July 8, 2007
Powell tried to talk Bush out of war
THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.
“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”
Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”
He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”…
* * ***
Look who’s talking? Wasn’t Colin Powell the one who made a grand speech at the UN claiming that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction? Wasn’t he the General who led the American Arned Forces in the first Gulf War?
Really, now that the Iraq war has gone unpopular and unwinnable — much like the Vietnam War decades ago, everyone is washing his/her hands of it.
But George W. Bush could not have invaded Iraq then without the support of CONGRESS, including the SENATE, and his Cabinet as well as the MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
The lesson here is for the Americans NOT TO BE TOO TRIGGER-HAPPY and TO LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP - especially if you are leaping into a war that kills multitudes and destroys lives, properties and natural resources.
I just watched a CNN report which says that CNN reporters were barred from entering the Red Mosque in the aftermath of the gun battle there. All the other members of the Press were allowed to enter. Very Funny! Musharraf must have been irked by the CNN report Pakistan: The Threat Within hosted by Nic Robertson.
Perhaps in reaction to the CNN documentary, Musharraf lashed out at all the “fundamentalist” Muslims and terrorists and vowed to eradicate them. This is all fine and well for the American, Western and Westernized audience; but, for most of the Muslim audience, this will not sit well with them.
I believe that the Muslim world needs a strong broad-minded intelligent Muslim leader to counteract “fundamentalist” and “Talibanist” Muslims who want to be ruled by the ulamah or mullahs. We need somebody like Imam Ghazali, who lived in the 10th/11th century and saved Islam from the fight between two extremists — the ultra-conservative ulamah and the mystics (Sufis). Or somebody like Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the “father” of the nation-state Pakistan.
But the prime quality that a Muslim leader must possess is independence of mind. He must not be perceived as subservient to any man or state. Unfortunately, Musharraf is seen as very much under the power of the US, who is perceived by most Muslims as “the Enemy” because of Bush’s War on Terror.
The Bush-War on Terror is the prime cause of the Talibanization of the Muslims – from Pakistan to Afghanistan to Iraq to Saudi Arabia (home country of Osama Bin Laden) to Mindanao to Indonesia.
To stop the Talibanization of the Muslim world, there is one easy solution. America should drop its War on Terror (read: Muslims) which is doctrinally based on Huntington’s faulty Clash of Civilizations scenario.
SEE RELATED POST:
**************************
A CNN documentary titled Pakistan: Threat from Within hosted by CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson was aired six times on July 7 and July 8, 2007. The documentary hoped to prove that Pakistani President, General Pervez Musharraf is actually double dealing; i.e., he tries to appease both the terrorists and America and play them off against each other. Thus, instead of being an ally of America in its War on Terror, Pakistan may actually be a threat from within.
Is the CNN documentary paving the way for America’s eventual abandonment of its Number One Muslim ally; namely General Musharraf? Or was the documentary done in order to force the hand of Musharraf; i.e., to fight the militant “Islamists” more aggressively?
QUESTIONABLE TIMING
The timing of the documentary is uncanny. The documentary was shown on July 7 and 8, right in the middle of the standoff between the Pakistani government of Musharraf and the Red Mosque militants. And to top it all, the documentary featured the Red Mosque leader himself, Abdul Rasheed Ghazi.
Pres. Musharraf is under political fire. The modernist and moderate Pakistanis are up in arms because of the suspension of Pakistan’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry. And with the Red Mosque standoff, the militant jihadists had thrown a direct challenge to Musharraf’s leadership.
CONTEXTUALIZING
The CNN documentary is not a newly made documentary. It is a hodgepodge of Nic Robertson’s reports on Pakistan and Afghanistan made previously. One segment was aired at CNN on September 12, 2006 as part of the CNN Newsroom reports while another was aired on September 27, 2006 as part of Anderson Cooper: 360 Degrees program. The Tanweer Shazad segment seems to have come from the YOUR WORLD TODAY program aired on July 14, 2005 while the nuclear weapons segment came from CNN NEWSROOM aired on October 11, 2006. (The transcripts of these shows are available at the CNN website).
The individual reports were not anti-Musharraf. For example, Robertson’s Sept. 12 report was an attack on the madrassas [1] (Islamic schools). Robertson was careful to say, “And Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf tried to crack down on the madrassas, but many defied him.”
The Sept. 27 report was about the difficulty of capturing Osama bin Laden while the Oct. 11 segment was aimed at the Korean nuclear program.
The July 7 documentary is a classic example of contextualizing. By providing the proper background or context, the otherwise neutral or pro-Musharraf reports was turned into an anti-Musharraf coverage. By “cutting and pasting” from past reportage, the documentary created a totally different scenario about the beleaguered Pakistani President.
MUSHARRAF THE GOOD GUY
After 9/11, President Musharraf became the darling of America and American media. He was portrayed as America’s foremost non-Western ally in its War against Terror. The media hype has been so great that Indians in America signed a petition to CNN protesting its pro-Pakistan bias. In the petition, “the concerned U.S. citizens/ residents of Indian origin” listed several arguments for CNN’s pro-Pakistan / anti-India bias.
The Indian-Americans reject CNN’s portrayal of “Musharaff as a Statesman” because, according to them,
“This military General who is the self appointed ‘Chief Executive of Pakistan’ came to power by overthrowing an elected government… Yet, CNN continues to pay obeisance to him and gives him more ‘face time’ than his counterpart, Mr. Vajpayee of India…”
With the Nic Robertson’s documentary, the Indians can now heave a sigh of relief. Musharraf has finally been portrayed as a “bad guy”
.
MUSHARRAF, THE BAD GUY
After 9/11, Musharraf was in an unenviable position. Being America’s Good Guy also meant becoming the Bad Guy for most Pakistanis and the rest of the Muslim world.
It was an open secret in the 1980s that America was arming the Afghani rebels and funding recruitment of rebels through madrassas in Pakistan. According to the introductory essay to the CIA and State Department microfiche collection Afghanistan: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1973-1990 published in 1990:
“Literally days after the Soviet invasion, Carter was on the telephone with (Pakistani President, General) Zia (ul-Haq) offering him hundreds of millions of dollars in economic and military aid in exchange for cooperation in helping the rebels…
The Reagan Administration was able to gain Pakistan’s confidence by offering a huge, six-year economic and military aid package which elevated Pakistan to the third largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid…
Traditionally, the Agency purchased foreign, usually Soviet-styled, weaponry in order to "plausibly deny" U.S. involvement if the need arose. Throughout the Afghan war, the CIA purchased Soviet-designed weapons from Egypt, China and elsewhere and transported them to Pakistan…
Congress ultimately provided nearly $3 billion in covert aid for the mujahidin, more than all other CIA covert operations in the 1980s combined. By 1987, the United States was providing the rebels with nearly $700 million in military assistance a year, more than what Pakistan itself was receiving from Washington.” (Available on the web:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/essay.html)
America was the absentee father and provider while Pakistan was the mother and nourisher to the Taliban and the mujahideen (which included Osama Bin Laden). Taliban is Arabic for students. The Taliban were the students trained in Pakistan by the CIA and Pakistani government to fight as mujahideen against the Soviets. As Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 showed, President George W. Bush hosted a Taliban official delegation to the US just weeks before the 9/11 event indicating the close ties between the Taliban and the American government. Then all of a sudden, Bush decided that Bin Laden was the Enemy and Taliban were his accomplices.
Musharraf was forced to give up his babies (the Taliban), whom Pakistan helped form and mold into leaders of their land (Afghanistan) yet surrogate sons to their Mother Pakistan. At first, Musharraf tried to negotiate good terms for them like being part of the new Afghani government.
WRONG PREMISE
The documentary seems to be working from a wrong premise; i.e., that Pakistan is or was a firm believer in America’s War on Terror. Pakistan or its President-General was at best a reluctant ally and not a believer in Bush’s War on Terror at all. President General Musharraf simply followed the footsteps of President General Zia ul-Haq. The Taliban were sacrificed for political expediency.
And the US government knows that Musharraf is doing a balancing act. That is why, like the Carter and Reagan administrations, Bush showered Pakistan with money and military aid. The above-mentioned Indian-American CNN petition says that “Musharraf received one billion dollars of US taxpayer money.”
REACTION FROM THE BLOGOSPHERE
The CNN documentary naturally raised the ire of many Pakistanis. One angry Pakistani engineer blogger raises 4 issues. First, he wonders why Robertson blames Pakistan and Pakistani madrassas for the actions of 23-year old Tanweer Shahzad, who was born and bred in Britain, and supposedly committed a terrorist act there. The blogger says that Robertson should blame British education and current British situation for the actions of a British citizen and not the few months that he spent in a Pakistani madrassa.
Second, he is appalled by Robertson’s insinuations that the Qur’an is the only thing taught in madrassas and that “the Holy Quran is responsible for the fundamentalist thinking of students.”
Third, as to the allegation that the Pakistan army is training the Taliban, he asks, “who financed Taliban and Osama during 80’s and 90’s?”
Finally, he wonders what Kashmir has to do with America’s War on Terror. He then asks, “Doesn’t he (Robertson) sound like an extremist?
Another blogger, a Pakistani-American was furious and called the documentary “a complete factual mistake”. He vented his ire on Robertson, who he said had done several false reports before which he described in his blog post.
The blogger was so incensed by the fact that the people arrayed against Musharraf; namely, Pakistani journalist Amir Mir, Lieutenant General Hamid Gul and Red Mosque imam Abdul Rashid Ghazi were / are the very people who are fighting Musharraf and America’s War on Terror.
Gen. Hamid Gul, he says, “ is one of the strongest supporters of the Taliban that ever existed, with the Asia Times dubbing him the ‘Godfather of the Taliban’, and providing comprehensive understanding of where his support lies.”
As for the Red mosque leader, the blogger says, “ it is blatantly obvious that he is a terrorist, bragging about his meetings with Osama bin Laden and his ridicule of the Musharraf government.”
Like the engineer blogger, he questions Robertson’s depiction of Tanweer Shahzad. He wrote: “Be clear here: British born, British raised, British educated, turned extremist in Britain, but because of a 3 month trip to Pakistan; Pakistan is the hub of terrorism in the world.”
VALID CRITICISMS
The bloggers’ concerns appear to be valid on its face. For example, about the madrassas, here is the transcript:
NIC ROBERTSON (voice over): It’s late, 10:00 at night. We’re uncertain about what we’re witnessing. Are these devoted and peace-loving students of Islam? Or is it a school where students gravitate to terrorism?
“We are in Lahore, Pakistan. Dozens of children, some only five, are painstakingly memorizing every word of the Koran, every word. It can take years.
(on camera): These children begin their studies at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning. They get a break for breakfast around 8:00 a.m. Then they go back to their books. They get a break for lunch, then studying again all afternoon. A long break in the early evening, and then back to their books again.
(voice-over): But is this about love, love of Islam or hate, hate for the U.S. and the West?
(on camera): Extremists could try to recruit young men from here?
Robertson then introduces Ghazi, the Red Mosque imam recently killed in the gun battle between students and the Pakistani army:
“This man, Mullah Abdul Rashid Ghazi, runs some of the largest anywhere. He says he met Osama bin Laden and describes himself as being ideologically close to the world’s most wanted terrorist. In fact, he says jihad, war with oneself and one’s enemies, a holy war, is part of the Koran, so he must teach it.”
Any non-Muslim watching the documentary would be led to believe that the young boys and girls in madrassas are taught nothing but the Qur’an, which includes (rather, emphasizes) jihad or holy war and whose mentors are like Ghazi, the radical leader of the Red Mosque who had met Osama bin Laden, his ideological brother.
In his interview with Ghazi, Robertson says:
“In the 1980s the madrassas launched graduates of holy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. In the 1990s madrassas produced leaders and soldiers for the Taliban. And since 9/11, they have incubated a growing hatred for the West, declaring the war on terror a campaign against all Muslims.”
Robertson conveniently did not mention the fact that these jihadist-producing madrassas were created and massively financed by the CIA and American governments in the 1980s and 1990s.
EFFECTS OF THE DOCUMENTARY
The documentary made ordinary middle class Pakistanis like the engineer blogger to become more anti-US; while, pro-US and pro-Musharraf Pakistanis like the Pakistani-American blogger to become angry at American media at the least or turn anti-US at the most. The documentary would confirm to most of the world’s Muslims the anti-Muslim bias of America.
Ironically, the ones who would approve of the documentary would be the anti-US, anti-Musharraf people like the Taliban and other radical fundamentalist Muslims as the documentary serves their purpose – to make the Muslims angry at America and Musharraf.
(end)
[1] Madrassa means Islamic school.
Madaris is the plural form but I’m using
madrassas as the plural form following the usage in the documentary
SEE RELATED POSTS:
****************************************
****************************************
FROM THE WEB
Below is an interesting and informative essay written in 1931. I got it from this url - http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailtexts/mm_amermoro.html a few years ago. Boondocks.net has rearranged its site so the page itself is not there anymore.
*******************************************************
Americanizing the Moros
The New Republic 65 (Jan. 21, 1931).
The stock reply of many of the British when Americans criticize their administration of India is that we ought to keep silent because of our own bad record in the Philippines; and it is certainly true that we are guilty of many sins of commission and omission in those islands. At the same time, neither of these great powers ought to use the misdeeds of the other as an excuse for failure to set its own house in order. While so much is being written and said about India, it is perhaps wholesome to remind ourselves of some recent happenings in the Philippines of which Americans have every right to be ashamed. To our general failure to consider the interests of the Filipinos there must be added at this time a specific indictment in regard to the other race in the archipelago — the Moros.
Another year has gone by with our record blotted by needless bloodshed among these people, in Lanao province. This is, to be sure, no new thing: for thirty years, the shores of Lake Lanao have echoed with the sounds of fighting; the end is not in sight. By the estimate of Mr. John J. Heffington, Governor of Lanao province, there are at least five hundred cotas (domestic forts) in the province. The destruction of two of them last May cost the lives of nine Moros, one constabulary officer and four enlisted men — not to mention the material expense of a military campaign and an appropriation of 1,000 pesos by the civil government to pay fifty native laborers for completing the destructive work of the Stokes mortars.
In his annual report for the year ending August 31, 1904, Major General Leonard Wood, then Governor of the Moro province, expressed the belief that there would be no further organized resistance in Lanao. The same sentiment has been echoed by those in authority from that day to this, but a just and humane settlement of the Moro question seems as far away today as it did in 1904. The natives still submit to the presence of soldiers, without the compensation of adequate police protection; hundreds of them still refuse to pay taxes, and make good their stand with armed or passive resistance; although the possession of unlicensed firearms is prohibited by law, they still manufacture home-made guns and ammunition with which to defend their crops from the ravages of wild pigs, to arm themselves against renegades, or to resist the soldiers, whom they have always hated, and they still construct bomb-proof cotas to remind the government that they are an unconquered people.
At the cost of fifteen years of desperate guerilla warfare, the United States Army practically annihilated the Moro warriors. In the battles of Bud Daho and Bagsak, fought in 1906 and 1913 respectively, the women stood beside their men and together they fought until they died. Then the army moved out and the constabulary took over the job; seventeen more years of ruthless outlaw hunting have made Moroland comparatively safe for Filipino political appointees; but neither the army nor the constabulary, nor yet the civil government, has done much to settle the Moro problem.
Bamboo versions of the Little Red Schoolhouse exist in the villages where military force is heaviest, and in them a few Moro children parrot the assignments of ill prepared Filipino teachers. They learn — or half-learn — the three R’s, and write essays about Abraham Lincoln, the Battle of Bunker Hill, and a pale little boy with a hatchet who cut down some kind of foreign tree, and who was not ingenious enough to tell a necessary lie — a trait of character foreign to the Oriental nature, which not even their Christian teacher can understand. The medium of expression used by teacher and pupils is "bamboo English." The fine native arts, the poetry mythology and the dramatic history of their race they may learn at home, in the shelter of their cota walls. And here also they learn the lessons of hate and contempt. The medium of expression is Arabic script and the local dialect.
Being human, these youngsters do not care a rap about Abraham Lincoln, or George Washington, or the Battle of Bunker Hill. Their heroes are the outlaw leaders with prices on their heads; and the battle which thrills them was Bayang, fought on the shores of Lake Lanao in May, 1902, the historical importance of which rests upon the fact that in that fight Captain John J. Pershing so distinguished himself as to win promotion.
All this is wicked and seditious. The rising generation of Moros should put aside their Mohammedan traditions and forget the battles in which the women fought beside the men, and in dying hurled their babies in the faces of the soldiers; they should remember that those battles were fought by a paternal invader in the name of humanity and justice for oppressed peoples. They should, — but they won’t — any more than the stubborn peoples of India will recognize the beneficence of British rule no matter how frequently and how firmly they are told about it.
Citation: "Americanizing the Moros." The New Republic 65 (Jan. 21, 1931). http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailtexts/mm_amermoro.html In Jim Zwick, ed., Anti-Imperialism in the United States, 1898-1935. http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ (Dec. 2, 2002). (Today’s date).
MY COMMENTS:
Amercanizing the Moros - Now
Seventy-six years after the publication of the essay above, the Indians, Pakistanis and Christian Filipinos have been enjoying their independence for about 31 years; while the Moros “still submit to the presence of soldiers, without the compensation of adequate police protection; hundreds of them still refuse to pay taxes, and make good their stand with armed or passive resistance; although the possession of unlicensed firearms is prohibited by law, they still manufacture home-made guns and ammunition with which to defend their crops from the ravages of wild pigs, to arm themselves against renegades, or to resist the soldiers, whom they have always hated, and they still construct bomb-proof cotas to remind the government that they are an unconquered people.” The cottas of old are the equivalent of today’s MNLF and MILF camps.
More than a hundred “years of ruthless outlaw hunting have made Moroland comparatively safe for Filipino political appointees; but neither the army nor the constabulary, nor yet the civil government, has done much to settle the Moro problem.”
How many lives were shed, how many properties destroyed, how much money spent on guns, ammunition, mortars, and bombs since the Americans left in 1946? Yet “a just and humane settlement of the Moro question seems as far away today as it did in 1904.”
In fairness to the Americans, the Moros were so much better off during the American era — 1900 - 1940 — than in the Philippine nation-state era starting from 1946. In terms of lives lost, properties damaged, lives and families broken, number of refugees, etc., the Moros suffered so much more during the Philippine nationhood era.
The elder Moros in the 1930s foresaw all these. They were called by the friends of Quezon et al as "Americanistas." They pleaded to the Americans not to include the Moros and Mindanao in their grant of Philippine independence. Some Americans recognized the hardships that would come to the Moros if they were to be included in the creation of the Philippine nation-state. In 1927, the Bacon Bill was passed in the US Congress which would separate Mindanao and Sulu from the rest of the Philippines. Unfortunately, the rhetoric of Quezon, Osmena and Roxas, with the collusion of vested American interests, that bill was superseded by Jones Law and the Tydings-McDuffy Law which promised Moroland to the (Christian) Filipinos.
Many Moros who grew up in the American era believed in the democratic principles espoused by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. My father, Macapanton Abbas, Sr. - the first Moro lawyer, fiscal and judge — believed so much in the rule of law. His best friends — Domocao Alonto, Duma Sinsuat, Salipada Pendatun and Ombra Amilbangsa — believed in representative democracy and became congressmen and senators. But soon, they all realized that the Philippine nation-state experience was detrimental to the Bangsa Moro.
Amilbangsa filed a bill in Congress for the separation of Sulu from the rest of the country. Abbas and Amilbangsa died before the Marcos era. Alonto, Sinsuat and Pendatun supported the revolutionary movement. They had no choice but to join the fight against the genocidal wars of Marcos in the early 1970s which resulted in the Manili Massacre, the Upi Killings, the Wao Fight, the Buldon Massacre, the Magsaysay Incident, the Tacub massacre, the Balabagan Fight, the Marawi Uprising, etc.
Alonto’s brother-in-law (and my mother’s cousin), Congressman Rashid Lucman initiated and formed what later became the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF). It was primarily through his efforts that the first batch of 90 cadres — which included Misuari and Salamat — were trained in guerrilla fighting in Sabah, Malaysia. He also arranged for arms shipment to the Moro fighters.
My brother, Macapanton Abbas, Jr. went to the 2nd OIC Foreign Ministers Conference in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in 1972 to present to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and its then Secretary-General, Malaysian Prime Minister Tungku Abdul Rahman, the Bangsa Moro’s plea for help against the Marcos genocidal war.
The OIC had taken cognizance of the Moro Problem, brokered the Tripoli Agreement of 1976 and the Jakarta Accord signed the 1990s , which were not implemented by the Philippine government. But up to now, there is still no peace in Moroland.
DO-OVER
Britain gave back Hong Kong to China in 1997 and Portugal gave back Macau to China in 1999. Perhaps the solution to the Mindanao Problem is a "do-over". Let’s go back before the granting of Independence to the Philippines and go back to the provisions of the Bacon Bill. And Like England, America could partition the country into two — Moroland and the Philippines.
If America can invade a rich sovereign state like Iraq in order to liberate its people from a repressive Dictator, it can surely retract its grant of independence to a poor former colony and correct the wrong it had done before.
Legally, Spain had no right to include Mindanao and Sulu in its cession of its territories to America because Spain had not conquered Moroland and the Bangsa Moro. This was, in effect, acknowledged by the US when it concluded the Bates Treaty with the Sultanate of Sulu. If the US believed that the Treaty of Paris of 1898 was legal and valid concerning Moroland, then it would not have signed and ratified the Bates Treaty.
I am sure the Moros would welcome such an American move. In 1935, Maranao datus sent a petition to the US President and US Congress petitioning the Americans not to include Lanao and the rest of Moroland in the grant of Philippine independence. The Americans can still make the Maranaos’ wish come true.
Such a move by America would give them positive points among the Muslims of the world. America cannot continue to make enemies out of the Muslims of the world much longer. It needs to do something positive for the Muslims unless it is really bent on a Clash of Civilizations scenario - with or without Bush. It would also stop the Talibanization of the Moros, which is the consequence of Bush’s War on Terror and the Philippine government’s adherence to that war.
The Americans can even make a transition period, say 10 years where Moroland would be an American commonwealth. This time around, it would be easier to Americanize the Moros. After all, generations of us have studied American history, read American books and other publications, watched American films and TV shows.
In fact, we are already partly Americanized. So many are named Pershing after General Pershing. Many Moros have nicknames or aliases like George or Jimmy. My second name is Ashley, taken after the character Ashley Wilkes in Gone With the Wind. (I am thankful that my mother was not a fan of Clark Gable, otherwise my name would have been Jamal Rhett – after Rhett Butler, Gable’s character in Gone With The Wind.) I have a niece whose second name is Jennifer after Hollywood star Jennifer Jones and a nephew whose second and third names are William Fullbright.
All we want is self-governance and a return of our lands, our resources, and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And if we were to have representative democracy, we would like computerized elections like in America where votes are actually counted.
And the Americans do not have to worry about Moros immigrating to America because the Moros won’t. They would rather go to Mecca than to New York or L.A.
