Dear Mr. Nestler,
I generally try to avoid responding to Wespeaks, as such responses often devolve into mere personal attacks in which grammatical and semantic errors take precedence over the real facts of the argument. I also believe that disagreements are best worked out face-to-face. However, I feel personally compelled, as a student of the history and politics of the Islamic world, to disagree with much of your Wespeak.
However, I am not going to disagree with all of your Wespeak. Most importantly, I agree with you that there are compelling reasons for a continued American commitment in Iraq. I do not necessarily agree with all of these reasons.
My concerns with your argument are numerous. However, I will limit myself to two major points of disagreement. First, I believe your comparison of the situation in Iraq with American engagement in Afghanistan in the 1980s to be spurious. Second, I find your telling of the “tumultuous and dynamic history” of the Middle East to have little basis in reality. I respond to these two points not only because they are the basis for your argument against withdrawal from Iraq, but because they are closely tied to such misinformed and silly notions as, “they hate the fact that we are free.”
While I in no way claim to be an expert on Afghanistan, I do know that American withdrawal from Afghanistan was not the only cause of the Taliban’s rise to power. Indeed, the social and ethnic complexities of Afghanistan make their rise to power far more complex than a simple “radicalization” of religious society. The Taliban are overwhelmingly Pashtun, whereas much of the ruling bureaucracy had been Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara. Furthermore, the Taliban’s rise to national power began in 1994, and Kabul was not captured until 1996, nearly seven years after American withdrawal.
I also have serious questions about your telling of the history of the Middle East. First, you imply that from the earliest years of Islam, which is officially dated to 622 C.E., the “Middle East” (a term of Occidental invention which has little meaning to the region’s inhabitants) has been in a state of turmoil. I agree that the Arab and Islamic world has seen significant changes over the past 1,400 years. However I would counter by saying that Western Europe and the United States have similarly undergone numerous crises, including the Reformation and the resultant religious violence in the Holy Roman Empire, slavery, the Inquisition, World Wars I and II, the Holocaust, and the invention and use of the atomic bomb. I could go into great detail about the early years of Islam, the four “Rightly Guided Caliphs,” the Battle of Siffin and the Shia/Sunni split. However, I simply do not have the space. Suffice it to say that while the Islamic world has experienced its share of violence, it has also been one of the earliest empires to truly tolerate multiple religious beliefs, and was, under the early Abbasids, the sole repository and savior of a great deal of “Western” knowledge (i.e. the Bait al-Haqm and the Barmakids). From a scriptural standpoint, the tolerance of the “religions of the book” (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is a fundamental principle of Islamic rule. In general, non-Muslim inhabitants of Muslim lands (the dhimmi) were protected and treated within the precepts of the Pact of Umar and the Constitution of Medina.
Furthermore, you describe a long history of conflict with the Christian occident: “Christians and Muslims have battled in the Crusades, the Spanish Reconquista, and the European/Ottoman struggle over the Mediterranean.” Indeed, “Christendom” has often come into conflict with the Islamic world. However, do you really find Muslim intransigence in the face of the Crusaders so galling? Or the defense of Muslim lands against a “reconquista” so baffling?
Finally, you posit the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as the key turning point in the “rivalry” (I find your use of this term indicative of your bias) between Muslims and Christians. You claim that the Iranian revolution “vindicated the extremists while ousting the moderates.” I agree that those who came to power in 1979 have been rather extremist in their views. I do not however agree that the Shah was a “moderate.” While he may have been thoroughly westernized, and was installed and supported by the U.S. and U.K. after the democratically elected leader of Iran nationalized the oil industry, the Shah relied on autocracy and state violence, epitomized by the SAVAK’s notoriously unlimited powers of surveillance and detention to rule Iran.
The notion that the Iranian revolution is the cause of current extremism does not match up with the facts. It is important to note that the vast majority of the terrorist attacks you listed came after the U.S. began stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the largest supporter of terrorism around the world has consistently been the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and members of the royal family. Not to mention that 15 of the 19 hijackers responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 were Saudi and all of them were Sunni. Iran is Shia. Linking the uniquely Shia experience of Iran and Hezbollah with the attacks of Sept. 11 and the larger project of al-Qaeda ignores the larger and older internal conflicts that have shaped modern Islam.
In conclusion, while I feel there are compelling arguments for continued U.S. involvement in Iraq, you did not make them.
I ask that if you would like to respond to my arguments, or would like more information about anything I have said, that you contact me directly. This offer extends to any member of the Wesleyan community.
Sincerely,
Benedict Bernstein
Leave a Reply