Terrorism, War, Global Responsibility
Post comments here.
posted by DR. AZLY RAHMAN at
2:37 PM
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Contributors
Previous Posts
- 33] Modern Islamic Radicalism
- 32] Early Ideologues of Islamic Radicalism
- 31] Egypt and Lebanon: Secularism and Confessional...
- 30] Wars at the end of the Twentieth Century and t...
- 29] OPEC and the World Economy
- 28] Intervention and Revolution in Iran
- 27] U.S. Presidential Policies, 1947 - 2002
- chapter 35
- RAI's new documentary: "The Hidden Massacres"
- Article 22: Out of Despair Revived Nationalism
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
5 Comments:
While al-Qaeda’s attacks on two wedding receptions in Oman Jordan outraged many within the Arab and Muslim communities, their overall impact had been ascribed by media and military analysts to the increasing inability of al-Qaeda’s Iraqi branch to challenge the combined superiority of U.S. and Iraqi national security forces. Coupled with the increasing determination of the more liberal U.S. and European media outlets to cloak the disintegrating Iraqi insurgency in the heroic terms of an actual national liberation movement, such analytical perceptions dismiss by omission the factual historical inability of externally imposed insurgencies to effectively resist indigenously organized political opposition supported by the overwhelming military supremacy of a truly global superpower. Because today this superpower is the United States and because its meteoric rise to global prominence appears to exhibit signs of an inevitable permanence, such ideologically grounded misconceptions seem likely to gain an ever greater adherence among the disaffected followers of the increasingly discredited notions of social cohesion through perpetual struggle aimed at the attainment of an economically redistributive world order.
While pundits frequently compare the deposed Islamist Taliban regime to the aspirant Nazi Reich of WWII, they seldom acknowledge that al-Qaeda’s redistributive aims center not on the economic justice emphasized by Marxist Socialism and Leninist Communism, but on the less perceptible redistribution of global political influence that is currently concentrated within United States and the developed states of Western Europe, for the expressed purpose of its re-consolidation within an Islamist Middle East. To such persons the rejection of this very ideal by the liberally minded Iranian counter-revolutionaries or their counterparts in other failed revolutionary states such as Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt, are easily dismissed because of the diplomatic and financial support such movements receive from the U.S. government. At the same time the steady pace of the ever methodical U.S. led coalition’s pursuit of the al-Qaeda financial and military support networks, are forcing self proclaimed “freedom fighters” like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi into an increasingly perilous position of not only having to wage Jihad against the culturally and ideologically differentiated U.S. centered coalition of the willing, but also against fellow Muslims who are prompted to doubt the voracity of al-Qaeda’s vilification of the United States with each successive strike on Iraqi police stations, oil pipe lines, markets, hospitals, courts, schools, etc.,.. Together these factors should prompt media analysts to ask not if the attacks on the two weddings in posh Omani hotels were a direct inevitability of U.S. coalitions success on the ground in Iraq, but to query the more important question of why even the horrific aftermath of these al-Qaeda attacks is insufficient to convince Arab countries to aggressively confront Islamist militants seeking refuge within their very borders.
While al-Qaeda’s attacks on two wedding receptions in Oman Jordan outraged many within the Arab and Muslim communities, their overall impact had been ascribed by media and military analysts to the increasing inability of al-Qaeda’s Iraqi branch to challenge the combined superiority of U.S. and Iraqi national security forces. Coupled with the increasing determination of the more liberal U.S. and European media outlets to cloak the disintegrating Iraqi insurgency in the heroic terms of an actual national liberation movement, such analytical perceptions dismiss by omission the factual historical inability of externally imposed insurgencies to effectively resist indigenously organized political opposition supported by the overwhelming military supremacy of a truly global superpower. Because today this superpower is the United States and because its meteoric rise to global prominence appears to exhibit signs of an inevitable permanence, such ideologically grounded misconceptions seem likely to gain an ever greater adherence among the disaffected followers of the increasingly discredited notions of social cohesion through perpetual struggle aimed at the attainment of an economically redistributive world order.
While pundits frequently compare the deposed Islamist Taliban regime to the aspirant Nazi Reich of WWII, they seldom acknowledge that al-Qaeda’s redistributive aims center not on the economic justice emphasized by Marxist Socialism and Leninist Communism, but on the less perceptible redistribution of global political influence that is currently concentrated within United States and the developed states of Western Europe, for the expressed purpose of its re-consolidation within an Islamist Middle East. To such persons the rejection of this very ideal by the liberally minded Iranian counter-revolutionaries or their counterparts in other failed revolutionary states such as Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt, are easily dismissed because of the diplomatic and financial support such movements receive from the U.S. government. At the same time the steady pace of the ever methodical U.S. led coalition’s pursuit of the al-Qaeda financial and military support networks, are forcing self proclaimed “freedom fighters” like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi into an increasingly perilous position of not only having to wage Jihad against the culturally and ideologically differentiated U.S. centered coalition of the willing, but also against fellow Muslims who are prompted to doubt the voracity of al-Qaeda’s vilification of the United States with each successive strike on Iraqi police stations, oil pipe lines, markets, hospitals, courts, schools, etc.,.. Together these factors should prompt media analysts to ask not if the attacks on the two weddings in posh Omani hotels were a direct inevitability of U.S. coalitions success on the ground in Iraq, but to query the more important question of why even the horrific aftermath of these al-Qaeda attacks is insufficient to convince Arab countries to aggressively confront Islamist militants seeking refuge within their very borders.
When French cities suffered endless nights of rioting, by what the media then depicted as disenchanted Muslim teenagers of Middle Eastern and North African descent, the predominant liberal bias tried to excuse the inadequacies of the French their conduct by shifting its focus on the inadequacies of the French social welfare economy. Now that similar behavior is manifested in Australian suburbs by rampaging gangs of Lebanese hooligans, the same media establishment is attempting to shield its bias for the instigators of the Australian riots by claiming that these toughs were victims of Australian racism. Highly critical of the Australian government for its “harsh” response, the liberal media is willfully omitting all mentions of Australia’s historical record as a nation of immigrants that continues to maintain one of , some would go as far as to say the, the most liberal and permissive immigration policy of any developed country in the world. Equally revealing is the omission within virtually all media sources of the fact that until recently Australians enjoyed the security guarantees afforded to them by their firearms. Liberalizing policies of the British Labor Government under the leadership of Prime Minister Tony Blair were responsible for introducing into Australian politics of a continental European anti-firearm bias that had polarized the Australian political establishment and led to foreseeable disarmament of the Australian populace. Similar, but entirely opposite effect was manifested within the constitution of the general Australian populace by purposeful mass attacks on Australian tourists in Indonesian resorts of Bali. Australian anger at the loss of life in the Al Qaeda sponsored attacks fomented broad popular support for Australian participation in the U.S. led War on Terror and served as the rallying point for Australians from all walks of life and of every ethnic origin.
Five years ago Australian sensibilities centered on the slaughter of Australian families that came to Bali for the sun and the surf, and on their vehement hatred of those who could commit such senseless acts of terror. Today Australians are rallying against a different and somewhat less frequently recognized history of Lebanon as state sponsor of Palestinian terrorists who hijacked airliners and cruise ships and slaughtered innocents in ways all too similar to Bali. And while the liberal media establishment continues to espouse its firm conviction that Australian rioting is the work of white racists, young Muslim toughs of Lebanese descent arbitrarily pounce on white and non-white Australians alike, leaving behind bitter tears and indignant screams of their victims who are beginning to refuse to understand why Muslim immigrants avoid following their legacies and integrate into the broader fabric of Australian society? Why their government had left them defenseless in the face of this scourge? And why the current Australian government does not want to understand that ALL laws are tolerated only as long as the society they govern deems them necessary? After all, is this not the reason why pluralistic representative societies like Australia hold regular elections and adhere to the doctrine of judicial review?
Freedom of the media is one of the pre-requisites for successful development of a self perpetuating, pluralistic, representative, democratic, social order. Conversely, an absolutely free media constitutes a clear and ever present danger to the continuing survival of such ideals by virtue of its tendency to assume onto itself the very sort of absolutist dictatorial authority that is sighted by journalists as the main reason for the ongoing existence of oppressive totalitarian regimes like those that govern present day Iran and Syria. Equally dogmatic, Iranian and Syrian dictatorships differ from one another only in the reasons for which they inflict oppression upon their citizens.
Constructed around a militant revolutionary Ideal, modern day Islamic Republic of Iran represents a conscious effort to preserve an extremist revolutionary ideology from all contradictory semblances of reality through redundant duplication of governmental functions that only serve to permanently insulate the ruling elite from the will of their populace. While the predominant ideology of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ideology is based on the notion of the political, legal, social, and economic, supremacy of Shiism, the pre-eminent ideology in Syria emphasizes the unquestionable nature of Syria’s adopted form of Sunni-Arab-neo-Socialist secular nationalism. Both countries employ an omni present network of internal security agencies to “protect” themselves from espoused views of everyone willing to look through their elaborate dogmatic facades and past the entrenched globalize anti-capitalist/anti-U.S. bias of the overwhelmingly liberal media. It is this very media that routinely professes to their Western audience their absolute right to know and otherwise access sensitive information in order to “ensure continued existence of transparency within government”, while minimizing the importance of the verbal and political abuse such totalitarian regimes inflict on other countries. This inherent duplicity is highlighted by Hanna Arendt in her Origins of Totalitarianism, in which she discusses the commonalities of the diametrically opposed constructs of Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union. And it is this same duality that is responsible for the public’s growing apprehension of media reports that lampoon the U.S. led war on Terror and its latest Iraq successes against Islamist insurgents, while dismissing the public’s calls for their freedom from the ubiquitous liberal bias with demands for still greater access in the name of “Free Press” and the “public’s right to know.”
When “Humpty Dumpty” was originally written, its lyrics announced that “all the kings horses and all the kings men could not put Humpty Dumpty back together again.” At that time this tong in cheek critique of British Imperial policy chastised the British monarchy for failing to either prevent or else utterly devastate the 18th century American colonial insurrection that ultimately led to the formation of the present day United States of America. Yet, within the contemporary polyarchic U.S., the afore mentioned quotation accurately depicts the shamefully pretentious attitude expressed by the vast majority of Western, and especially U.S. journalists, toward the stated U.S. Middle East policy goals in particular, and the broader successes of the U.S. brand of political/economic conservatives in general. The recent New York Times (NYT) expose on the hitherto top secret NSA monitoring of suspected terrorists and their U.S. sympathizers is but the latest manifestation of this bias.
Vividly apparent in the feinted NYT unawareness of the illegality of its actions and inherent probability that publication of such information would lead to another 9/11, such sensationalist exposes highlight the ever increasing sense of monarchical self entitlement which continues to dominate media coverage of the United States and its multifaceted foreign policy. Already irritated by the military inability and political unwillingness of the United States and its Iraqi allies to forfeit Iraq to Islamist militants, these media interests are further aggravated by the desire of the newly liberated Iraqi citizenry for minimal governmental control of their newly establishing economy and creation within the post-Baathists Iraq of a permanently dynamic polyarchic political system that would permit for natural suppression of militancy and radicalism through expressions of popular opposition to these ideologies. And while it is unclear how U.S. successes in Iraq will affect the development of representative democracies within the currently dictatorial Iran and Syria, the increasingly militant tone of public pronouncements by Iranian and Syrian public officials clearly demonstrate the beneficial effect U.S. policies in Iraq had on the democratic movements of Iraq’s totalitarian neighbors.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home