open Democracy News Analysis - Al-Qaida's standing, Paul Rogers - Comments

PFS on "Al-Qaida’s standing"

PFS — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:02:20 +0000

I share Paul's analysis. My immediate reaction to 9/11 was that it was a seminal moment in which the US would realise why they were so despised as a hegemony. It was of course a seminal moment but the response was not the one I hoped for but rather more of the same.

I have always felt that the key drivers for the Iraq invasion were: 1) a need to maintain the US military presence in the Mid-East following their sudden withdrawal from Saudi (an Al-Qaida achievement) and 2) to focus the terrorist threat outside US shores (in which they have amply succeeded).

The issue is not whether the Al-Qaida worldview is valid, but whether it is widely held in the Islamic world - which it is - and therefore needs to be understood and addressed setting aside Western values - of which monetary value is the predominant one (it's the economy stupid). After all, there is justification in considering many aspects of freedom and democracy -from a non-postmodern Judaeo-Christian viewpoint- to be as entrapping as certain of those in Islamic cultures - witness Western mental health, public alcoholism, pornography and obesity problems, the economic trap, status and image anxiety (the latter considered by Islamic feminists to be a mirror-image of the burkha for many Western women), and a long etc. Many aspects of Islam are as antithetical to capitalism as Marxism and are as much a defence against the imposition of an opposing culture too.

Islam has already experienced US-style freedom and democracy under the CIA-backed Shah of Iran and has good reason to mistrust the neocon agenda. The way to a new world order is for us to recognise the underlying protection that Al-Qaida appears to offer millions of Muslims who fear the consequences of economic and social liberalism, admit that freedom and democracy are far from perfect and that we too have much to learn from the positive spirituality that Islam seeks to preserve among the great majority that do not follow the rantings of the mad mullahs. As long as we proclaim our culture as unquestionably desirable in all its aspects, which the Bush doctrine implies, the clash of civilisations will continue and Al-Qaida will attract its adherents and martyrs.

superchunjae on "Al-Qaida’s standing"

superchunjae — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 03:26:29 +0000

Mr. Rogers is either overlooking the obvious or he is afraid to state the obvious. His assessments are dead on, but he implies that he cannot understand why the USA pursues policies that are not in the national interest. The �why� is simple and so obvious that I cannot believe that Mr. Rogers is unaware of the �neocon� influence directing American foreign policy. The �neocons� are not primarily driven by what is best for the USA. They have a higher calling. Neocons can change their political affiliation to and from liberal and conservative at the drop of a hat, but they stay focused on the big picture. America means very little to them. It is just another tool to be used and disposed of when it is not longer useful to their agenda. These �neocons� will be first in line to kick American when it is down if that will help them to achieve their agenda. Their agenda should be terrifying to any sensible and rational human being, but is no secret what their agenda is. It amazes me that the neocons can muster such clout to continue to reign supreme in determining the future of America. If a liberal is elected President in the next election, these same people will once again change their spots, but their agenda will not change. They will become flaming liberals, but America will continue to follow the same destructive path under their direction and control.

jjwvanwaning on "Al-Qaida’s standing"

jjwvanwaning — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:08:31 +0000

Excellent evaluation by Professor Paul Rogers - as always.

sean.fox on "Al-Qaida’s standing"

sean.fox — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:34:31 +0000

EDT is right that there is a bigger picture but the problem is that so long as the West is occupying Iraq, so long as Guantanamo bay exists, so long as credible stories of extra judicial kidnappings and torture by the West continue, so long as we supporting a dictatorial, repressive Wahibiist regime in Saudia Arabia, then the outside World will consider us (with some truth) hypocrites and assume that we are motivated by oil and power, and that human rights, democracy etc are just convenient covers.

The history of the US in the Middle East can only support this interpretation when you look at the Iran/Iraq war (started by Iraq, use of chemical weapons by Iraq, first attacks on neutral shipping by Iraq) yet Iran got all the blame and Saddam had massive political, financial and military support from the West. He was already a brutal dictator gassing his own people but we only started to care when he invaded Iraq and threatened western oil supplies. In fact the genocide against his own people used by the US as part of the case for deposing him happened while we were actively supporting him. We knew and said nothing - in fact most of the chemicals came from Western Europe.

On a related note how much effort (diplomatic, not necessarily military) are we putting in to try and protect the peoples of Burma, Zimbabwe, Darfur, Tibet. Why not? - no oil or other vital interests.

EDT on "Al-Qaida’s standing"

EDT — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 03:04:00 +0000

just because bush and fox news have biased world views, that does not validate the too commonley held "world view" that you refer to of those outside the U.S. and London. Why does rodgers only focus his critical analysis on one flawed world view and not the other? how about some balance paul? after all, the world view that makes the U.S and Israel the only demons seems to preclude the needed self reflection these sadley self destructive societies lack. take the casualties in iraq. ok the u.s. mishandled much of the war and diplomatic effort, but for people in the region to cheerlead the fight "against" the "occupation" where people blow up markets, and mosques and they just can't help themselves to do that or support it? post saadam iraq was an accident waiting to happen. the shia sunni rivalry was an accident waiting to happen, particulary with an high oil price enriched iran neglecting to take care of citizens while it seeks regional hegamony. wherever there are humans there are double standards, but the lack of open and inteligent discourse in the middle east is makes the region ridden with double standards. you've got governments and terrorist groups beheading and torturing and a culture of violence and racisim in the region. i won't defend the u.s. or anyone for torture and violence, but the violence and abuse within the community is far greater than that inflicted from without. instead of giving indirect support to the distorted world views of the region, all you can do is give support to those distortions by exclusively looking at the U.S. as the problem. the U.S. will go away at some point, but the problems will not with "help" like yours. bush is certainly a part of the problem, but so are one sided critics like yourself.

Al-Qaida's standing, Paul Rogers

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0000

The blindness of the Bush administration is a key weapon in the al-Qaida network’s armoury Read the rest of this post...