Perils in Pakistan

Of relevance to the current situation in north-west Pakistan, there's a piece in the latest NYRB by William Dalrymple, "Pakistan in Peril", reviewing Ahmed Rashid's "Descent into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia". He quotes Rashid:

In 2008, American power lies shattered.... US credibility lies in ruins.... Ultimately the strategies of the Bush administration have created a far bigger crisis in South and Central Asia than existed before 9/11.

And adds:

Eight years of neocon foreign policies have been a spectacular disaster for American interests in the Islamic world, leading to the rise of Iran as a major regional power, the advance of Hamas and Hezbollah, the wreckage of Iraq, with over two million external refugees and the ethnic cleansing of its Christian population, and now the implosion of Afghanistan and Pakistan, probably the most dangerous development of all.

So, if we didn't know already, it's clear enough where Dalrymple - and Rashid - think the blame lies. It's all about root causes:

In his new book, Rashid is particularly perceptive in his examination of the causes of terrorism in the region, and the way that the Bush administration sought to silence real scrutiny of what was actually causing so many people in South and Central Asia violently to resist American influence. Serious analysis was swept under the carpet, making impossible

any discussion or understanding of the "root causes" of terrorism—the growing poverty, repression, and sense of injustice that many Muslims felt at the hands of their US-backed governments, which in turn boosted anti-Americanism and Islamic extremism.... Bush did more to keep Americans blind to world affairs than any American leader in recent history.

Instead, terrorism was presented by the administration as a result of a "sudden worldwide anti-Americanism rather than a result of past American policy failures."

It is of course easy enough to document US mistakes in the region, starting perhaps with the support of the mujahideen back in the early 80s when the Soviets were struggling to hold on to Afghanistan, but though that policy reached its peak with Reagan, it began under Jimmy Carter - not exactly one of the neo-cons. Still, throw in Israel and you're always going to be on safe ground:

Bush's speech to Congress, claiming that the world hated America because "they hate our freedoms—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote," ignored the political elephant standing in the middle of the living room—US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, with its long history of unpopular interventions in the Islamic world and its uncritical support for Israel's steady colonization of the West Bank and violent repression of the Palestinians.

This is all familiar territory, and the back-and-forths of this particular debate are well enough known by now. But then he goes from the merely contentious to the downright grotesque:

It was partly the intense hostility to Islam emanating from both the press and the government of the United States that made it so difficult for moderates in the Islamic world to counter the propaganda of the extremists. How could the moderates dispute the notion that America was engaged in a civilizational war against Islam when this was clearly something many in the administration, and their supporters in the press, did indeed believe? It also had a strongly negative effect on policy decisions. By building up public hysteria and presenting a vision of an Islamic world eaten up with irrational hatred of America, an unspoken feeling was generated among Americans that, as Rashid puts it,

if they hated us, then Americans should hate Muslims back and retaliate not just against the terrorists but against Islam in general. By generating such fears it was virtually impossible to gain American public attention and support for long-term nation building.

This is the argument that we've been hearing from, precisely, the extremists - the argument that the US and its allies in Afghanistan, in Iraq, everywhere, are in truth not just fighting against murderous fascistic theocrats in the shape of the Taliban, or against al-Qaeda terrorists hell-bent on a new caliphate, or against a Baathist dictator guilty of horrendous crimes and with a deadly messianic glint in his eye, but are fighting against all Muslims. This despite everything that Bush and Blair and all the rest have said, despite all the efforts that have been made - often enough misguided - to reach out to the so-called moderate Muslim majority. To read this - confirmation from a leading journal of liberal Western opinion that the whole war on terror business is indeed, as so many Muslim clerics fulminating in their Friday sermons have claimed, a war against Islam - is, well, let's just say it's disappointing.

At the end of the article Dalrymple lists the factors which, according to him, are going to determine the future. First - well naturally - the US must change its policy. The second "of course, has to be reform of the ISI and the Pakistani military". See how easy it's going to be? Then:

A third factor, which Rashid does not discuss in this book, is somehow finding a way to stop the madrasa- inspired and Saudi-financed advance of Wahhabi Islam, which is directly linked to the spread of anti-Western radicalization. On my last visit to Pakistan, it was very clear that while the Wahhabi-dominated North-West was on the verge of falling under the sway of the Taliban, the same was not true of the Sufi-dominated province of Sindh, which currently is quieter and safer than it has been for some time. Here in southern Pakistan, on the Indian border, Sufi Islam continues to act as a powerful defense against the puritanical fundamentalist Islam of the Wahhabi mullahs, which supports intolerance of all other faiths.

Visiting the popular Sufi shrine of Sehwan in Sindh last month, I was astonished by the strength of feeling expressed against the mullahs by the Sindhis who look to their great saints such a Lal Shabaz Qalander for guidance, and hate the Wahhabis who criticize the popular Islam of the Sufi saints as a form of shirk, or heresy: "All these mullahs should be damned," said one old Sufi I talked to in the shrine. "They read their books but they never understand the true message of love that the prophet preached. Men so blind as them cannot even see the shining sun." A friend who visited shortly before me met a young man from Swat, in the North-West Frontier Province, who said he had considered joining the militants, but their anti-Sufi attitude had put him off: "No one can deny us our respected saints of God," he said.

The Saudis have invested intensively in Wahhabi madrasas in the North-West Frontier Province and Punjab, with dramatic effect, radically changing the religious culture of an entire region. The tolerant Sufi culture of Sindh has been able to defy this imported Wahhabi radicalism. The politically moderating effect of Sufism was recently described in a RAND Corporation report recommending support for Sufism as an "open, intellectual interpretation of Islam." Here is an entirely indigenous and homegrown Islamic resistance movement to fundamentalism, with deep roots in South Asian culture. Its importance cannot be overestimated. Could it have a political effect in a country still dominated by military forces that continue to fund and train jihadi groups? It is one of the few sources of hope left in the increasingly bleak political landscape of this strategically crucial country.

Somehow finding a way to stop the madrasa- inspired and Saudi-financed advance of Wahhabi Islam, which is directly linked to the spread of anti-Western radicalization? Hold on, though: isn't it all the fault of the US? And are we surprised that Rashid doesn't discuss the Wahhabi effect in his book? But yes, this is interesting. The Saudi-inspired spread of extreme Wahhabi-style Islam is undoubtedly one of the most crucial, and most depressing, factors in the Muslim world today, from Indonesia and Malaysia to the Middle East. Certainly the resistance of more moderate indigenous interpretations of Islam could be crucial. But it's not going to be helped by Western commentators busily promoting the idea that every policy of America and its allies - all that talk about spreading freedom and democracy - is motivated at bottom by a hatred of Muslims.

Comments

[sackcloth and ashes]

This is a travesty of a review. Rashid's book (which I've read) is fiercely critical of US policy towards Central Asia since 9/11, but Rashid's main charge is not that the USA and its allies were wrong to intervene in Afghanistan and to declare a 'war' against Al Qaeda, but that specific policies were flawed. His main criticisms are (1) that the USA and NATO missed the chance to stabilise Afghanistan by focussing on security and development after the fall of the Taliban, (2) that the war on Iraq was at best a distraction of time and effort and at worst a major strategic blunder, (3) that insufficient effort has been expended on promoting good governance and eradicating corruption in Afghanistan, and (4) that the Bush administration coddled Musharraf rather than forcing him and his government to stop meddling in Afghanistan and to promoted democratisation at home.

Rashid does not oppose Western intervention in Afghanistan. He's arguing that the 'war on terror' should be prosecuted more effectively, not that it shouldn't be fought at all. And he is also blaming Pakistani politicians, the military (notably ISI) and the mullahs for the mess that Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia is in. As far as he is concerned it is his own country, not the Americans, who bear the main responsibility for the troubles in this region.

Dalrymple has distorted the content of Rashid's book to fit his blinkered preconceptions. This is a disgrace.

[Mick H]

Interesting to hear from someone who's actually read Rashid's book. Thanks for that.

[Peter]

"But while laying part of the blame for the current disaster on the 'arrogance and ignorance' of the American administration, Rashid is also well aware of the large share of responsibility that must be put at the door of Pakistan's army and its Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, or ISI."

This is directly quoted from the Dalrymple article.

[sackcloth and ashes]

Indeed, but the thrust of Dalrymple's article suggests that (1) Rashid blames the Americans overall, and (2) that he opposes intervention in Afghanistan. Both propositions are completely invalidated once you read the book.