace.

A mere 19 men, in minutes, destroyed two giant towers that took 10 years to build; 19 men caused $700 million dollars in damage to the Pentagon, and destroyed or damaged a further 23 buildings in downtown Manhattan. 19 men, spending only $400,000 from planning to implementation, closed down our stock market for a week, something that had not happened in 75 years, and when it reopened the cost in lost stock value came in at $1,200,000,000,000. 19 men caused our country $500 billion dollars in ongoing damages, and caused a debate in a free society over how much freedom we can afford and still be safe.

A mere 19 men, Ash! And they did this with nothing. Nothing!

But that is not the scariest thing about 9/11. The scariest thing about 9/11 is the glimpse it has given us of the future.

The Tupamaros terrorized Peru until the democratic government fell and a military dictatorship took over. The Tupamaros had thousands, but our enemy has more.

19 men, willing to die for a perversion, killed 3,000 innocent Americans, shut down our country, and caused over $1.7 trillion in damages and loss. They exposed the fragility of our existence, the illusion of our safety, and the bone-deep hatred of an enemy that wants to kill or enslave every last one of us.

Those are the facts. Never in the history of mankind have 19 men accomplished so much. Their acts are are historically unprecedented--HISTORICALLY UNPRECEDENTED...for now. Only for now.

Does that not make you tremble? Ask yourself, what will the next 19 do? If you can imagine it, then you know why we must act.

9/11 was the thunder before the storm. Only a fool would stay outside after that to see if it'll rain.

The Peace Activist and the Bag of Rights

In light of the hostage-taking in Iraq of four peace activists, I decided to pay a visit to the website of a prominent member of Christians for Peace (hat tip Wretchard), a member named Joe Carr. Say it ain't so, Joe:

"I completely affirm Palestinians right to resist Israeli colonial occupation. Palestinians have the right to do much more than throw rocks at soldiers committing colonial genocide, and they must if they are to survive."

The formulation "have a right to..." always interests me, predominantly because it is used so loosely and haphazardly by people who usually have no idea what they are talking about. When these people talk of rights, they don't realize the ex nihilo assertiveness of their comment. Instead, they feel their statement has the force of empirical fact, a teleological truth of nature that, because of the stupidity of their strategic competitors, they must demean by saying aloud.

Questions that go unanswered:

What is a right? Is a right based in law, nature, or morality? Where do they come from?

How is the "right to resist" different from mere "ableness"? How is it different from a natural, or instinctive, imperative?

Is it always good to exercise a right? Is it always good to resist?

Are rights and responsibilities mutually exclusive?

Do Israelis have the same rights of resistance as the Palestinians, or does ability indirectly correlate with "rightness"?

If both have a right to resist and survive, how is it meaningful to speak of rights in the first place?

And finally, if it is not always a good to exercise a right (either it conflicts with other virtues, or causes a bad result), how should one approach the question of whether or not to do so? Should one look at the situation entire and make a rational, result-oriented decision (roll-back), or should one follow the passions and be guided by the lesser spirits of vengeance, self-gratification, and pride? (Would our friend Joe agree that there is a right of self-gratification? That is, in a sense, what he advocates for the Palestinians. Is this right universal, or only for the downtrodden?)

The Palestinians are not operating in a vacuum. Exercising a right, insofar as it exists, is not free of cost (it never is, just ask Hollywood). One of the effects of the Palestinian blind exercise of their right to violence has been to remove rationalism as an option for engagement. By doing this, Palestinians have forced the Israelis to treat them as reactionary units of a certain set program, instead of as human beings with which to negotiate for peace. Basically, the Palestinians have become mechanical automatons in their interaction with Israel, an input/output system of peculiar characteristics. The input of this tragic system is the reality of Israel--the precise state of its existence at a unit t of time--and the output is the Palestinian response, which is stuck on a singular value: the exercise of the Palestinian right to resist.

The latter changes the input value insofar as it changes the defensive posture of Israel, but the interesting part of this dynamic is the static nature of the output. Israel has tried on several occasions to redefine its reality in regards to the Palestinians, but the output of violence did not diminish. In fact, it increased.

The fact that Israeli concessions (redefinitions) have done nothing to stem the exercise of the Palestinian "right to violence" has left the Israelis with only three options: they can eliminate the input (Israel), eliminate the output, or eliminate the effectiveness of the output on the input. The first option means suicide, the second means genocide, and the last means withdrawal and a fence. I hope the last one works, because Israel is not going to commit suicide. That leaves option number two, and if it comes to that perhaps our friend Joe will lament that the Palestinian bag of rights has succeeded in killing its carrier.

Thanksgiving

Ben Bernanke is unworried about the American trade deficit. The core cause of such lop-sidedness is the sophisticated, post-industrial, and healthy consumerism of the US in contradistinction to the neo-industrial, wage-controlled "workers-hell" in China. We have a copious amount of discretionary income. They don't. We bought into the information economy. They haven't.

China and the Middle East are in the same dilemma. Their survival and relevance are dependent on the attentions of the United States and the particular type of market we help support. Our dependency on them is inextricably linked with the aged and dying paradigm of Industry. As the latter goes the way of the dinosaur, and as the United States gets richer, a single imperative will ring true with the Industrial nations of the world: evolve, or die.

They are in a precarious position, these niche players. The top of the food chain is moving skyward, as the ground falls away beneath their feet. As citizens around the world become more sophisticated due to cultural cross-pollination (internet, media), the universal question asked of government will soon become, "Where's the beef?" Without a compelling answer, national brain-drain to the US will proceed apace (see latest Economist).

Information is the new oil. And we (post-industrial nations) own all the refinaries.

On a side note, our national defense posture has shifted from retaliatory (pre-911), to preemptive (post-911), to preventative (post-OIF) in the space of five years. This means that any prospective enemy of the US will have to draw its followers and know-how from an ether filled with sentinels and guard dogs. Worse for them, once they find what they need, assembly--and speed--will be required.

A decentralized entry-barrier for our times. As we get richer and more powerful, outside threats diminish. Inside threats, however...

The Constitution is the Aegis that shields us from ourselves. On this Thanksgiving, it is something to be truly thankful for.