I have a specific question for James L Abrahamson, but I would also like to hear Kareem Kamel give his take on this.
You were at West Point for quite some time. The current widespread abuses of detainees from Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib and other prisons is being blamed on negative propaganda portrayal of the civilian population in those areas, by using movies, etc, to dehumanize the populations. What is being done at WestPoint to correct these propaganda measures and to clear out misconceptions about specifically Islam and Arabs? A very big problem is American forces' interaction and harassment of local residents. I have friends from South Korea and Iraq, all have said that American forces in their countries have a very derogatory view of the local populace. Why isn't more being done to eradicate this institutionalized racism? More than 100 years ago an innocent fist black entrant at Westpoint was discharged on dubious charges. The fact that racism still exists today to a very wide extent is indicative of America's intolerant attitude.
Jazakullah.
Answer
Dr Abrahamson replies:
Dear Mr. Khan,
I retired from the army some years ago and cannot therefore tell you exactly what is being done at West Point at the moment. Still, I keep in touch and am aware that racial problems are rare, and the administration is quick to deal with any that might arise. The same is true of possible harassment of women.
The events at Abu Ghraib were the acts of individuals and not US policy, and the individuals responsible have all been tried by courts martial and, when appropriate, imprisoned. Can that be said of other countries where rights abuses are often state policy?
Investigations are also underway in regard to possible prisoner abuse in Afghanistan, and I know of one trial that is already underway.
The charges of abuse at Guantanamo have also been investigated and fewer than a handful have any substance and the problems were minor.
Since 2001, the US has handled about 70,000 captives during the war against terrorists. The proportion of crimes in association with handling those captives is minuscule--fewer than might occur in any prison even in the most humane systems in the world.
I am aware that is the fashion these days to condemn the US severely for any real or claimed violation while overlooking or excusing gross abuses occurring elsewhere. I therefore hope that you will do two things: Hold all societies to the same standard. When appropriate, criticize them with equal severity.
In short, abandon the double standard that exists in this world, when, for example, the UN puts states known for systemic and state sponsored humanitarian violations on its Human Rights Commission. When Mideast religious and political leaders ignore the behavior of terrorists slaughter Iraqi Shi'ites by the tens of thousands--outside of mosques, during religious processions, in restaurants, in markets, etc. When Zarqawi murdered several dozen innocents in Amman hotels, did you protest? If you are concerned about murderous bigotry, I suggest you ask why their is silence about indiscriminate murder--the ultimate abuse of human rights.
What has this to do with promoting democracy in the Mideast anyway?
Thanks.
Mr. Kamel replies:
Well this touches very much on the subject matter of the debate and is indicative of the kind of racist, colonialist mentality that has unfortunately permeated the upper echelons of political and military decision-making circles leading to the rise of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim attitudes within the US military.
There is increasing exposure to Orientalist readings on the Middle East,
authors such as Bernard Lewis, Fouad Ajami, Raphael Patai all of whom adopt ethnocentric condescending views of the Muslims and Arabs are increasingly being viewed as "experts" on everything related to the region and have adopted a position of unshakeable pre-eminence among those circles. American troops also have exchanged knowledge and training with their Israeli counterparts, and have in fact adopted similar tactics in their theatres of operation - segregation, massive displays of firepower, cutting off entire villages and towns, humiliation at checkpoints, bulldozing of houses of suspected militants - all of which bears resemblance to the racist practices adopted by the Israeli military in Palestine.
Name
Maggi Mee
-
Profession
Question
US policy is definitely not contributing positively towards Mid East reforms. On the contrary, due to the presence of some anti-Islamic/Arab ingredients in the US policy approach, the people in the area are taking it in the negative, as more of a threat to their existence and welfare.
It must be admitted that at this juncture, American foreign
policies are subservient to the interest of Zionist Israel.
The US administration is too overwhelmed to extricate itself from the steel-wired blackmail tied around its neck, even worse than the leash of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib.
Answer
Dr Abrahamson replies:
Dear Maggi Mee,
I have no idea where you get your news. Repeated polls of the Iraqi people demonstrate that they look forward to the day when US troops can leave--so do Americans--but the overwhelming majority hopes that the Americans will remain until the new Iraqi government is secure.
My presentations in the debate noted the progress toward popular government already made in Afghanistan and Iraq and to statements from an important Druze leader in Lebanon, a merchant in Kuwait, and an Iraqi journalist--all of whom believe the popular government is moving ahead in the Mideast.
You write as though you know none of those things and perhaps did not even read my submissions. Nor do you offer evidence of the alleged Arab rejection of popular government.
My reaction to your slander of US policy as subservient to Zionism is that it makes me wonder if you are not the victim of religious and racial bigotry or of information coming from such sources.
Investigate and think for yourself.
Anyway, thanks for writing.
Mr Kamel replies:
Definitely.
The fact that US foreign policy continues to be guided by neo-conservatives affiliated with Israel and adopt a condescending view of the people of the region and of their aspirations, does not help encourage political reforms. On the contrary, US foreign policy in the Middle East is largely based upon securing the military and political supremacy of Israel over any combination of Arab states, securing the flow of oil, and fighting ideologies which threaten US hegemony. The result is that US empire-building takes precedence over democracy promotion or any other altruistic sentiment
Name
Dana
- United States
Profession
Question
Is there any hope at all for the Muslim world ever being capable of seeing the truth of how the world is today and moving forward if they continue to live in their own little conspiracy world filled with propaganda/lies? If they cannot see the truth for all the lies, isn't everyone just wasting their time on these people?
Answer
Dr Abrahamson replies:
Dear Dana,
Islamic civilization was once a leader in all the world, at a time that Europe was in its Dark Ages.
I have no reason to believe that Arabs cannot one day join the modern world of popular government, respect for human rights, economic progress, etc. The problems are not inherent.
That is why success in Iraq and Afghanistan is so important. Each step their peoples take toward democratic self government is evidence that other peoples of the Mideast can do so as well.
That is the success that the Islamists fear. They want to return the Mideast to what they imagine was 7th century Islam and institute a Taliban or Wahhabi-style theocracy. That would represent a major set back for all Arabs--except I suppose the power-hungry sociopaths who imagine they will be that theocracy's new elite.
Thanks for writing.
Mr Kamel replies:
Thank you for your question Dana.
Given the existence of communication networks and the globalized world in which we live today, there is no such thing as some hidden "conspiracy" that a whole nation unquestioningly adopts. It is what the Arab and Islamic world sees and reads from multiple sources is what shapes their views.
It is no conspiracy that after the attacks of September 11th, Bush vehemently urged his advisors to find a connection between those attacks and Saddam Hussein, although al-Qaeda was responsible for it. It is no conspiracy to assume that Iraq was invaded because of its massive oil supplies and because its strategic position was considered a threat to Israel. As you know, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor were there any links between Saddam and al-Qaeda. The Iraqi people did not cheer for the invading troops as assumed, and Iraq is currently paying the price of a neo-conservative administration led by corporate interests and the greed of empire-building.
It is also no conspiracy when Muslims see with their own eyes how Iraq has become a battleground rather than a stable country, and a country where militarism and violence have become routine under occupation, and where systematic torture, mass arrests, and daily humiliation continue to be administered to many segments in the local population.
It is worthy to note that an investigation led by US public health officials found that the risk of death from violence in Iraq during occupation was 58 times higher than before the war.
This is the reality of Iraq today
Name
hajji yak
- Nigeria
Profession
Question
Can you vividly convince me how US policy is not igniting the crises in the Middle East?
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
Dear Hajji Yak,
Many Americans also think that the US presence in the Mideast is the reason for the present violence.
I will tell you what I tell them. The United States has been subject to violence from Mideast sources for a quarter of a century, dating at least back to the attacks on our embassies in Tehran and Islamabad in 1979. You can add to that the destruction of three more embassies since, bombings of overseas military barracks, a warship, and the assassination of many US diplomats.
The violence reflects what I described in my initial presentation the Islamists' determination to overthrow all existing Mideast governments--considered by them to be led by apostates--the establishment of a regional caliphate under theocratic leadership (no democracy). That done, they hope to extend the caliphate from Morocco to Indonesia and begin pressure on Europe to submit. Then they will undertake the attack the US homeland.
The violence in the Iraq and Afghanistan is their effort to prevent the US from establishing governments that will correct the conditions that make terrorism attractive to the region's dispossessed and alienated.
Thanks for writing.
Mr. Kamel replies:
For sure. The continued occupation of Iraq and the sectarian and ethnic conflict that was fostered under the auspices of occupation is by all means a recipe for many crises to come. Shi;ites, Kurds, and Sunnis each have different blueprints for the future, and this has ignited nascent rivalries and currently threatens a full scale civil war, the result of which might be the dismemberment of Iraq and the disintegration of the country along ethnic and sectarian lines.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, the US is pursuing a policy of regime change towards Syria and Iran, and is internationalizing al-Hariri's assassination in order to turn Lebanon into an American-Israeli satellite state and end any possible resistance from the Hizbullah-Syria-Iran axis.
These are just examples of a systematic US attempt intended to restructure the region according to its interests and end all or any kind of resistance to its imperial project
Name
Jassem
- Kuwait
Profession
Question
I have a general comment/question... I personally believe it's necessary to admit that US policy in the region has been profoundly flawed for the past several decades. Even Bush and Rice seem to admit this. However, I'm not sure I should automatically oppose current US policies simply because in the past, such policies were bad. I'm inclined to assume the US did learn from past mistakes, and has decided that its safety will necessitate greater involvement and engagement (in a positive sense) in the Muslim world. Your thoughts on this?
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
Dear Jassem,
Our president has often acknowledged--and many in his administration share that view--that the US has been too tolerant of autocracy in the Mideast. He has begun to change that policy.
Success will, of course, take time, and it will require the assistance of the Arab people.
We still have some Americans who are happy to see the Mideast mired in autocracy, even if the resulting "peace" is of the sort that Saddam Hussein imposed by murdering about 30,000 Iraqis a year.
If we fail in Iraq, those holding those old notions may once again shape US policy. I hope not.
Your country has made recent changes in the direction of greater popular participation in government. Congratulations. I hope you will do your part to continue that trend.
Glad you wrote.
Mr. Kamel replies:
I am inclined to believe that US foreign policy is one of continuity rather than change, because despite all the rhetoric emanating from the US concerning democracy, facts on the ground suggest that American strategic determinants are still the main guide to its foreign policy.
Currently, the US has realized that incumbent regimes are indispensable in helping the US in fighting "terrorism" and in supporting its plans in Palestine and Iraq.. Any unmeasured change in any regime today will no doubt carry the risk of upsetting the delicate regional balance that the US wishes to establish in its favor. Hence, in my view, the US has currently opted for the stability and security of those regimes that it knows it can extract limitless benefits from, rather than carry the risk of hostile regimes in their place.
Name
Ray
- United States
Profession
Question
To Colonel Abrahamson and Mr. Kamel. It occurred to me a while back that perhaps the problem is the US' way of attempting to bring about greater democratization in the middle east. As far as I can tell, too little is being done in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, etc, other than very general statements and discussions. Would it perhaps be more productive if more weight were brought to bear against the regimes in these countries specifically, rather than against their people? For example, cutting off military aid, imposing some sort of diplomatic sanctions, if human rights abuses occur in these countries?
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
Dear Ray,
Good points.
The US began in Afghanistan because that was the HQ and training ground of al Qaeda, which had been attacking the US for quite some time. After the Soviet defeat, we left Afghanistan and did nothing to help make it a better place. The result was oppressive Taliban government. This time, we stayed for a while to help the Afghans avoid another civil war and establish popular government.
The US then moved to Iraq. Its people were suffering terribly under Saddam Hussein--more so than the peoples of the governments you mentioned--he was a threat to the security of the region, and Iraqis themselves seemed quite ready and able to handle popular government. That seems to be the case.
With the other countries you mentioned, the US is trying diplomacy--which was not possible in Iraq--and looking to their leaders to introduce political reform, even if slowly.
Diplomacy worked in Lebanon, you will recall, in getting the Syrians out and making Lebanon free.
Hope that can be done without violence.
Thanks for writing.
Mr. Kamel replies:
Thanks for your question, Ray.
I personally think that it would definitely add credibility to US policy if all regimes were treated equally by the US. However, the US is well aware that the regimes that you've just mentioned are major human rights abusers, but that the strategic functions that they serve are indispensable to overall US strategy in the Middle East.. Hence, I do not think that an even-handed policy with regards to democracy will ever be administered by the US. Also, no matter how much the US speaks democracy, its credibility in the Middle East will continually be hampered if a just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is not reached and US forces continue to occupy Iraq.
Arab/Muslim citizens wish to see an end to the twin evils of dictatorship and occupation, and only then will they begin to rethink their attitude towards the US
Name
Everett
- Mexico
Profession
Question
Col. Abrahamson and Mr. Kamel: One question that bothers me is the implicit suggestion in all this back-and-forth that the US is somehow obligated to be involved in bettering the Middle East. Why? Don't we have enough problems back home? What do we owe Middle Easterners that's so pressing as to dictate so much expenditure on our part?
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
Dear Everett,
Since the 17th century the US has seen itself as a "city on a hill"--a Biblical reference--and engaged in a political experiment. The 18th century founders of our current government also regarded their new government as a possible example to the world. In his address on the battlefield of Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln made that point forcefully--the US was an experiment in democracy and the experiment must not fail.
In a sense, then, helping others achieve democracy is in our culture. We have a cultural "humanitarian streak," which is why Americans sent a billion dollars of tsunami aid and an aircraft carrier battle group to Indonesia and South Asia. The latter had four modern hospitals, helicopters to move supplies to the interior, etc. Helping people is what we do.
Even so, that help is not simply altruistic. We also believe--and studies confirm--that democratic states are less likely to turn to armed force to resolve differences.
At the present, we see the Islamist terrorists as a threat not only to Iraq but also the entire Mideast and, if successful there, to Europe and the US. So, encouraging democratic development is good for the Mideast and good for the US as well.
Glad you wrote.
Mr. Kamel replies:
Thank you Everett.
I agree with you that, theoretically speaking, what is needed is a full US disengagement from the entire region. The recent natural disasters which have befallen the US and the sluggish response of the US administration towards those afflicted, has undoubtedly illustrated that the billions being spent on the war in the Middle East detracted from the funds necessary to help the poor and the needy.
One can only hope that those responsible for US foreign policy would realize that US interventionism, militarism, unilateralism, disregard for established norms of behavior, and the policy of pre-emption and selective regime change, is turning the entire world into a ceaseless battleground without borders, fueling extremism, and exacerbating all kinds of insecurities.
Name
Carst Heinrigs
-
Profession
Programmer
Question
Shouldn't there be certain conditions before there can be "debate"? More specifically, what is there to debate as long as the US is trying to impose its schemes upon Arab and Muslim lands?
Answer
Dear Crast Heinrigs,
There were rules, and Kareen Kamel, my colleague, and I followed them. Each submitting an argument and a rebuttal to the other's argument. That is traditional debate.
The rest of your "question" is an unsupported assertion that misrepresents what the US is seeking to do in the Mideast.
My country has a long history of helping peoples free themselves from oppression and helping others to build strong democracies. Our "occupation" led to strong and prosperous democratic government in South Korea, Japan, and Germany, for example. The Philippines, once a colony, are now free.
You seem unaware of any of that--to your embarrassment.
Anyway, glad you wrote.
Mr. Kamel replies:
Good question Carst,
The imperial drive of the Bush administration has left no room for debate as long as the dominant thinking in the White House continues to reflect a mutually exclusive mentality that is governed by the principle of "you are either with us or with the terrorists." There is no middle ground for US neo-conservatives, and this attitude has in fact contributed to political polarization throughout the region and exacerbated region-wide tensions.
In Iraq, there has been no meaningful negotiations with members of the resistance and a tendency to cast all those opposed to US occupation as mere "terrorists" opposed to America's benevolent designs. Anything short of "unconditional surrender" from Iran and Syria is deemed worthless and any step taken by those who oppose the US is always "not enough."
It is my understanding that for any debate or dialogue to be worthwhile, there has to be mutual respect for the culture, interests, and insecurities of both sides, rather than a supremacist attitude that wishes to dictate the rules of the game
Name
Zoe
- United Kingdom
Profession
Question
Ok, perhaps a chance to reconcile some differences.
Dr. Abrahamson: Are you willing to concede that the US lied about its reasons for invading Iraq and that is has committed some major, major mistakes both during and after the invasion?
Mr. Kamel, are you willing to concede that the US occupation has had some tangible benefits and brought about some improvements for many Iraqs, such as a freer press, the right to vote, the removal of one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century?
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
Dear Zoe,
I concede that the US--the UK, France, Russia, UN, and some others--were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction. If you check your dictionary you will learn that a false statement made believing in its truth is not a lie. Please do not debase our common language by misusing words.
If you read the congressional resolution authorizing the US of force against Iraq, you will learn that the US had several reasons for invasion--Saddam Hussein's brutality, his threat to the region's peace, his defiance of UN resolutions, etc. WMD became important in the public mind, I think, because going to the UN required that they be emphasized.
It is a shortcoming of the UN that its members are indifferent to political oppression and even severe humanitarian abuse. The UN does not regard those as reasons to overthrow a government.
It should change that view and rid the world of some dreadful governments.
The Bush administration was also aware of the aims of al Qaeda and concerned about its repeated attacks on the US. That made it appropriate to address the sources of al Qaeda's appeal--poverty, oppression, alienation--in the Mideast.
Overcoming the problems seemed most likely if the Mideast could be reformed politically, helped to advance economically, and generally join the 21st century.
The reasons for intervention were many and varied.
Thanks.
Mr. Kamel replies:
Glad you asked, Zoe.
With regards to your question, I am willing to specifically concede that the US occupation has brought a freer press to Iraq and established the right to vote -in principle. However, I do not believe that elections and free press are the only measures of progress, but are part of a much more consequential whole. Free press, and the right to vote when mixed with an occupation that has killed between 30,000 - 100,000 Iraqis, exacerbated ethnic and sectarian tensions, persecuted important segments of Iraqi civil society, normalized killing, and replaced a ruthless tyrant, with an oppressive, sectarian-based, kleptocracy - is undoubtedly not an improvement.
In addition, Iraq now has become a magnet for all kinds of militants, and current Iraqi officials have continuously threatened their neighbors (Iran and Syria), and the country could possibly turn into a base for future US military operations against Iran and Syria and thus be equally threatening to its neighbors, as Saddam had been.
Thanks again
Name
Renard
- United States
Profession
Question
It strikes me as hypocritical that many Arabs condemn the US for backing dictators and then condemn it for attempting to pressure or remove said dictators. As such, I feel obliged to ask, what exactly is the US required to do to mollify all the anger and hate that emanates from the Arab world? Are we expected to become isolationists? That simply doesn't work! Mr. Kamal, any suggestions? Dr. Abrahamson?
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
Dear Renard,
Good question. There is a double standard, much of it promoted by those who benefit from the Mideast's autocratic governments.
For decades now, Wahhabis have used Saudi money to build and staff madrassas and mosques throughout Asia--and the USA. In addition to religious studies that support the Islamists, those schools and mosques often also preach hatred toward America.
The Islamists know that if we submit, they win. The world will have to accept Taliban-style religious dictatorship.
Not so long ago the religious police in Saudi Arabia would not permit young girls to escape from a school that was on fire. The girls were in a physical education class and not wearing clothing and head gear appropriate to appearing in public. The girls died.
I don't want to see the world governed by that sort of perversion of the Islamic faith. Islam is not the issue here. A perversion of Islam is the threat.
Mr. Kamel replies:
Well, it equally strikes me as hypocritical when those dictators are supported and nurtured by the West for decades, and then after they have committed mass murder and war crimes and gotten away with it for a long time, suddenly Arabs and Muslims are expected to believe that the US is interested in democracy and regime change, given that it continues to support other dictators who continue to serve other functions.
Let's not forget that the US was responsible for Saddam Hussein's chemical/biological weapons buildup in the 1980s and CIA/Pentagon surveillance units calibrated Saddam's mustard gas attacks on Iranian military units. After Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit to Iraq, US firms sold chemicals responsible for making cyanide, bubonic plague, anthrax, and mustard gas, and US helicopters were, in fact, used by Saddam during the massacre of Kurds in Halabja.
It strikes me as contradictory that Rumsfeld, who personally authorized the sale of those deadly chemicals to Iraq is currently the most vehement critic of Saddam.
The Arabs want an end to double-standards and an end to US-supported dictatorships and occupation
Name
Yoshi
- Japan
Profession
Question
I would like to ask Mr. Kamel, and ask please that Dr. Abrahamson also discuss this: Is it maybe possible that anti-American feelings in the region would make Arab people too suspicious of anything from the US, even if it is actually good? Is it a risk that people might refuse American help just because it is American, even if it is well-intentioned?
Answer
Dear Yoshi,
You make a good point. Most of the Mideast governments control their media, and many Mideast religious leaders preach hatred of the US. That is a problem.
A free Iraq--and Lebanon--may assist with that. Iraq now has a free TV station, free radios, and free newspapers. They may in time counter the hateful propaganda coming from some sources.
The US also needs to firmly demand that some countries cease the unremitting and untruthful condemnation of everything American.
It will take time to change attitudes, but it is difficult for critics to argue with success in Afghanistan and Iraq and Lebanon, and that success will in time become known and penetrate the wall of misinformation.
Thanks for writing,
Mr. Kamel replies:
Great question, Yoshi.
The Arab people are indeed skeptical of the US due to many factors . On one hand, Arab people, just as any other people in the world, are freedom-lovers, and wish to see their destiny in their own hands. US foreign policy has for so long showed a bias against almost all Arab causes: its unequivocal support of Israel, its destruction of Iraq in the process of "liberating" Kuwait, the decade of US-instigated sanctions in which over 1 million Iraqis perished,
its support for those dictators that serve its interests, and its imposition of sanctions on any regime that opposes America's hegemonic designs.
Currently Syria is threatened because it has refused to go along fully with US and Israeli plans, and Iraq has descended into chaos under US occupation.
Hence, I believe that Arabs have many reasons for being skeptical of US plans due to what they have experienced, and NOT just because it is America which is demanding reforms. Add that to a legacy of colonialism and imperialism in the region, and you can understand Arab skepticism of any Western intervention.
Name
Zafar
- Pakistan
Profession
Question
Don't you think that the existence of documents like "Securing the Realm" by the Project for a New American Century, authored by many people in the current US administration (if I recall correctly, Feith and Bolton, among others) and calling for invading Iraq and rolling back Syria's influence, etc, casts doubt on the altruism of the Bush administration's aims in the Middle East and suggest that much of what is happening was pre-meditated?
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
Dear Zafar,
Take time to learn why Feith and Bolton thought the US should become involved.
Take note of what they hoped to help establish in the Mideast.
Compare their intentions with the region's worse tyrannies.
Mr. Kamel replies:
Excellent question, Zafar
Indeed, "Clean Break: Securing the Realm" and many other documents written by pro-Zionist neo-conservative ideologues and anti-Arab Orientalists during the 1990s became policy when the Bush administration came to power and seized the opportunity of September 11th to make such radical designs a reality.
Name
Heba
- Egypt
Profession
Question
Do you think we are really witnessing "a new day in Mideast politics"? In Egypt, for example, we are currently having the country's parliamentary elections. We have had a media frenzy over the "change" in the horizon and the "more fair" elections. But on the ground, we found the same problems that we have had for ages; the results, in many constituencies, were forged by the government in favor of the ruling National Democratic Party's candidates. Many people were not allowed to vote. Many, many people were paid to vote for the NDP.
The situation remains gloomy. And the United States didn't interfere to criticize the fraud we have all seen.
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
Dear Heba,
Egypt's contested presidential election in years and less than free and fair legislative elections with genuine opposition (and many run-offs in the first of three rounds) fall short of my standards--and yours.
I suspect, however, that they will set a precedent for more good to come in the future. No future president will be able to demand uncontested referendums on his rule. Political parties will surely become more active. More outside observers will appear to monitor elections.
As a citizen you must do your part to encourage such changes. As I wrote in my formal presentations, the US cannot establish Mideast democracy everywhere or all at once. It cannot do it all alone, and hopefully military means will not always be needed.
In sum, the citizens of Mideast countries must seize the moment--as they did in Lebanon--and move things toward popular government, even if that is done very slowly.
Thanks for writing.
Mr. Kamel replies:
This is more of a statement than an question! I totally agree with you. In fact, Egypt's presidential and parliamentary elections were characterized by much of the same problems that have plagued earlier elections. The low voter turnout (18-23% only) in Egypt's presidential elections is also indicative that the Egyptian people have little faith in the current NDP-instigated political process. You won't hear much US criticism there because the Egyptian government is a major pillar of US strategy in the Middle East.
Name
Frank
- United States
Profession
Question
America foreign policies are based on it's own self preservation. You continue to underestimated the religion of Islam and it's influence on the region. What you fear is a true Islamic republic that lives by the principles as legislated by Allah. It is the only viable alternative to Western Capitalism. A society without interest and justice based on truth and not wealth.
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
Dear Frank,
All country's policies are based at least in part on self interest. Even so, there is a difference between narrow self interest and enlightened self interest. I aim for the latter.
You seem to be saying the true Islamic faith is incompatible with capitalism or democracy.
As you live in the United States you surely know that it has many citizens of Arab/Moslem backgrounds. They seem to do just fine in a capitalist and democratic society.
Our commander in the Mideast, General Abizaid is of Lebanese extraction. We have also had governmental secretaries and senators of Arab extraction.
What is not compatible with democracy is the perversion of Islam advocated by the Islamists.
Thanks.
Mr. Kamel replies:
Insightful comment, Frank.
The US administration has had a very long legacy of opposing all ideologies that threatened its hegemony. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Islamism as an ideology opposed to American hegemony became targeted as the new threat to American interests. While many Americans have profound respect for the religion of Islam, the American government realizes that Islamism is currently the most viable medium of opposition to American-Israeli hegemonic designs and to the continued supremacy of the West. Since the early 1970's, Islamic movements have become the most prominent opponents of despotic regimes in the region and have offered multiple alternatives to current dictatorships. Yet even moderate Islamist voices have been sidelined by the US and allied regimes because Islamism would, if allowed to reign, oppose Israel's regional hegemony, build a society on the foundations of dignity and resistance to oppression - and that the US finds as a barrier to its imperial designs.
Abu Mus'ab al Zarqawi and affiliated jihadi groups in the region, are NOT the ONLY voices of Islamism. Yet, US intransigence and occupation have definitely made his brand of perpetual jihad the most prominent, despite his not being the most reflective of mainstream Muslim aspirations.
Name
Hassan
- Egypt
Profession
Question
Is the US honestly looking for real and true democracy in the Middle East? Because there's a 90% chance that true democratic elections in the Middle East would bring Islamists to power... and they may not be very friendly of the US or Israel. As I write this, the government is busying rigging results to make sure Islamists do not gain too many seats in parliament... I doubt the US will do more than perhaps just mildly criticize the wide-scale forgery.. But again, is the US willing to leave with these results, or will it attempt to direct the results to its benefit?
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
Dear Hassan,
A reasonable worry, and a reason to move slowly in certain countries. The Mideast must avoid "one vote, one time" and end with another tyranny imposed in an election.
As I told another writer, your two recent elections fell well short of standards. Would you prefer that they never occurred?
Are you unable to see how they can be building blocks to a better future?
Stop looking to the US as the source of all your problems and able to fix the world to your satisfaction-right now and everywhere.
Mr. Kamel replies:
Thanks for asking, Hassan..
The US is simply looking for a government that is subservient to its interests, irrespective of its type (dictatorial/democratic). Hence, what all of us will be witnessing is more of the same; a US congratulations to those who won the elections and an expression of hope that more democratic reforms will take place. As you are fully aware, Arab regimes have also become skillful in evading change and have marketed some of their cosmetic changes as being "major" reforms.The US is well aware that allied regimes can definitely do more, but it knows that the risk of sudden change is more than it can handle at the moment
Name
Ahmed
- India
Profession
Engineer
Question
Oh Sweet democracy ! Where was USA when the fledgling democracy was being murdered in Algeria ? Why does USA not promote democracy in Qatar, Oman, Bahrain etc ? Why has USA supported Hosni Mubarak for the past 3 decades ??? Where were the crusaders of democracy then ! We have not forgotten what Albright had to say about Iraq - "1 million childres dead is justified !" God willing ! we will make you pay USA ! you wait, The army of Mohammad peace be upon him is coming. What do you have to say about all this Mr Abrahamson ?
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
Dear Ahmed,
You live in a democracy. Sad that you do not value it.
Whatever the shortcomings of the three small governmens that you claim to know, they pale in comparison to Saddam Hussein's or of the Assad's--father and son.
Abandon the double standard and stop holding the US responsible for all the world's ills.
Americans are not sitting on their hands. They are trying to make things better, even if not quickly enough for you.
Stop whining and get involved in improving things right where you live.
Mr. Kamel replies:
Thank you for you contribution, Ahmed.
Indeed, the legacy of American foreign policy in the Muslim world is one of hypocrisy, double-standards, and a lack of appreciation for the legitimate aspirations of more than 1.2 billion Muslims for freedom and an end to oppression. The sentiment that you have expressed, despite its extreme formulation, is indicative of the sense of legitimate frustration that US policies have created in the region.
Name
Questioner
-
Profession
Question
Dr. Abrahamson,
In your article, you mentioned many examples illustrating how democracy is slowly taking root in the Arab world, but you didn't clarify to us how the US has a role to play in this regard.
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
Dear Questioner,
In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US role was quite direct--though still dependent upon their peoples to shape their own future.
In Lebanon, the US worked with other powers to press the Syrians to leave.
In the Gulf States, the changes have local origins, though perhaps inspired by citizens who know how government is conducted elsewhere and wish to reform their own societies.
Often the work is behind the scenes, such as getting Egypt to release from jail a presidential candidate.
Our role has many aspects, but the best role will be played by the example of Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan as those countries prosper.
We also need to press our allies in Europe to be more helpful than they have been--especially as regards economic development.
Thanks.
Name
Frank
- United States
Profession
Question
Hi gentlemen. My question is concerning a double standard that exists with the USA's policies regarding Middle East Regimes. How can countries like Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan support democratic efforts in Iraq but not at home? If so, why not an invasion of those countries to replace them with democratically elected governments? Why was Iraq singled out for intervention and not the others? Thanks.
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
Dear Frank,
Invasion should never be the first option. It can result in the deaths of both the wicked and the innocent.
Jordan remains a monarchy but one that can evolve in the direction of greater democracy. We need to work with it.
Pakistan is a military dictatorship, but without its help our action in Afghanistan would have been impossible. Its president also has good reason to round up its own Islamic extremists--they have been trying to kill him. Another case for gently proding, I think.
Saudi Arabia's own internal terrorits seem to have given it a wake up call, though its recent municipal elections were only a minute step toward popular government. Its best help might be in cutting off funding to extremist groups and extremist madrassas and mosques. End the terrorists' financing.
Iraq was "singled out" because Saddam Hussein was by far the biggest brute, he had initiated several wars against his neighbors, he seemed to have weapons of mass destruction (and if left alone would surely build them), and the Iraqi people seem to have the skills to move quickly ahead toward democracy. A success in the middle of the Mideast also seemed likely to have the greatest influence.
Hope that helps.
Mr. Kamel replies:
Good question!
Iraq was singled out for invasion because of its extensive oil reserves, its capacity to threaten Israel, its strategic position, and the fact that it was an easy target - a country with a decimated military that had been devastated by sanctions for more than a decade.
The fact that the governments of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan have not been pressured for reforms is because the strategic functions they serve far outweigh any tangible benefits that can occur as a result of any political or military pressure on them to change course
Name
Saladdin
-
Profession
Question
Where was the USA when the fledgling democracy of Algeria was being murdered? Why does it not help the people in establishing democracy in Bahrain, Qatar and Oman? Isn't it sacrilege to talk about democracy in these countries as they also host US bases? I challenge the USA to facilitate a free and fair election in Pakistan, Kashmir, Jordan and the entire Mid East. Let us have independent election monitors (not like the ones in Afghanistan, where in spite of massive fraud being reported by UN nothing was done). Mr. Abrahamson, please answer the world!
Answer
Dr. Abrahamson replies:
To all participants,
I have already responded to a question like Saladdin's; the exact same one I think. This seems the only way I know how to submit a response to Kamel's comments.
Perhaps due to my unfamiliarity with this site, the whole exchange has taken the form of me responding to a question and Kareem Kamel then attacking my answer--with me being unable to point out the unsatisfactory nature or error of his response. My fault.
This message represents an attempt on my part to make a general response, one that also relates to his presentation and rebuttal.
Please note that Kamel's function is to criticize and condemn--the US and all its works. From his writings, I am not even confident that he wishes Egypt to become a truly democratic nation--one with a government popularly elected in free and fair elections, one in which judicial and legislative power limits the executive, one that respects the rule of law, and that respects civil rights and liberties. He strikes me as entirely too sympathetic of the terrorists and happy to see Shiites slaughtered. Hope I am wrong about that, but that comes through to me in his writing.
If he does not favor Islamist theocracy, he should openly so state.
If he favors democracy for the Mideast, he should ask why he condemns the only major force in the Mideast trying to work with Arabs who want popular government.
If he does favor that, why does he not condemn the murders daily committed by the terrorists seeking to take the entire region back to the 7th century?
Why, moreover, can he not engage in a debate without ready resort to name calling when facts and sound reasoning are called for?
It strikes me that Mr. Kamel is just exactly the kind of Arab intellectual described in the first paragraphs of the rebuttal offered by my colleague and me.
How sad that the people of the Mideast are served by such intellectual leadership.
Mr. Kamel replies:
I am surprised at the fact that my colleague, Dr. Abrahamson, would disregard the codes of civilized debate and blindly accuse me of "name-calling." Throughout the live dialogue session, I have only responded to the readers' kind contributions, and my answers were not in any way a personal response to Dr. Abrahamson's answers.
It is sad that those who advocate democracy and freedom of speech in America cannot tolerate opposing views and denounce anyone who opposes their policies as either a "terrorist-supporter" or an "apologist for dictatorship."
Sadly, Mr. Abrahamson has so eloquently represented the same condescending and self-righteous mentality that sees itself as representing the "ultimate, non-negotiable truth."
Throughout my writing, I've expressed my criticism of BOTH dictatorship and US interventionism/occupation, and that I wish to see all the countries of the region freed from both evils. I have neither endorsed Zarqawi's actions nor have I advocated his specific brand of Islamism or any other sectarian-based ideology, including that of the US-affiliated Kurdish Peshmerga and the Shi'ite Badr Brigades, who are just as active in killing Sunnis by the hundreds as Zarqawi has been in killing Shi'ites.
However, I must say that I do support resistance against occupation, since fighting foreign occupation is not only a religiously ordained right, but one that is endorsed by international law and the UN.
It is sad that Mr. Abrahamson is unwilling to condemn his country's killing of between 30,000 - 100,000 Iraqis in less than 3 years, and continues to propagate the same string of unfounded claims to justify his country's occupation of another. If there is to be any way out of this quagmire, America must rid itself of such spiteful, intolerant "intellectuals."
