If the pro-war left is dead, what’s next?
Neoconservatism thinking, according to E.D. Kain (via Sullivan), goes like this:
The Islamic world is nothing like the Western world. We have few, if any, of the same values and virtually no historical commonality save our shared, centuries-old conflict with one another. The Islamic world, by and large, has none of the laws or customs necessary to develop an organic democratic society the way Western nations have. Therefore, the only way to achieve peace with the Islamic world is for them to adopt our notions of plurality, democracy, and humanism. They won’t do this on their own because of their lack of shared values, and so it follows that we must intervene on their behalf to impose these values, and fashion democracies for them in our image.
I don’t think it’s that clear cut. There are some who supported the neocons on the basis that people in the Middle East wanted to be like them and they should help them. They also think Islamists are a threat to humanity. This would be the Harry’s Place crew. In themselves, those are not bad motives.
The problem is that the neocons and their supporters completely ignore local dynamics and believe, foolishly, that military action can solve everything. This went all the way from Afghanistan to Iraq and most recently Gaza. They don’t learn, they only live in their own world where everyone else is denounced as a ‘stopper’ as soon as they betray party line. Sullivan also points out that their commitment to democracy is dependent on results they want.
I took neoconservatism seriously for a long time, because it offered an interesting critique of what’s wrong with the Middle East, and seemed to have the only coherent strategic answer to the savagery of 9/11. I now realize that the answer – the permanent occupation of Iraq – was absurdly utopian and only made feasible by exploiting the psychic trauma of that dreadful day. The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right. That’s the conclusion I’ve been forced to these last few years. And to insist that America adopt exactly the same constant-war-as-survival that Israelis have been slowly forced into. Cheney saw America as Netanyahu sees Israel: a country built for permanent war and the “tough, mean, dirty, nasty business” of waging it (with a few war crimes to keep the enemy on their toes).
That, possibly, is the best summation I’ve read of all that is wrong with neoconservatism at its heart.
The Israeli right has managed to make its narrative, in Israel, USA and the UK, dominant to the point that even some “lefties” (Harry’s Place) think a permanent state of war is the only option (otherwise they’d make more noise about the illegal settlements and blockades). This makes international solidarity all the more difficult since the Israeli agenda has shifted to preparing for continuous war than moving towards peace. In Palestine, in contrast, the overwhelming majority want peace.
But the main elephant in the room is that while pretty much everyone, apart from the hardcore neoconservatives, have recognised their folly in following Bush into Iraq – the Harry’s Place crew keep beating that drum.
I think The Encyclopedia Of Decency says it best:
Muscular Liberalism, If It Means Anything, Is Never Having To Say You’re Sorry
The Gaza invasion was justified with essentially the same rhetoric as Iraq:
a) these people have weapons; they are out to hurt us (or hurting us)
b) we will potentially save lots of innocent lives
c) they will greet us as liberators! Military action will solve everything!
Of course, I simplify, but that is what it boiled down to. Diplomacy doesn’t work, apparently, even if applied very badly in the first place.
Now, rather than reflecting on what went wrong with their approach, there’s only more of the ‘look how nasty these Muslims are!!‘, and ‘these evil lefties stopped us from going all the way‘.
When the next war comes they will be ready to denounce anyone who opposes military action as a terrorist sympathiser. Oh, sorry, they won’t do that explicitly: they’ll just hunt for nutbags to imply they represent the entire peace movement.
So why am I pointing this out?
Two reasons. Firstly, because neoconservative thinking, despite its complete failure, remains loud and shrill in the UK – it needs some level of discrediting. Unless they accept their mistakes and reflect on what went wrong, we’ll be back here again.
Secondly, since this line of thinking is dead in most normal circles, it’s important to figure out what’s next. What next for Iraq? What do we do about Afghanistan? How to support an independent Palestinian state best, without giving in to Hamas’ agenda?
A lot of the discussion on these issues still feels like its reacting to the pro-war left despite the fact they’re dead and buried. They just don’t know it. It’s time we moved on, but give them an occasional kick when required.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs,Middle East
I woud argue that this neocon mode of thought will never go away – it will be trotted out every 15-20 years by any incumbent U.S. administration, with the tacit approval of the population.
Once a generation sounds about right. When the popularity of the incumbent erodes enough, switch up governments and talk a different talk for a while. The damage has been done so it doesn’t matter anymore. Lets see if the next few years prove me wrong.
Neo-con support for “fashioning democracy” was always dubious. In November 2003 Michelle Goldberg went to a neo-con conflab and reported Daniel Pipes’ views as expressed among friends:
Islam isnt incompatible with democracy -the first few caliphs were of course chosen by election though there has been a long period of monarchy or family rule since then.
Islamophobia is incompatible with democracy. It is laughable to hear neo-cons talk about how democracy and Islam cant co exist when you consider the US overthrowing the democratically elected Mossedeq in Iran in 1953, western support for the cancelation of Algerias election in 1992 by the military , support for the Musharraf dictatorship in Pakistan, the recent assault in Gaza as well as the denial of the democratic right of the Kashmiris, Chechens, Achenese, Mindano etc to vote for indepedence and the US backing for numerous dictatorships in the Muslim world.
‘The pro-war left.’
What does that mean exactly. Pro war is, of course, a laden term to suggest a rush to war at the expense of what could be loosely termed as pacifism.
But why the implicit assertion that somehow the left is anti-war always and everywhere. Attlee (who I think we can all agree was not Bush style ‘neo-con) took Britain nuclear and into Korea even though the country was bankrupt and paying lend/lease. Wilson and Callaghan renewed Polaris. Come to think of it, wasn’t the creation of Israel on Attlee’s watch?
The idea that the left never had a robust foreign policy is just not true. The Bennite left as it merrily went around wrecking the Labour Party was indeed pacifist but they are surely not the only ‘left.’
If some on the ‘left’ were less concerned about sorting the sheep and the goats and more concerned with accommodating different yet ‘left’ (or even ‘progressive’) views it might not have to put up with a coherent election winning hard right every few years.
This is a hard place to be. I can’t really encourage an Islamic state, but I can see full well that the notion of one is being suppressed militarily and with torture and has been for a long time.
“The pro-war left”
Sonny, the term you’re looking for is the “anti-fascist left”, which opposed Saddam Hussein consistently because he was a fascist: remember?
The anti-fascist left also opposes Islamism because it is a fascist movement – in its origins, its methods, and its dreams of power and supremacy.
I think a lot of what you’re saying is right as to the degree of support that these ideas have in the UK left today.
But ant-fascism is a universal idea, and the current understanding, support and appeasement of fascism says more about the UK left than anything else.
“some “lefties†(Harry’s Place) think a permanent state of war is the only option”
Sunny, it takes one side to start a war, but two sides to make peace.
Tell me, do you think Hamas could make peace?
Could they deny their own interpretation of their religion that says any compromise with the Jews over Islamic lands is illegal?
Hamas’ view is permanent war until judgement day, which in fact will not come until the Muslims kill the Jews:
But war is not the only option at all. The majority of people on both sides are sick of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Everyone knows what the negotiated peace is going to look like.
The biggest problem in the way of peace is Hamas’ genocidal anti-semitism, and their insistence on prolonging the conflict by undermining trust and understanding on both sides through terrorism and Nazi-style propaganda.
tevya
More blaming the victims. Israel occupied Palestinian land decades before Hamas existed. Though the PNA recognise Israel Israel doesnt recognise a Palestinian state.
Whenever Israel elects and extremist party such as Likud, Modelate, Shas and Israel Beituna (the last three of whoms “solution” to the Arab “problem” was to expell all Arabs from Israel) we are told by zionist apologists that such parties are necessary for making peace. So why isnt that the case with Hamas?
It is Israels occupation of the lands it conquered in 1967 that is the problem. Were it to retreat from these in return for full peace the I/P conflict would be over. But Israel and its extreme supporters in the US and UK wnt surrender not peace and would rather prefer a global war between the west and Muslim world than give up territory. Hence their genocidal anti-Muslim Nazi propoganda.
And its funny to bring up Hamas religion when the Isralies sole reason for stealing Palestinian (as oppose to say german) land and for hanging on to East Jeruesalem etc is “G-d gave us this in the Bible”
And from this same religious understanding comes the notion that the Palestinians should not a seperate state
Israel isnt interested in peace. This is a country whose leaders launch a war killing hundreds of women and children and destroying a whole area in order to get more votes. How truly sick.
‘Pro war left’ is an oxymoronic term.
End the occupation: destroy all the settlements, withdraw to the 1967 borders, start respecting international law and Hamas’ support will drain away.
Sorry folks, this article was supposed to be for Monday morning, so I’ve re-scheduled it…
On “pro war left” – I’m referring specifically to the Iraq war…
So I’m retrospectively commenting on a post that was published in the future? kewl
Weird I thought I’d posted that I could post on here?!
It is not.
It is.
I don’t see why the west is so sure democracy is the only answer. The Chinese will be the richest nation in the world, also the most powerful within 20-30 years. They’re communists. It works well for China.
Let me assure you, that democracy as a package will never, ever be the final solution in Muslim countries. Islam has provided us with values of governance, we shall implement them, not democracy or military rule, or kingdoms.
You do have upper class wine drinking liberals, and those in the sphere of politics, who harp on about the virtues of democracy, but they do not represent the masses, when the masses get their chance, it will be an Islamic system of governance which will be in place. There is a bucket load of Irony when the likes of the Bhutto’s talk of democracy, a fuedal family who run their party like a fiefdom, let alone the country. The Kemalists of Turkey or Mubarak of Eygpt, people who work to stifle democracy and the peoples choice, are also the wests chosen “democrats”.
Yet there is not a single Muslim state where it is implemented effectively as a whole. Valuees of freedom, free speech, liberty etc, are not exclusive to democracy, they can be found in Islam and an Islamic system of governance, but to the failing of the muslim world, we have not implemented that correctly yet either, not in the modern era anyway. Pointing out Iran, KSA or the taliban etc as an attack on the Islamic system of governance is pointless, they’re not successful models. Those closest thing to a successful model currently is Malaysia.
Er….are the Chinese REALLY Communists? I know their government says they are but that’s not the same thing.
The mythical ‘pro-war left’ and people like yourself who merely react to them (uncharacteristically self-aware, that remark at the end of the post) are twin sides of the same coin – people who define orthodoxy in relation to the position they take on big geo-political, foreign policy issues or morre narrowly, with regards to Iraq.
Since your attempts to take on Harry’s Place have become a regular feature, I really think there’s something you should consider: neither you nor they seem particularly interested in the economic issues that affect ordinary voters, who by and large aren’t obsessed with the Middle East. Neither you nor David T have had anything sensible to say about the bank crisis, for example. I don’t think this is a coincidence.
@17: If that style of government, as I suspect it probably will, start to win honest intellectual admirers (like Platinum786) above, we are probably going to need a nice concise name for it. Communism is certainly misleading, Fascism is not quite right (though not entirely wrong either).
The essence of such politics is trying to hold together, by some unifying ideology, a state containing, or just crossing, historical ethnic or linguistic borders. Democracy is explicitly shunned as promoting division, though it can sometimes be tolerated if you know you are going to win.
There is certainly something to be said for the view that the natural size of a 21C economy is larger than the natural size of a 19C nation: otherwise the EU wouldn’t exist.
If you look at the history of the acknowledged founder of that strand of government, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, he started out in politics as the leader of an explicitly pro-British, pro-Empire party.
So ‘Chinese imperialism with some capitalist characteristics’ is as good a term as any.
I’m not a 100% fan of the Chinese system. I don’t like the way they shelter their people from Media and anti state opinion, it’s unhealthy and the internet is helping to change that. BUT they have managed to build a successful society, it’s unfair to dismiss everything apart from democracy as unacceptable.
There was a world before “democracy” and there will be a world long after it too.
True, but….
The problem here is that it’s massively dependent on those in power (whether it’s an individual or an “inner circle”) basically being benevolent autocrats. If not, then you’re shafted, especially if you’re not one of the people in the driving seat and/or if you’re not in the rulers’ good books.
Which would result in the only way to remove the corrupt regime being armed revolution, as opposed to peaceful democratic elections and their replacement by (hopefully) better people at the top. Not that I’m implying any parallels to certain events during the past few months in this part of the world, of course…..;)
Sunny (11) – ‘On “pro war left†– I’m referring specifically to the Iraq war.’
So the terms ‘pro war’ and ‘left’ can take on a whole different meaning in the context of one particular conflict in one particular part of the world?
This is about sorting sheep and goats isn’t it?
Politics exists outside the Iraq conflict(s) Sunny. There was a time when people on the left though in those terms, but that thinking is dead and buried though some just don’t know it…it;s time we moved on….
They haven’t built a successful society. There are large pockets of poverty, discontent, and hard labour that is only possible in a totalitarian regime, who dictates how many children you can have, and what information you access and what you can’t. As for the Internet, you should know they control that as well.
One more quick note on the above. Varieties of democratic government existed in some form in Rome and Greece over two thousand years ago, and republics also existed in South India during the subcontinent’s medieval period. Democracy isn’t just a relatively recent British or American invention.
Just to put things into perspective, since we’re taking the “long view” of history.
Yeah it’s called the stone age and I have no wish to return to it.
Leon, were you pro Afghan war?
“Therefore, the only way to achieve peace with the Islamic world is for them to adopt our notions of plurality, democracy, and humanism.”
This is a hilarious comment since Muslim rule had many different religions and beliefs co existing for thousands of years while Americans/Europeans were annihilating anyone who wasnt Christian.
The west has zero to teach Muslims about tolerance.
@ 24. Exactly. The prinsiples existed before, and will continue to exist in all successful states, long after the current presidential/parliamentary systems are a thing of the past.
Jai
“One more quick note on the above. Varieties of democratic government existed in some form in Rome and Greece over two thousand years ago, and republics also existed in South India during the subcontinent’s medieval period. Democracy isn’t just a relatively recent British or American invention.”
Would be interested in learning more about the democracies that existed in South India before the medieval period.
The whole “democracy good autocracy bad” is too simplistic. Nigeria and India are (allegedly) democracies ; Kuwait and Dubai are not. Yet I would wager people in say Kuwait and Dubai have happier lives than in India and would not wish to swap. People from India are queing uo to work in the Gulf ; Khaleejis arent queing up to live in India.
Even in advanced democracy many people are apathethic , feel they have no real choice and votw for the least worst choice. this is not to say autocracy is better
platinum786 I think the problem is taht because Europeans have only known either democracy or dictatorship they think the only alternative to democracy is dictatorship and any governemnt taht isnt a western style democracy must be a dicatorship.
Shuggy:
Neither you nor David T have had anything sensible to say about the bank crisis, for example. I don’t think this is a coincidence.
I have plenty to say, and I have been saying lots of it on Libcon. And there’s more to come.
Tevya: Tell me, do you think Hamas could make peace?
They adhered to the ceasefire didn’t they?
Let me assure you, that democracy as a package will never, ever be the final solution in Muslim countries.
Platinum – also rubbish, since Muslims across the Middle East always say in bigger percentages they want democracy than a sharia system. I just think democracy there has to evolve than be imposed.
MM
So the terms ‘pro war’ and ‘left’ can take on a whole different meaning in the context of one particular conflict in one particular part of the world?
Well, I think the Iraq war conflict was significant because it was the first major conflict in recent times when the battle against Islamic extremism was used as the main proxy, and the case for it was essentially based on lies.
What I’m saying is that there was a significantly loud group of people who supported the drum beat and the lies…. most of who have now melted away or apologised for their folly – apart from a very small bunch.
That very small bunch was also, uncoincidentally, the biggest cheerleaders for the invasion of Gaza. The two are related for reasons mentioned above.
Sunny
“Well, I think the Iraq war conflict was significant because it was the first major conflict in recent times when the battle against Islamic extremism was used as the main proxy, and the case for it was essentially based on lies.”
Surely not since Saddams regime was the most secular in the region and has been replaced now by an Islamic one. Or were the American public stupid enough to believe Saddam was in cohoots with Bin Laden and about to give him WMDs?
Sunny
“Platinum – also rubbish, since Muslims across the Middle East always say in bigger percentages they want democracy than a sharia system.”
Actually it isnt one or the other. Large percentages want religious law to be part of the countries legislation but also want to choose their leaders. There isnt a single pope figure in Islam whose word is final on sharias interpretation.
No.
Stupid probably isn’t the right word. You have to realise the sheer amount of propaganda they were subjected to, and how they were susceptible to it given the Sept 11 attacks…
Sunny – Your half right. nobody wants a copy and paste job of an America/ European style of governance.
– People do want the ability to select leaders.
– People want governance to have accountability.
– People want strong institutions and visibility.
– People also want the foundation of society to be Islam, hence the calls for Shariah (Islamic law).
Why does everyone assume that Shariah means a return to the age of empires?
If what you say is true can you tell us why Islamist parties in Pakistan and Bangladesh were voted out of power and lost their seats in elections that were held in both countries in 2008?
By doing so, it is clear that when given the choice folks in these Muslim-majority countries rejected leaders who offered Sharia law for the simple reason that they do not trust them on derlivering on the very issues you mentioned: governance, law, accountibility and transparency.
Why does everyone assume that Shariah means a return to the age of empires?
Indeed. Best to ask that question of 180 million Pakistanis and 150 million Bangladeshis.
Sid
“If what you say is true can you tell us why Islamist parties in Pakistan and Bangladesh were voted out of power and lost their seats in elections that were held in both countries in 2008?”
Er Sid the Muslim world doesnt consist solely of Pakistan and Bangladesh. In any case Pakistan’s Islamic identity is already a given. Bangladesh is an atypical example because of its war of independence but even then Islamic parties have been part of coalitions in governemnt something unthinkable in 1972.
“By doing so, it is clear that when given the choice folks in these Muslim-majority countries rejected leaders who offered Sharia law for the simple reason that they do not trust them on derlivering on the very issues you mentioned: governance, law, accountibility and transparency.”
They dont trust the leaders of these parties and I dont blame them one bit. But that doesnt mean they oppose sharia. Pakistan and Bangladesh are still influenced by orthodox Islam and Sufism (some of it orthodox some of it not) so rightly dont have the stomach for reformist movements like the Jammat who consider such things anathema
Er Sid the Muslim world doesnt consist solely of Pakistan and Bangladesh. In any case Pakistan’s Islamic identity is already a given. Bangladesh is an atypical example because of its war of independence but even then Islamic parties have been part of coalitions in governemnt something unthinkable in 1972.
Ha ha. Even more unthinkable, for the Jamaat-e-Islam at least, that they now find themselves on the scrap heap of popular rejection. They look out for the count. Unthinkable after their surge of power after 9/11.
They dont trust the leaders of these parties and I dont blame them one bit. But that doesnt mean they oppose sharia. Pakistan and Bangladesh are still influenced by orthodox Islam and Sufism (some of it orthodox some of it not) so rightly dont have the stomach for reformist movements like the Jammat who consider such things anathema
You may be unaware of the fact that for the last 1000 years, the Ulama (Jurists and Islamic law makers) have persecuted Sufis because they considered them heterodox. Which is exactly why in South Asian countries, there has always been an administrative buffer between these Jurists who are incapable of governance and the common people. The worst abuses of power was when the Ulama and the Administrators worked hand in glove – as in the reign of Aurangzeb.
Why does everyone assume that Shariah means a return to the age of empires?
When you, as an Islamist, go expressing your admiration for the only empire remaining in the modern world, _despite the fact it explicitly persecutes Muslims_, it seems a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw.
The freedom-of-press issue is interesting: I don’t think that was a feature of any non-Western empires. Is that just a tactical choice, based on the suppression of Islamism by the national republics and monarchies of the ME, or is it something you intend to keep up permanently, as in the 19C British empire?
@16: I don’t see why the west is so sure democracy is the only answer. The Chinese will be the richest nation in the world, also the most powerful within 20-30 years. They’re communists.
The Chinese are Communists but they are not communists; their economic system is capitalism.
It;s interesting that although the Zionist lobby in the USA wanted the Iraq war, to protect Israel, it’s more likely that the Iraq war will reduce Israel’s security.
Iraq under Saddam was little threat to Israel, because it was incompetently run and because of sanctions was too poor to be well armed.
It would be difficult politically for the USA to attack a democratic Iraq (what’re they going to do, replace Maliki or his successor with someone like Saddam?) because they would look like hypocrites.
If Iraq becomes successful (which seems to be happening — the violence is reducing and democratic elections seem to be relatively well run), then in 5-10 years time they’ve going to be able to afford to be militarily powerful. Quite possibly they will seek nuclear weapons; they may do this by using Pakistani weapons with a dual key arrangement. (The USA and Germany have had a similar arrangement which interestingly both countries have said is not a breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)
A democratic Iraq is bound to be resonsive to the wishes of the people, at least to some extent, so if Israel is still oppressing and killing Palestinians in 5-10 years time, there may be pressure on the Iraqi government to do something about it.
@40: When you, as an Islamist, go expressing your admiration for the only empire remaining in the modern world, _despite the fact it explicitly persecutes Muslims_,
Surely the only empire existing in the modern world is the Empire of Japan.
Not only an excellent summation from Sullivan, but another worthy post from Sunny on the really big issue. Your conclusion would be accurate:
‘It’s time we moved on, but give them an occasional kick when required.’
if it were not for the fact that they, the neocons, will be back – in about 10 years time. They are already laying the grounds.
Obama has at best 8 years to put in place a strategy that will undercut these forces, which needs to be alloyed to growth of trade and economic well-being in other parts of the world. That and serious defence contingencies will be the only things that will see the neocons crawl back under their stones.
Here is, I hope a particularly relevant article, from someone else who also saw the light, early on:
‘Johann Hari: The nightmare of Netanyahu returns
This is the man calling for the re-occupation of Gaza to ‘liquidate’ its elected government’
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-nightmare-of-netanyahu-returns-1547608.html
‘Israel is about to make a misjudgement as disastrous – and deadly – as the attack on Gaza. In a few days, it looks as if it could elect Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister once again.’
He is the net beneficiary of Rabin’s assasination, and his links with the neo-cons run deep. The conclusion: vigilance is everything. This is the most dangerous force we have seen in a very long time – they are not democrats and understand only too well how to use the institutions of democracy to gain control on a most fantastic of scales.
Sid
“You may be unaware of the fact that for the last 1000 years, the Ulama (Jurists and Islamic law makers) have persecuted Sufis because they considered them heterodox.”
He may be unaware because it is complete rubbish. Most of the ulema were sufis (members of Sufi orders) and virtually all the Sufis were ulema. It was either or because they are two different, indispensable aspects of Islam- the outward law and worship and the inward worship and cleansing of the heart.
The false dichotomy between the two is an orientalist fallacy . Seriously who taught you Islamic history?
Suggest you read below
“”The fundamental and underlying message in the tradition of Islam I think personally is that it does not and refuses to create this dialectic in which a person’s inward and their outward become split. [In non-Islamic systems] people are either forced to become esoterists or they are forced to become exoterists.
“In fact what Islam is trying to do and what most of the other spiritual religions and in fact from the Muslim perspective all of them have failed to do is to join these two elements in a harmonious and balanced way and this is why in the tradition of Islam Sufism has always been part of the traditional Islamic curriculum in every single Muslim university. I know of no period in the Islamic tradition in which Sufism was not taught in the universities and not seen as an important and fundamental aspect of the tradition of Islam.
“Sidi Ahmad Zarruq wrote a great book called the principles of Sufism in which he clarified traditional and orthodox Sufism says in his principle number 208, ‘there are five reasons for repudiating the Sufis the first of these is with reference to the perfection of their path. For if the Sufis latch on to a special dispensation or if they misbehave or are negligent in a matter or if a fault manifests itself in them, people hasten to repudiate them.’ Because they are people who have traditionally been the most strongest and fierce adherents to the sacred teaching of Islam and they have been the ones also that have never inclined toward easy ways out on terms of the shariah or the sacred law.
“They have been the strictest adherents to the sacred law, but they have a wonderful principle: that is be hard on yourself and be gentle with other people. Unfortunately, the disease of this age amongst many Muslims is be easy on yourself and be hard on everybody else. So I think this is where the real crises of rejecting Sufism as one third of Islam has had really devastating results in much of the modern Islamic phenomenon. {Shaykh Ahmad Zarruq] said ‘this is because no servant is free of fault unless he is granted infallibility or protection by God.’ ”
http://sunnah.org/events/hamza/hamza.htm
“in conformity with a traditional definition used by masters in the Middle East, who define a Sufi as Faqihun ‘amila bi ‘ilmihi fa awrathahu Llahu ‘ilma ma lam ya‘lam,‘A man of religious learning who applied what he knew, so Allah bequeathed him knowledge of what he did not know.’ ”
So far we have spoken about Tasawwuf in respect to Islam, as a Shari‘a science necessary to fully realize the Sacred Law in one’s life, to attain the states of the heart demanded by the Qur’an and hadith. This close connection between Shari‘a and Tasawwuf is expressed by the statement of Imam Malik, founder of the Maliki school, that “he who practices Tasawwuf without learning Sacred Law corrupts his faith, while he who learns Sacred Law without practicing Tasawwuf corrupts himself. Only he who combines the two proves true.” This is why Tasawwuf was taught as part of the traditional curriculum in madrasas across the Muslim world from Malaysia to Morocco, why many of the greatest Shari‘a scholars of this Umma have been Sufis, and why until the end of the Islamic caliphate at the beginning of this century and the subsequent Western control and cultural dominance of Muslim lands, there were teachers of Tasawwuf in Islamic institutions of higher learning from Lucknow to Istanbul to Cairo.
The last question we will deal with tonight is: What about the bad Sufis we read about, who contravene the teachings of Islam?
The answer is that there are two meanings of Sufi: the first is “Anyone who considers himself a Sufi,” which is the rule of thumb of orientalist historians of Sufism and popular writers, who would oppose the “Sufis” to the “Ulama.” I think the Qur’anic verses and hadiths we have mentioned tonight about the scope and method of true Tasawwuf show why we must insist on the primacy of the definition of a Sufi as “a man of religious learning who applied what he knew, so Allah bequeathed him knowledge of what he did not know.”
The very first thing a Sufi, as a man of religious learning knows is that the Shari‘a and ‘Aqida of Islam are above every human being. Whoever does not know this will never be a Sufi, except in the orientalist sense of the word—like someone standing in front of the stock exchange in an expensive suit with a briefcase to convince people he is a stockbroker. A real stockbroker is something else.
Because this distinction is ignored today by otherwise well-meaning Muslims, it is often forgotten that the ‘ulama who have criticized Sufis, such as Ibn al-Jawzi in his Talbis Iblis [The Devil’s deception], or Ibn Taymiya in places in his Fatawa, or Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, were not criticizing Tasawwuf as an ancillary discipline to the Shari‘a. The proof of this is Ibn al-Jawzi’s five-volume Sifat al-safwa, which contains the biographies of the very same Sufis mentioned in al-Qushayri’s famous Tasawwuf manual al-Risala al-Qushayriyya. Ibn Taymiya considered himself a Sufi of the Qadiri order, and volumes ten and eleven of his thirty-seven-volume Majmu‘ al-fatawa are devoted to Tasawwuf. And Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya wrote his three-volume Madarij al-salikin, a detailed commentary on ‘Abdullah al-Ansari al-Harawi’s tract on the spiritual stations of the Sufi path, Manazil al-sa’irin. These works show that their authors’ criticisms were not directed at Tasawwuf as such, but rather at specific groups of their times, and they should be understood for what they are.
For all of the reasons we have mentioned, Tasawwuf was accepted as an essential part of the Islamic religion by the ‘ulama of this Umma. The proof of this is all the famous scholars of Shari‘a sciences who had the higher education of Tasawwuf, among them Ibn ‘Abidin, al-Razi, Ahmad Sirhindi, Zakariyya al-Ansari, al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salam, Ibn Daqiq al-‘Eid, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Shah Wali Allah, Ahmad Dardir, Ibrahim al-Bajuri, ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, Imam al-Nawawi, Taqi al-Din al-Subki, and al-Suyuti.
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/sufitlk.htm
It was perceived in all Islamic times that when a scholar joins between these aspects, his words mirror his humility and sincerity, and for that reason enter the hearts of listeners. This is why we find that so many of the Islamic scholars to whom Allah gave tawfiq or success in their work were Sufis.
Indeed, to throw away every traditional work of the Islamic sciences authored by those educated by Sufis would be to discard 75 percent or more of the books of Islam.
These men included such scholars as the Hanafi Imam Muhammad Amin Ibn Abidin, Sheikh al-Islam Zakaria al-Ansari, Imam Ibn Daqiq al-Eid, Imam al-Izz Ibn Abd al-Salam, Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, Sheikh Ahmad al-Sirhindi, Sheikh Ibrahim al-Bajuri, Imam al-Ghazali, Shah Wali Allah al-Dahlawi, Imam al-Nawawi, the hadith master (hafiz, someone with 100,000 hadiths by memory) Abd al-Adhim al-Mundhiri, the hadith master Murtada al-Zabidi, the hadith master Abd al-Rauf al-Manawi, the hadith master Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, the hadith master Taqi al-Din al-Subki, Imam al-Rafii, Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Zayn al-Din al-Mallibari, Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, and many many others.
Imam al-Nawawi’s attitude towards Sufism is plain from his work Bustan al-arifin [The grove of the knowers of Allah] on the subject, as well as his references to al-Qushayri’s famous Sufi manual al-Risala al-Qushayriyya throughout his own Kitab al-adhkar [Book of the remembrances of Allah], and the fact that fifteen out of seventeen quotations about sincerity (ikhlas) and being true (sidq) in an introductory section of his largest legal work (al-Majmu: sharh al-Muhadhdhab. 20 vols. Cairo n.d. Reprint. Medina: al-Maktaba al-Salafiyya, n.d., 1.1718) are from Sufis who appear by name in al-Sulami’s Tabaqat al-Sufiyya [The successive generations of Sufis]. Even Ibn Taymiyya (whose views on Sufism remain strangely unfamiliar even to those for whom he is their “Sheikh of Islam”) devoted volumes ten and eleven of his Majmu al-fatawa to Sufism, while his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya wrote his three-volume Madarij al-salikin as a detailedcommentary on Abdullah al-Ansaris Manazil al-sairin, a guide to the maqamat or “spiritual stations” of the Sufi path. These and many other Muslim scholars knew firsthand the value of Sufism as an ancillary shari’a discipline needed to purify the heart, and this was the reason that the Umma as a whole did not judge Sufism to be a bid’a down through the ages of Islamic civilization, but rather recognized it as the science of ikhlas or sincerity, so urgently needed by every Muslim on “a day when wealth will not avail, nor sons, but only him who brings Allah a sound heart” (Qur’an 26:88).
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/sufism.htm
“You may be unaware of the fact that for the last 1000 years, the Ulama (Jurists and Islamic law makers) have persecuted Sufis because they considered them heterodox….The worst abuses of power was when the Ulama and the Administrators worked hand in glove – as in the reign of Aurangzeb.”
Aurangzeb who was a devoted disciple of the Naqshaandi Sufi order , who visited the shrine of Khwaja Mu’innudin Chishti (ra) in Ajmer and asked to be buried next to Sufi saints in Khuldabad.
Good grief.
You may want to read this history which deals with exactly what I have mentioned:
Sunny – ‘Well, I think the Iraq war conflict was significant because it was the first major conflict in recent times when the battle against Islamic extremism was used as the main proxy.’
Yugoslavia? Robin Cook, who I think you will agree was not a neo-con was Foreign Secretary during Kosovo. Was Robin Cook on the ‘pro-war left?’
This pro-war left you obsess over is a phantom and one you are geting your underwear in a twist over.
There is political life after Iraq.
The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right.
Perhaps the best evidence of this is the Clean Break document which the neocons presented to Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. The overthrow of the Iraqi regime is presented as part of a strategy predicated purely on Israeli geostrategic interests.
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
Er, I don’t think that Islamic extremism was used as an excuse for Kosovo.
Ben
Sid
“Under the Mughals, the Ulama, occupied a prestigious position as guardians, transmitters and interpreters of Islam an Islamic law. They were provided imperial patronage in the form of subsistence grants, with a few of them finding their way to religious offices. The were kept in good humor and yet, at no stage, were they given any political power by the Mughals. The Indian medieval rulers were apparently wiser than that of many in the modern Islamic states, especially in this regard. This work, while dealing these aspects, concludes that, by and large, Islam in medieval India was not governed by the state apparatus with the influence of the Ulama breathing down their neck: it was more a work of the liberal Sufis. The Ulama subservience to state policies and their subordination to imperial decrees, whether based on Shariat or not, prevented the growth either of theocracy or of fundamentalism. An attempt made for strict imposition of orthodoxy in Islam by the Naqshbandis from the last decade of sixteenth century was received with serious reservation, if not outright rejection. Similarly, Aurangzeb’s efforts to incorporate Shariat in administration and land revenue affairs also met with failure as there were no takers of his religiosity. The pantheistic Sufis, imbued with local custom and beliefs, continued to wield influence on the populace during Aurangzeb’s reign too. This analysis constitute the gist of the main arguments in the book. The process of evolving syncretistic culture based on healthy tradition of Indian society proved much stronger than the hair-splitting orthodoxy of the Ulama, especially in the seventeenth century.â€
Keep digging Sid . This writer represents the ulema as being against the Sufis while mentioning “An attempt made for strict imposition of orthodoxy in Islam by the Naqshbandis from the last decade of sixteenth century “. The Naqshabandis are Sufis Sid. The ulema he mentioned were Sufis Sid.
Thats how absurd your false dichotomy is,
You seem to adopt the definition of Sufi as “anyone who claims to be a sufi” rather than someone who has ijaza from a sheikh and isnad back to the Prophet (pbuh). Its like accepting anyone who says they are a doctor as being a doctor even if they dont have a licence
You pick a few examples of people with unorthodox beliefs and small followwings as “sufis” and ignore the great Sufi sheikhs/ulema like Moinudden Chisti and tariqas like the Chisti, Qadiri, Naqshabandiyya, who have millions of followers and make up the bulk of subcontinent Muslims
Did you actually read the articles I posted?
BTW the site you linked to is a non-Muslim site and contains books attacking Islam
Thats where you get your Islamic history from!!?
BenSix – I accept I might have been stretching a point, but the religious divide was strong in ex-Yugoslavia and there was a real religious aspect to conflict.
My overall point remains, the idea of a ‘pro-war left’ is a phantom. Unless Sunny wants to denounce Robin Cook amongst its number.
I have mentioned this before, and Sunny is someone I have respect for, but he is the Arsene Wenger of comment. That is he gets it right 8 times out of 10 but the other two times are total wrecks. When it comes to Yugoslavia I just get this sense that the fact that the Muslims in question are not brown seems to make a qualitative difference to his approach.
The ‘pro-war left’ sad to say falls into the 2 out of ten category.
Religions never been Sid’s strong point, don’t be mean to him.
Put Deen-e-elahi into google Sid.
Well, I’d say that there are “pro-war leftists” – indeed, I used to be one, though a particularly stupid one. People with left-wing economic policies, liberal social views and a belief in regime change as an effective method of spreading democracy internationally.
This necessitates war as an element of progress and proponents are, therefore, pro-war. That doesn’t mean that they like war.
Ben
blahblah
Don’t teach me about tassawuf (sufism). I was a disciple of a North African Darqawi Shadhiliyya order for ten years. I think I know Sufism quite well but more importantly, I know what it isn’t and it isn’t anything to do with ranting against Joos and masturbating to Maududi and the Khilafah, which is all you and a few other “Islam experts” ever seem to do on this blog. I also know more fiqh and theology than you and your rabid little neophyte cohorts have fooled yourselves into thinking.
You seem to tied yourself into logical knots and have completely misunderstood the simple English in the passage.
When it says:
It does not mean that Naqshbandis became the Ulama, but that their attempts to assert strict orthodoxy in spite of being the favoured Sufis of the court was rejected by the liberal ruling elites which made up the Mughals.
Look here, it’s very simple and it is just as that passage I quoted says. In Mughal times the Ulama were kept in court to placate them but the Sufis were the real expression of Islam. The exception to this rule was in the time of Aurangzeb who was rabidly anti-Sufism for a variety of reasons including filial competition (Dara Shukoh his brother was a Sufi adept *and* the next in line to the throne).
The battle between jurists and Sufis has gone on for centuries and isn’t limited to just the Mughals. The great Sufi Junaid used to say that he had two sets of lectures, one for the Ulama to keep them happy with formulas about law and mundane minutie about the correct length of beard and all that, and another set he would only give to chosen students in his own house and behind closed doors. He would say that he would be hanged for blasphemy if those teachings were ever made in public.
And who can forget the sufi saint Mansoor al Hallaj:
Mansoor Al-Hallaj was condemned to hang by the neck for shouting in ecstasy Anal-Haq, Anal-Haq (I am the Truth, I am the Truth). The orthodoxy understood this to mean that he was claiming to be God himself, whereas he had proclaimed in his sublime spiritual ecstasy, simply a total annihilation of himself. Mansoor Al-Hallaj climbed the gallows with his head held high, not the least daunted by his imminent death. Nor could his shouts be drowned in the tumult of abuses which were hurled at him; they rose loud and clear and high Ana’l-Haq, Ana’l-Haq until his soul departed to the fountainhead of his life on high.
The list of sufis who have been hounded and oppressed by the “orthodxy”, jurists and Ulama is as long as the history of Islam itself.
Sid, why don’t you and Blah move to another method of communication – eg email. Its becoming tedious. And reckless for a moderator. I think I will ask Sunny to put you back on probation.
Ben, what helped change your mind?
Refresh, why don’t you go blow smoke up your own arse?
MM: Yugoslavia? Robin Cook, who I think you will agree was not a neo-con was Foreign Secretary during Kosovo. Was Robin Cook on the ‘pro-war left?’
Huh? I’m not against interventionism per se, but that was never the excuse used in Kosovo. Though, people have tried to make it an issue since.
My original point about Iraq stands. For the record, I was for going into Afghanistan, but as expected they have completely fucked that up as well.
We want a debate on the topic laid out, but you are encouraging meanderings which are well off-topic.
If you want to continue what seems to be a private and running debate with Blah, why don’t you open a thread specific to it? I think that’s a reasonable suggestion.
I wouldn’t have been so forthright if we hadn’t seen it happen on several threads. And its diluting the quality of the site.
I wouldn’t have been so forthright if we hadn’t seen it happen on several threads. And its diluting the quality of the site.
of this site? Jeez.
If it’s diluting it for you, why don’t you add you your own “Refresh cordial” to stiffen things up a little?
Sid,
I tried. But you and Blah have developed a momentum of your own.
The thread’s all yours. Knock yourself out.
Sunny – ‘I was for going into Afghanistan, but as expected they have completely fucked that up as well.’
Honest and very relevant.
Two questions – who do you mean by, ‘they?’ Secondly, what then do you think about the ‘pro-war left,’ specifically about Afghanistan.
For what it’s worth, this thing about Afghanistan is a very interesting point and every credit to you for making your view clear.
But I still say that to talk about, ‘a pro-war left,’ and restrict the scope of that to Iraq is very silly.
We want a debate on the topic laid out, but you are encouraging meanderings which are well off-topic.
That’s silly – sometimes threads go off topic. But there’s no need to get protective about it.
MM:
Two questions – who do you mean by, ‘they?’ Secondly, what then do you think about the ‘pro-war left,’ specifically about Afghanistan.
They – the neocons and the British who led us to war. I remember Tony Blair saying ‘we will never forget or abandon Afghanistan, that’s my promise”. Stupid fucker completely avoided mentioning it by the end of his reign.
At the time, I supported the invasion because I thought the Taliban were a threat to the stability of the entire South Asian region. So I was just praying the idiots would at least allow some stability in the country and be able to destroy the Taliban. I didn’t have hopes for the sort of utopia Bush and Blair were promising.
By the time the drumbeat for Iraq started, I realised they never really cared about either country – it was just an opportunity to settle scores, and that Afghanistan would be more screwed if resources were diverted to Iraq.
As has happened. Now, both regions are more unstable.
and yet, the stupid people who led us to Iraq keep refusing to apologise, and keep writing rubbish like “Sunny, but do you not believe in opposing fascism and supporting freedom and motherhood and apple pie” as if that is meant to be an argument.
Reading about Iraq, mostly – how it was promoted and how it was carried out. Once one looks at it with any sort of depth it becomes acutely difficult to make any case for military interventionism (as just about everybody else already knew).
Also, though, my own opinions were never built on firm grounds, but were a sort of hodgepodge of reaction, assumed opinion and adolescent pomposity. I sniped at Galloway and co. more often than I considered rational grounds for regime change.
Ben
Sunny – Fair enough. Interesting exchange.
I still am not convinced that Iraq alone is sufficient a framework for using such a broad-brush term as, ‘pro-war left.’ As my old grand dad used to say – if you feel you are being tarred with the same brush you might just be standing too close to the target.
Best of luck to you.
Ben
Thanks for your honest response. Much appreciated.
Sunny,
‘That’s silly – sometimes threads go off topic. But there’s no need to get protective about it.’
Generally I don’t mind off-topic, you tend to learn new things that way. But not always. Tonight I found that I was having to scroll through several threads full off lengthy ctrl+V comments, none of which looked enticing and all seemed to be Sid and Blah.
I was going to suggest getting them a room, but didn’t feel they deserved it. Best to leave them out in the cold, Sid with his snowman and Blah with his snowballs.
sunny:
Well, I think the Iraq war conflict was significant because it was the first major conflict in recent times when the battle against Islamic extremism was used as the main proxy
and also:
At the time, I supported the invasion because I thought the Taliban were a threat to the stability of the entire South Asian region.
I don’t think both of those can be true.
What would probably be truer would be to say that the Afghan war was justified as being against al Qaeda. As it turned out, it ended up doing little if anything to weaken them, but a lot for the people of Afghanistan. The current risk, which pretty much everyone considers scary, is of falling back to the pre-war status quo.
The Iraq war was mostly justified as being for the people of Iraq, but ended up killing, displacing and impoverishing way too many of them. However, it does seem that, as least as long as an accommodation with Iran can be reached, to be leading to a fairly stable self-governing islamic national democracy, like a non-secular Turkey, that will end up as something of a bulwark against Islamist imperialism.
This probably owes more to al Qaeda’s incompetence than anything else…
Refresh,
With all due respect, buddy, this has happened on several threads (one of which also involved myself) because of the sheer scale of bullshit that “Blah” has been coming out with. The blame doesn’t actually lie with Sid for attempting to provide effective counter-responses.
Thanks Jai.
Jai, I saw. Its not particularly about blame, its just trying to keep it on track. We start what are usually very promising threads, and within 5~6 posts we’re distracted and then for every relevant comment we end up getting 15 exchanges which are off-topic.
I don’t blame Sid, but he is in a better position to help steer than you or I. I suppose the worst examples would be his own threads. I would suggest in cases like that a new thread is opened which would allow the ‘deviant’ discussion to be followed in some depth, by those that want to.
Well getting back to this post.
I guess it is needless to say that I disagree with the premise that those in the left who supported the Iraq war (myself included) are war mongers or share similar values of the neo cons.
Speaking for myself and some others I know, I could honestly affirm that my support for the war was to remove a genocidal dictator who did use weapons of mass destruction. Also, I rather have Saddam Hussein and his cronies removed than have half a million children die or be malnourished due to the sanctions regime.
While sad and very much unfortunate, there are times when the military option must be used and Saddam was one of those occassions. And there have been many success stories which Sunny of course has not mentioned such as East Timor, Sierra Leone, many other small examples such as Indian armed forces protecting the Maldives government against a coup. Falklands was a good example as well.
However, I am willing to accept that we did not run the operation in Iraq better after the conflict ended and we could have and should have done better.
Leon and Sunny have always argued for conversation with people who do not abide by human rights and other international laws. Well, the Pakistani and the Afghan Government have recently tried that with the Taliban. Guess what, their bottomline to stop indiscriminate killing was impose the Taliban version of the Sharia law which means no girls could go to school. And, if the Government did not follow through with that then they would kill, throw acid and burn schools. Leon, I know you are against war but you can’t reason with some groups.
I am not a war monger and niether are most people on the left who support military intervention. But believe it or not, this group in the left who refuse to take any option off the table are the reason, the left gets anywhere near power and that includes President Obama.
Sunny, I support your stand against Harry’s place and I would back you on that — but do you think its really worthwhile to kick all of us who believe in use of military power when justified (gross human rights violation are one reason I would support it).
I believe that not only British blood but innocent blood should be equally important to leaders in today’s world — where plots hatched in one country and injustices and torture inflicted in one country can manifest itself in others — I believe that we should all be willing to use force to protect rights of people to be free from tyranny, free to be educated, free to practice their faith without edicts from religious fanatics.
And, dont forget Iraq bloodbath was Al – qaeda and glorified religious resistance — which the Iraqi people demonstrated by voting overwhelmingly in two elections that they did not support.
Gotta run now but more on this later
No problem, Sid. Thanks for letting me argue against Blah’s double-standards, propaganda and unashamed bigotry. His attempts at what could be called “historical takfiri” were ridiculous. I’m not normally interested in writing lengthy posts these days but Blah’s hypocritical triumphalism and modus operandi needed to be exposed.
The guy’s a lot more transparent than he thinks and nowhere near as clever as he presumes himself to be.
*********************
Shamit,
Great to have you back, mate. There have been some fireworks here during your absence. Check out Sid’s Al-Jazeera thread from a few days ago for an example.
Jai
Been really busy with work but I will check out the thread and might even add a few more bits and bobs. And it is good to be back — and I for one am glad that you took on Blah.
S
Did we screw up running Iraq and ensuring basic law and order? Yes of course we did and I am sure not thinking through while developing strategy did bring death & destruction. Going against a proven Powell Strategy of overwhelming force was sheer stupidity and its all for to see.
Yet, Iraq today is a democracy, fragile may be but it is one. Millions of Iraqi people came out to vote in elections under death threats and many have played a key role in getting rid of Al-Qaeda. These provincial elections saw Iraqi security forces taking care of security and the Iraqi people voting against religious or extreme secterian parties. Don’t forget the young teenagers who come back from school to stand guard so that Al-Qaeda operatives cannot come back into their neighbourhood.
So, would the pure left (not idiots like me who supported the war)feel comfortable with the achievement of Iraq so far? Isn’t the left that is so anti-military option and claiming that resistance in Iraq is appropriate is undermining democracy and the wishes of the people of Iraq?
By supporting the insurgency or accepting it as fait accompli, I think the pure left ie so anti-war is ending up glorifying those al-Qaeda and sectarian operatives?
Don’t for a minute think that I do not regret the massive human tragedy that has befallen so many of Iraqis but their resilience and fortitude and courage must be respected. Not bang about the same old arguments over and over again as it seems Iraq is going to be a democratic nation in the Middle East.Something that was unthinkable a decade ago.
Coming to think of that it could be George Bush’s biggest legacy — I am no fan of the guy but he did transform Iraq and probably the Middle East. The true left would surely love that.
Shamit, there is occasional merit in what you say. However this
‘Also, I rather have Saddam Hussein and his cronies removed than have half a million children die or be malnourished due to the sanctions regime.’
was the justification put up by a prominent Tory for his support for the war.
I hope one day you will think that through.
Refresh -
I think you guys need to start thinking it through. Not me.
Shamit,
I understood your comment to mean that we would have to kill more people through sanctions (which had already claimed 500,000 children, and according to Madam Albright ‘a price worth paying’), so why don’t we get it over and done with and go for the shock and awe option.
It only claimed around 1,000,000 and look its changed the face of the middle east.
I think if you killed a million in Europe it would change the face of Europe too.
I understand the ‘nothing to do with us, guv’ argument. It wasn’t us, we only killed 50,000. It was Al Queda – look how blood-thirsty they are.
I am afraid this really isn’t a justification, unless you are a neo-con, who are supremacists clothed in altruistic language. And for them any price is worth paying for permanent hegemony.
I’m not against war, I’m against illegal wars that aren’t thought through or have clear objectives.
Refresh
“I understood your comment to mean that we would have to kill more people through sanctions (which had already claimed 500,000 children, and according to Madam Albright ‘a price worth paying’), so why don’t we get it over and done with and go for the shock and awe option.”
That is a very cynical and flawed interpretation of my statement.
Please give me some credit.
If you look at things solely in terms of the relationships between Saddam and the West, and consequent regional casualties, it goes:
1. sell him weapons: 2 million dead
2. let him buy weapons from others: 1 million dead
3. prevent him buying weapons: half a million dead
4. invade him: quarter of a million dead
(all figures dubious, but the order will be about right).
The problems of the Iraq war aren’t ones you can see when you look at things that way.
‘Please give me some credit.’
I do, and that is why I am hoping you would take this as an opportunity to clarify your rationale.
Sunny’s post is very clear, and I’ll paraphrase: we are dealing with a network of highly dangerous well-connected people who had and will have again access to the most powerful force in the world. They have little regard for democracy, international law or bounds of behaviour. Their narrative must be rejected wholesale, and they must be put on a watching brief.
Good post Soru.
I was tempted to list additional points preceding yours, as well as add a parallel list covering the politics. But that can keep for another day.