Distortions Of Progress

All too frequently, the media sensationalizes non-stories as they attempt to whip up anti-Islamic fervor in the name of ratings. FOX News ran a story headline Sunday: “Islamic Law’s Influence in America a Growing Concern.”

What exactly is the concern? Apparently, some taxi drivers in the U.S. decided not to carry passengers with alcohol, a university installed taps for Muslim worshippers to wash their feet before prayer, and a company decided to give their employees a holiday on Eid.

Yeah – real issues to worry about – I don’t know what our free country is coming too when taxi drivers can choose their passengers, a public school helps guarantee freedom of worship, and a corporation acknowledges all religions. That certainly isn’t why our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights.

This perception of Islam has distorted what the American public views as progress. The media has over-simplified our goals, presenting the idea of a Muslim woman who removes her veil as “progress.” That’s not progress. That’s just a different culture.

I was once propositioned by a woman under a powder-blue burqa on the streets of Kabul. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the veil that was keeping her in a state of prostitution.

Progress would be if that woman had access to affordable medical care. Progress would be if her children had access to free schools. Progress would be if both she and her husband could earn a living wage. Progress would be if their villages weren’t in danger of being bombed by U.S. drones or held hostage by Taliban insurgents.

Progress would be growth. Progress would be peace. Progress would be a future. Who gives a shit about a veil?

President Obama’s “new” Afghan/Pakistan strategy has the same simplistic view and lacks any fresh ideas as to how we can combat the roots of extremism. Instead, his “new” strategy is simply super-sizing the mistakes of the past 8 years and attempting to reframe the issue with new euphemisms.

The so-called “war on terror” (now renamed, in true Orwellian fashion, the “Overseas Contingency Operation”) continues to view civilian deaths – collateral damage – as acceptable. We continue to fund Pakistan’s military despite knowing that elements of Pakistan’s intelligence forces are supporting Taliban insurgents.

Meanwhile, America keeps trying to convince Afghans, Pakistanis, and other Muslims in developing countries (or occupied territories) that we are just trying to help; yet we refuse to let them help themselves. Islam is always seen as part of the problem – not part of the solution. For nearly a decade, we have attempted to justify our own failures and distract those working for global development by pointing a finger at Islamic piety.

And this is where we have doomed ourselves to failure.

There are so many partners that could help with real progress, but too many of them have been labeled as “too Islamic” and thus a potential enemy. Islam is (like all major religions) built on charity, and there are institutions within many Muslim societies that can act as a partner if given the chance. Unfortunately, our fear has kept us from trusting anything that looks, talks, smells, or even hints at being “Islamic.”

The Indian state of Gujarat is an example of what Islamic organizations can provide if given the opportunity. The city of Ahmedabad was torn apart in 2002 by ethnic and religious riots. (I won’t get into who started it, because like so many other conflicts, it really doesn’t matter. What matters is that a small event escalated and thousands of people were affected.)

After the riots, some of the Muslim population in Ahmedabad was left without homes. Islamic charities stepped in to help. Even orthodox political institutions, like Jamaat-i-Islami, the Pakistani Islamic party with links to militant groups, came to the rescue of the displaced community. They helped reconstruct old homes, set up new schools, and built new communal housing for resettlement. The underlying fear in the Indian government was that the Islamic influence would filter down and create a more conservative, rigid community.

Seven years on, Jawaharlal Nehru University anthropologist Dipankar Gupta writes that fears about rising Islamic fundamentalism have proved to be unfounded. The Islamic institutions have not tried to implement their brand of fundamental religion, but have simply worked to better the lives of Gujarati Muslims.

“Did the [Islamists]…place conditions of a religious nature before they let people into these [resettlement] colonies? None, as far as the residents could recall…[N]obody was tested for orthodoxy before they were allowed in…

The truth is that neither Jamaat-i-Islami nor [other Islamic institutions are] keen on advocating fundamentalist lifestyles. They have no interest in sponsoring madrassas that teach only Arabic and the Quran. Instead they have set up schools that provide secular education…These schools are not a ruse for Islamic organizations, or clerics, to pump religious fervor into Muslim kids.

On the contrary, these Muslim institutions are clear that they want the boys and girls in their care to learn secular sciences and skills and heave themselves out of parental poverty. The curricula in these schools are so designed that they conform to the requirements of the state education board. There would be some religious instructions in these institutions, but they would be on the side, and a minor matter…

The accent is on turning out successful Muslims who can negotiate confidently in a secular world…

Where then is that fundamentalism that is supposedly breeding in the smoldering slums of Ahmedabad? In fact, if anything, it is just the reverse…”

The Obama administration has similar ready-made partners for reconstruction in Afghanistan and Pakistan. America (or NATO) cannot do it alone – and nor should they. Afghans and Pakistanis – and the religious values that are a part of them – need to be integrated into the very institutions that are seeking to help. We need to heed a lesson from the reconstruction of Ahmedabad and stop being afraid of utilizing Islam in development.

But gaining support for such an idea first requires something from the media. We need a media that focuses on true progress instead of culture. We need the anti-Islamic fear-mongering to stop.

We need a media that presents Islam for what it is and what it should be – part of the solution.

Now that would be a truly new strategy for the “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

Wil Robinson
AWOP International Contributing Editor
Author of International Political Will Blog

**************************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all

¡Viva la Depredador Aviones!

Why aren’t we bombing Mexico with unmanned Predator drones?

If the Obama administration truly believes that dropping bombs from remote-controlled aircraft onto villages on the Afghan-Pakistani border is a good idea to combat the Taliban, why not do the same to fight the drug cartels in Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez?

It seems that Mexico - where the drug war killed three times as many civilians in 2008 than a real war did in Afghanistan - is a perfect candidate for expanding Project Predator.

There are a number of similarities between the two regions:

Both the northern Mexican states and Pakistan are perilously close to becoming failed states, rife with corruption and lacking any entity that can enforce the rule of law.

Both countries are fueled by narco-terrorism and violence as they each try to export their illegal drugs to Western markets.

Both countries routinely see decapitations used as a method of terror, like these unfortunate Mexican police sans heads.

The threat of kidnapping is prevalent in both countries.

Neither Mexico nor Afghanistan/Pakistan attacked America on September 11, 2001.

There is actually more evidence to support the bombing of Mexico rather than Pakistan:

More people were killed in Mexico in 2008 (6,000+) in drug-related violence than died in Afghanistan (2,100+).

Unlike Afghanistan/Pakistan, the violence in Mexico actually is spilling over directly into American cities.

Phoenix is the kidnapping-for-ransom capital of the U.S., with 366 incidents in 2008 (police estimate twice as many may not be reported). Phoenix also has a murder rate that is twice the national average (unless it’s all those senior snowbirds that are responsible for the homicides).

The southern New Mexico town of Columbus has seen a trend of drug lords from south of the border moving into their small neighborhood:

“Several residents of Palomas [across the border in Mexico near Juarez] have bought property in Columbus recently, paying cash…new Cadillac Escalades, and cars with thousand-dollar chrome rims, have appeared suddenly, in a town without a single traffic light.”

More than 200 American citizens (15 of them minors) have been killed in Mexico since 2004, largely in border cities like Tijuana, Ciudad Juarez, and Nuevo Laredo. Another 75 Americans are still missing. Most of these cases are unsolved.

In fact, despite what the politicians and their mainstream media lapdogs attempt to convince us of, drug violence in northern Mexico is a bigger threat to American security than any Taliban insurgents. Though we have effectively scared Americans with color-coded fear factors and visions of wild-eyed Mohammedans who want to kill us for our freedom, it isn’t the reality. Americans are much more likely to die in drug-related violence – directly tied to the northern Mexico smuggling routes and cartels – rather than at the hands of a Muslim suicide bomber.

Given the facts, I can’t understand why we aren’t already using Predator drones south of the border. It seems to me that drug lords would be pretty easy to locate in their lush villas, and then we can just drop a bomb or two via remote control – their families be damned. We don’t care about collateral damage in Pakistan – why should we care about it in Tijuana?

If we aren’t worried about addressing the root of Afghanistan’s problems with any real infrastructure or reconstruction, why are we even bothering to try to solve the underlying drug problem in the U.S.? Forget social programs and rehab centers, stop funding the Narcotics Anonymous meetings and anti-drug programs in schools, eliminate that wasteful spending on the DEA. If we can just bomb our way out of a problem, why bother with all that bleeding-heart liberal nonsense?

And if Pakistan’s sovereignty doesn’t deter us from crossing the border and bombing villages, why should Mexico’s sovereignty be any different?

Of course, there is that one underlying factor that makes our politicians think twice when taking a human life – religion. Those drug lords in Mexico are, after all, Catholic (as in, not Muslim).

But we get no help from the Catholic Church. The Vatican can’t even decide whether or not they should excommunicate these drug lords (yet we complain about Muslim leaders not doing enough to speak out against terrorism). Though the Catholic Church seems to be quick to deny communion to politicians who support a woman’s right to her own body. And at least they take a tough stand on real crimes against humanity, like being gay.

President Obama decided – within hours of taking office – that having a robot kill people (thus removing the human conscience from the equation entirely) was a good way to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan.

Now he thinks he can reach out to “moderate” Taliban insurgents. How can we possibly know who is moderate and who is extreme when our only contact is through an infrared camera attached to a remote-control plane thousands of feet above the ground?

However, Obama is the commander-in-chief, so I’ll assume he’s is correct in killing 15 civilians in hopes that one of them is a mid-level Taliban leader (who will be replaced before the sun sets).

But if we’re going to use this new sophisticated technology, I want to go all in. I want Predator drones used in any situation where they might be remotely possible (pun intended) to help us protect our country. I know it’s only a matter of time before we are using Predators against our own people (Great Britain already is considering it).

Let the bombing of Mexico begin.

Will Robinson
AWOP International Contributing Editor
Author of International Political Will

**************************

Thanks for supporting AWOP TeamZine with a quick review when you click on our "Thumb This Up" button below.

Peace Y'all

Drones, Shoes, and Modern Art

There may be a new administration in the U.S., but tell that to Iraqis, Afghans, or Pakistanis.

Even China’s Prime Minister Wen Jaibao is paying for Bush’s eight years of failure.

Less than three days after taking office, President Obama has continued the failed U.S. policy of dropping bombs from unmanned drones to fight the so-called “war on terror.” He ordered two airstrikes in Pakistan that killed 22 – only 8 of which were militants. Neither Obama nor his press secretary would even acknowledge the strikes, much less the collateral damage it caused or future militants it recruited.

And last weekend, Obama praised elections in Iraq as “millions of Iraqi citizens from every ethnic and religious group went peacefully to the polls across the country.”

I guess the three Sunni candidates assassinated on Thursday don’t count as marring the peace because that wasn’t actually on Election Day.

But if the president of the United States said it, it must be true – and should be repeated verbatim, without any context, background, or substance. And if he refuses to say anything, so will the media.

Not having learned their lesson, mainstream news outlets continue reporting with the same ignorance of democratic responsibility that they did during the 2002 Iraqi WMD hype or the 18-month-long Israeli “defensive” embargo of Gaza’s freely-elected government.

When Muntadhir al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist-turned-shoe-hurler, assaulted President Bush in December, the media and pundits jumped in. We were placated by the notion that had such an event taken place in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the perpetrator would have faced certain torture and death.

But we liberated Iraq and this was a sign of democracy. According to Bush, “that’s what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves.”

Apparently, in a free society people are also hauled off to prison without a hearing, much less a trial. Since he was beaten and dragged from the room on December 12, al-Zaidi has been in Iraqi custody inside the Green Zone. He was last visited by a family member on December 21 (who made allegations that al-Zaidi was tortured), and has not been seen or heard from since.

It leaves one wondering just exactly how different this treatment is compared to what Saddam Hussein’s regime would have meted out.

To be sure, throwing footwear at a presiding head of state goes beyond freedom of speech and warrants a stiff penalty. But I had assumed that a free and democratic Iraq would have used the rule of law to implement punishment – not simply attempt to “disappear” dissent.

Unfortunately, it seems notions of freedom and democracy only apply to those who don’t question the existing regime. Which doesn’t sound much different from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Last week, an orphanage in Tikrit erected a huge copper-plated shoe sculpture in honor of al-Zaidi’s protest. But this isn’t guaranteed under freedom of speech, either. Within one day, Iraq’s central government forcibly removed the monument.

Too bad, because the U.S. architects of the Iraq invasion have been dreaming about a day when a Iraq could express their feelings openly and publicly. But freedom has limits dictated by those with power.

Former Pentagon official Richard Pearle spent much of 2002 spreading misinformation in the media about Iraq’s alleged WMDs and link to 9/11. In September 2003, with the occupation of Iraq just getting underway and the smell of all that oil percolating into the noses of Washington D.C. elites, Pearle spoke to the American Enterprise Institute, a prominent think tank:

“And a year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.”

I guess those Iraqi orphans just erected the wrong kind of monument.

There may be a new president, but U.S. foreign policy hasn’t changed. The government still thinks it can create its own reality by merely repeating what it wishes were true.

And our nation continues to contradict its grandiose ideals when it comes to freedom or democracy for non-white, non-Christian people.

Wil Robinson
International Political Will