“Islam is the only civilisation which has put the survival of the west in doubt”….
[Samuel P. Huntington, Clash of Civilisation and the Remaking of the World Order]
Current conventional wisdom in Washington asserts that the US must first pre-arrange the world, if not chaos will surely reign, and it alone possesses the power to prescribe and impose such a global order. It maintains that no other nation has the vision, will and perception that are required to lead. This vision includes the right to articulate the principles that define the international order. These doctrines are American values yet they must be accepted universally. In the view of the majority – if not all – of America’s political elites, the entire world needs the United State’s leadership, these are the core beliefs held by them. Furthermore, singular responsibilities need singular prerogatives; rather than wait for events to occur United States elites favour an activist posture.
However, when it comes to projecting power, the United State exempts itself from norms which it expects others to conform to. For instance, its double standards with regards to Islam, an unshakable support towards Israel against the Palestinians, the bias used for nuclear North Korea as opposed to non nuclear Iran, and it’s refusal to sign the NPT treaty since its inauguration on 5th March, 1970.
U.S. pre-eminence will not endure with time. The clear fact is that the flag-bearer of the ideology i.e. the capitalist economic system, is on life support. When the financial markets crashed, sparking a worldwide recession not a single western economic guru could isolate the real problem or its causes, let alone articulate a working solution. When an idea produces a problem that it cannot solve then it is said to be dead. The current war on Islam serves as successor to World Wars I, II and III (the latter better known as the Cold War). A headline in the New York Times of 21 Jan 1996 reading ‘The Red menace is gone, but here’s Islam’ aptly framed it. However, unlike its historical precursors, the United State is in a far weaker position to conduct this new World War IV – famously termed by George Bush Jr as the ‘War on Terror’.
Despite the clear signs that this ideological war is being lost to Islam, the US is cajoling everyone to join their endless war. This approach is a telling sign of the decline of Western influence – and American leadership by extension – simply because leadership entails a sense of direction that mobilizes others, while power for the sake of domination only serves to bend unwilling allies to one’s will by force. Today the US has deployed every precision military tool in its arsenal, required to take on an equivalent adversary, yet we may forget that it is just fighting a single small Islamic cabal, not even an equal opponent “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence, Westerners often forget this fact, but non-Westerners never do” (Samuel P. Huntington).
Moreover, after 9/11 the U.S. responded in a fashion that aggravated an already bad situation, the outcome of which will be very difficult for the West to define. In view of the fact that today, the US is now the antagonist in the Muslim world. Primarily, America’s response to its fear on the war on Islam, in turn, made Americans less safe and has inspired more threats and attacks. Nevertheless the consequences will surely end up with what it fears most, a single Islamic entity. “The Military is now Americas only tool and will remain so while current policies are in place. No public diplomacy, presidential praise for Islam, or politically correct debate masking the reality that many of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims hate us for actions not values, will get America out of this war.” Anonymous, Imperial Hubris.
President Obama inherited the various foreign policy situations of the former administration, and has no choice but to try and manage the bequeathed mess. In the end, this will be the defining factor of his Presidency and the key measure for the establishment. As Dmitry Shlapentokh of the Asian Times website notes: “The problem was not President Barack Obama’s geopolitical naivety, shyness or even betrayal, as critics assert, but the non-workability of the Neo-cons geopolitical designs, constructed in the same way as the U.S. economy, that is, based on quick financial speculation or printing of dollars”.
The belief that building Democracy through the barrel of the gun will work in the Muslim world, making it relinquish the return to Islam has now turned into a quagmire. Despite the fact that Obama’s Cairo speech was meant to re-brand the USA, reassuring Muslims that America is not on a collision course with Islam, this was exposed by the Wikileaks fiasco, removing every ambiguity that this is evidently the case. In response, the Muslim Ummah must exert itself to exercise its right to self-determination and free itself from the hegemony of the west. Consequently the present Middle East Revolution must demand for al-Dawla al-Islamiyah (the Islamic State).
In addition AfPak is a neologism used within US foreign policy circles to designate Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single theatre of operations. The thinking behind the Afghan conflict is linked to Pakistan’s nuclear delivery system to the entire region and beyond and the possible convergence of these two issues makes the thought of leaving the region in its current state unimaginable for the Americans. Yet, US public opinion is now polarised and no longer by-partisan on the issue. A recent CNN poll indicates this; “The polling data also revealed that 52% of Americans believe that the war has turned into another Vietnam”, due to the record death tolls of US troops [CNN website].
If the US president disengages from the AfPak conflict and the situation deteriorates, he will surely be labelled forever as the defeatist president, making it paramount to stay till the end. Hence, the need for the surge and the daily Predator and Reaper drone attacks on innocent Muslim women and children.
In addition, the US needs the help of Pakistan in Afghanistan; it knows how to importune Pakistan’s elites to carry out its brutal work. Most of the solutions put forward are designed to draw those elements of the AfPak conflict that do not have the quest for global Jihad, like moderate Taliban, into some sort of arrangement in order to facilitate a US exit strategy. However, the drawback to this strategy is that Afghanistan is allied to Pakistan’s mortal enemy, India. Consequently, the repeated attempts by Washington to convince Islamabad that India will not pose a threat to Pakistan if they support the destruction of the Taliban is seen as the key to a US victory in Afghanistan. This is a war America can never win.
Turning to the question of why the Muslim world holds such a strong dislike for the US, let us consider some facts and figures. America has close to 800 military bases around the world, the majority deeply embedded in the Muslim lands, whilst still building new and ever bigger ones. It has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, compelled a huge Muslim army to carry out its bidding in Pakistan, deployed Special Forces to numerous Muslim countries (Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen), imprisoned thousands without recourse, and waged a massive war of ideas involving Islamic clerics to twist the concepts of Islam and erected institutions to invade Muslim countries with western norms. Likewise, it is true that the millions of teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, diplomats etc, from the west living in the Muslim world are used as spies, debriefed by various security agencies when they return home. Thus far, Americans still seem strangely mystified as to why some Muslims might be angry about this situation.
The conviction that Muslims have of Allah (SWT) and His Prophet (SAW) is far more passionate and enduring than the faith displayed by America’s Israeli supporting neo-cons and Zionist Christian movements that have played a major role in steering US policy in the direction they wanted, as well as including economic interest. Nonetheless, the westerners also love their faith, God and brethren similar to the “Islamist”, a western coined term. The difference is that the evangelists have yet to take up a struggle in His defence, because all have accepted the American and European legal divide between church and state. No contemporary western religious leader has advocated the creation of a state based on the Christian faith, whereas Muslims call for the implementation of the Quran and Sunnah, guides for all aspects of life; personal, familial, societal, economic, political and international. Allah سبحانه وتعالى in the Quran says:
إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ
“The rule is to none but Allah” [al-Anaam, 6:57]
This idea is the nucleus that is at the centre of America’s waging of unending war on Islam. “Forget exit strategies, we’re looking at a sustained engagement that carries no deadlines” declared Donald Rumsfeld [New York Times Sept 27 2001].
The US is also adept at manufacturing consent for attacks on its adversaries, the latest target being Iran. With the backing of top US lawmakers the Israeli government has not ruled out launching a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, “The clock is ticking and in fact, it has almost run out” said Democratic Representative, Howard Berman speaking to Jewish leaders in comments intended to allay concerns that President Obama’s administration is not doing enough to tame Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. AFP
On the other hand, the preferred option is the strategy of containment. The term was first introduced by the renowned George F. Kennan, a diplomat and U.S. State department adviser on Soviet affairs. He suggested a “long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies”. This political concept was meant to achieve three goals; the restoration of the balance of power in Europe, the curtailment of Soviet power projection, and the modification of the Soviet conception of international relations. Iran is neither an ideological state nor a super power, therefore if the Soviet Union could be contained and finally destroyed without a single shot being fired, so can the grand nuclear designs of the mullahs in Iran. In short, Tehran is not Moscow. By using inhuman sanctions and, to an extent, restrictions on basic necessities like food, Iran may be persuaded to change course.
The calling for the return to Islam entails the highest form of thinking, i.e. Political thought. It is the amalgamation of legislative (Quran & Sunnah), Rational, and Scientific thoughts on world events to deduce a (practical) political solution. To safeguard Islam and Muslims from their enemies it requires keeping a constant watchful eye on every political episode around the globe.
In future, for the soon-to-return Islamic State to prevail it will also require closing the gap between military means and strategic ends. The Islamic State must bridge the gap between what the Islamic army is asked to do and what they are capable of doing and must always rely on its ideological valour. The United State’s army for all its advanced technological sophistication has yet to accomplish any of its assigned missions since the fallout of 9/11. Indeed it has failed to meet any of its objectives like taking the battle to the enemy, disrupting his plans, and confronting the worst threats before they emerge. Henceforth, the western world must now prepare for how to live side by side with the inevitably emerging Islamic state.
Also, a nuclear energy policy must be formulated now not later. It must exclusively be guided by the Islamic viewpoint. This will help the Islamic State project military power beyond its borders, while providing security independence from potential threat.
The sense of Ummah, this collective revulsion it has about its situation must be concentrated on establishing Political Islam. The State was the only thing that brought guaranteed protection against threats, insecurity and enemy hostilities for the Prophet during his time, it will surely bring the same for his Ummah today. Unity under one State is the solution i.e. Islam must combine its ideological strength and military power to end this unjust war waged on its lands and upon its people.
“It doesn’t matter how powerful you are militarily, you cannot destroy ideas with bullets and bombs, especially ideas rooted in the need for self-determination, justice and political rights.” Alan Harts, former Vietnam correspondent for ITN.