After Iraq – The debate regarding further US attacks is not ‘If’ but ‘When’

<a href=www.khilafah.com>khilafah.com uploaded 11 May 2003 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Following the tumultuous and emotional events in Iraq over recent weeks, a debate is now underway as to what the future holds for the Islamic world and its 1.5 billion people. It is certainly important for Muslims to learn the important lessons of the past weeks. The failure of secularism, dictatorship and political integration in the West being the key ones, but not to the extent of over elaborating, such that depression and defeatism sets in to their hearts and minds. The Muslim Ummah has shown in her glorious history that she has overcome greater setbacks than the occupation of Baghdad in 2003. The current zealots from Washington only follow a long line of crusading armies who even after initial occupations of Muslim land have always eventually met their ends in the hot deserts of the Middle East. Thus the important challenge for Muslims who have been tasked by the Creator of this universe with the guardianship of mankind is to look forward so as to take advantage of the numerous new opportunities that have arisen within the international landscape.

To be able to adequately answer the key question of whether Iraq is a pre-cursor for future attacks, we need to seek to understand how all the individual constituents of this conflict fit together. We need to understand the dynamics of what the current US administration is up to, how do weapons of mass destruction fit into the overall equation and the impact if any of the oil question.

The real agenda in Iraq is certainly to colonise it, as America and Britain do not go and fight wars or spend billions of dollars on an altruistic whim for the betterment of ordinary people, but this is a small part of a wider agenda, which is not restricted to Iraq. Issues such as 'liberation' are a convenient pretext to hide more sinister motives and while matters such as Saddam, oil, reconstruction contracts and WMD's are important contributory factors they are merely tactical in nature, the real strategic agenda is to defeat the remaining rival to Western hegemony and economic control, i.e. political Islam which is manifested in the call for the Islamic State (Khilafah).

Influential neo-conservative journals such as the Weekly Standard have been making it very clear as to what the agenda should be. Jeffrey Ball a journalist reported in March that the administration has in mind a "world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism, a war of such reach and magnitude [that] the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top Al Qaeda members should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future." Charles Hill an ex-chief of staff of the State Department in the Reagan administration also stated recently "The states of the region [the Middle East] are jeopardised by bad governance and an Islamist ideology that would abolish states and re-create the caliphate." Michael Leedon writing for the Neo-Conservative American Enterprise Institute stated, "The battle for Iraq is drawing to a close, but the war against terrorism has only just begun. As President Bush has said this will be a long war involving many terrorist organisations and many countries that support them. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was never the most threatening." But what exactly is the new neo-conservative doctrine, which is now exerting such influence on the US administration?

The new Neo-Conservative foreign policy

The Neo-conservatives who now dominate the current US administration have departed from many of the post 1945 US foreign policy doctrines of containment, multilateralism and amoralism. The philosophical underpinnings of the neo-conservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They tend to read reality in terms of the failure of the 1930's (Munich) versus the success of the 1980's (the fall of the Berlin Wall). In their view, the invasion of Iraq was not merely or even primarily about getting rid of Saddam Hussein, nor was it really about WMD's though their elimination is seen to be important. Rather the neo-conservatives saw the invasion as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East. Prior to the war, hawks within the administration made it clear as to what the real agenda was. In February, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq, the US would "deal with" Iran, Syria and North Korea. After the war ended, Rumsfeld, Powell and President Bush himself all attacked Syria on the pretext of the latter's alleged support of the Saddam regime, its WMD programme and its hosting of anti-Israeli groups. Joshua Micah Marshall writing in April's issue of The Washington monthly in a revealing article titled 'Practice to deceive' makes several points about the new Neo-conservative philosophy. He states that the Neo-Cons believe that the Middle East today is like the Soviet Union was 30 years ago. They believe Political Islam is the contemporary equivalent of communism and fascism and that radicals with potential access to WMD's are the equivalent of the Soviet arsenal pointed at the US during the cold war. Furthermore, they believe that the primary cause behind the Islamic radicals is the Muslim world and especially the Arab world's endemic despotism, corruption, poverty and economic stagnation and that there is a nexus linking burgeoning terrorism and mounting anti-semitism with repressive but nominally 'Pro-American' regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They believe repressive regimes channel dissent into the mosques, where the 'hopeless' and the 'disenfranchised' are taught a brand of Islam that allegedly combines anti-modernism, anti-Americanism and a worship of violence. Unable to overthrow their own autocratic rulers, the masses turn their fury against the foreign power that finances the corrupt regimes that attempt to maintain stability and access to oil, namely the US and her allies. Therefore they believe trying to manage the dysfunctional Islamic world as Clinton attempted is therefore foolish, unproductive and dangerous as détente was with the Soviets, nor is it necessary, given the unparalleled power of the United States has currently. The Neo-Cons believe therefore that a full-scale confrontation between the United States and political Islam is inevitable and also desirable, so they think why not have it now on their terms rather than later on their adversary's terms. He also argues that the hawks have been watching with fury while Kissingerians such as Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell left Saddam's regime alone in 1991, they sat and watched while attacks took place on US embassies, military installations and finally on September 11th the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Though the neo-cons do not dictate all US policy, they enjoy a formidable influence through holding many of the key positions of power, such as the Vice Presidency and the Pentagon, as well as strong influence within the State Department.

Marshall argues that the hawk's grand plan is that imposing a democratic government in Iraq will lead to a change in the political dynamic within the region. Palestinians seeing their Iraqi brethren enjoying freedom will seek to then reform the Palestinian authority, a democratic Iraq will weaken the mullahs in Iran thus leading to more democratisation. Having democracies in Iran, Iraq and Turkey the heartlands of Islam will then destabilise the Gulf sheikhs and will weaken the autocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Countries that resist like Syria will, if need be, given the Iraq treatment and invaded without any questions asked, regardless of what the British Prime Minister may think. The imposition of Western formulated concepts such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law will then lead to a reconstruction of values within society leading to more 'western values' and a shift and disincentive away from political Islam and anti-Americanism. If however democracy brings unpalatable results (ala Algeria i.e. the wrong people come in), the hawks believe military means is always an option that can easily be put into action. These views are corroborated even by democratic leaning think tanks, such as the Brookings Institute, where a recent report titled 'The Dilemmas facing US Policy towards the Islamic world' by Dr Peter Singer makes the following point; '"The general alienation, lack of accountability and lack of political or economic success helped create the context for the attacks of 9-11 and the often-shocking responses to them in the Islamic world. More importantly, even if the US is able to run-down the leaders of al Qaida, the underlying conditions that facilitated the group's emergence and popularity - political oppressions and economic marginilisation will still be present. For these reasons reform [of the autocratic nations] may have to be an American strategic priority."

The analysis is not restricted to sceptics such as Marshall or Singer; influential neo-conservatives are not shy to propagate their own views on this new plan. William Kristol editor of the right wing Weekly Standard and who is considered to exercise considerable influence on President Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld stated in a recent interview with Haaretz, "The neo-conservative doctrine maintains that the problem with the Middle East is the absence of democracy and freedom. It follows that the only way to block people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to disseminate democracy and freedom. To change radically the cultural and political dynamics that creates such people. So that really is what the war is about (i.e. Iraq). It is being fought to consolidate a new world order to create a new Middle East." Kristol also states that, "The choice before us is between extremist Islam, secular dictatorship and democracy. And because of September 11th if the US does not shape the world in its image, the world will shape the US in its own image." Charles Krauthammer syndicated columnist and Fox TV panellist (Washington Post, Time, Weekly Standard) also comments in the same Haaretz article echoing recent remarks made by President Bush that "the Iraq war is really the beginning to of a gigantic historical experiment whose purpose is to do in the Arab world what was done in Germany and Japan after World War 2." Welcome therefore to the new America Empire in the Middle East, the real ideological plan for the region and which is far from the announced policy of liberation.

So in the light of this, what has been and should be the reaction of Muslims in the West? The meek response of government-friendly Muslim groups in Britain and America, as well as major mosques in the light of this new doctrine is indeed galling. For years these groups naively argued that changing the system from within by voting for kufr parties was the correct strategy for Muslims. They bickered passionately in 1997, that Blair was better than Major because he was more Pro-Kashmir, that Bush was more Pro-Muslim than Gore in 2000 (because the latter's Vice Presidential nominee was Jewish). They have now seen their strategy crumble before their very eyes. The same groups who for years enjoyed and still enjoy supreme patronage from the Western governments have seen their influence evaporate quicker than you can say 'Vote Labour', and who still today have the audacity to call allied soldiers who fought in Iraq as 'our boys', and even asked us to remember British soldiers in 'our prayers' while the latter were killing Iraqis in Umm Qasr and Basra. These groups are still calling for a central UN role in Iraq despite everyone but them realising long ago that the UN is simply like them, a mere tool of Western foreign policy. Their role is simply to act as mouthpieces of Western Governments to sanitise the pure call of Islam and to divert Muslims into fruitless actions, such as further integration, while their political masters pursue the real political agenda as outlined above in the Islamic world with minimum fuss from Muslims at home.

The correct response which the Western Governments and their mouthpieces within the West hate to hear is that Muslims in Britain and the West are part of a wider global Ummah, this is their true and only bond, and not some kind of assimilated second class status within the host community. The Muslim world has tried every other kind of political system that the human mind has formulated, whether it be monarchical, (Jordan and Saudi Arabia) Democracy (as seen in Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan) or secular dictatorships (Iraq and Syria), all have failed miserably as all have permitted Western colonialism to continue. It is imperative for the Muslims in the West to help their brothers and sisters in the Islamic world reclaim their political destiny by establishing the Islamic Khilafah. It is only the Khilafah that can stand up to US and British hegemony as the neo-conservatives in Washington realise only too well. It is only the Khilafah that will protect the blood, honour and property of the Muslims and it is only this state that can demonstrate a new ideological vision for mankind, which compares like a shining beacon to the bankrupt, colonising and insipid civilisation that western Capitalism offers. With respect to WMD, a radical approach is required not the sanitised weak and cowardly response advocated by the Government sponsored Muslim groups.

WMD

Stripping Iraq of WMD is indeed a key factor within the West's strategy of fracturing the link of Political Islam and WMD's. America has no problem in non-Islamic countries like France, Israel or India having WMD's, but countries like Iraq, Iran and increasingly Pakistan should certainly not be in the WMD club. The key point to make, which has been overlooked by most commentators is that the West (including France and Germany), is that it intends to strip Iraq of WMD's and not just Saddam's regime. This is an important point as any post war US imposed Iraqi constitution will be a WMD free zone, similar to Japan and Germany after World War 2. This gives the complete lie to the propaganda that argues that Saddam is the target and not the people of Iraq. Also there is a clear double standard here with how the main Western alliance, that America led, operated in the past. NATO during the cold war possessed thousands of nuclear missiles to offset a conventional superiority of their then rival, the Soviet Union. This reinforces the argument that every nation who seeks leadership and has security needs, is entitled to, and should acquire nuclear weapons, especially the Muslim world that currently faces an imbalance in qualitative conventional weaponry. The precedence of Iraq, if not stopped, could easily be used on countries such as Pakistan, Iran and Syria in due course as many of the neo-conservatives in the administration have already advocated. Therefore the clear lesson for the Muslim world is that it should develop and proliferate its own WMD as fast as possible if it is to deter any future US and British attacks. This not only requires political unity in the Islamic World as the shariah obliges but a clear strategy to share, develop and build additional conventional and non-conventional military technologies. A powerful Islamic state unified with an overwhelming military and an arsenal of WMD's is the only vehicle that can therefore defend Muslims from further western aggression. However economic strength is also a necessity for Muslims, such as the control of oil, which could be equally as devastating when coupled with a sincere leadership and political astuteness.

Oil

Many have said that attacking Iraq was all about the American pursuit of oil, whereas the US administration and her British ally claim it had nothing to do with oil. The truth lies somewhere in between. The control of oil and its impact on energy security and trade are important and significant components of the US and its allies' national security policies. The protection of the Iraqi Ministry of Oil and other oil facilities, while all other buildings were being looted and burned, by US forces in Baghdad, was not just a mere coincidence. Therefore to say the attack on Iraq has nothing to do with oil is simplistic to say the least. Observing some facts can evidence this:

Fact 1: America currently imports over half its oil consumption of 20 million barrels of oil per day.

Fact 2: The current imported level of 10m barrels per day is set to rise to 16m barrels by 2020 according to a report authored by Dick Cheney in 2001.

Fact 3: OPEC members who currently account for 40% of the current oil production possess 75% of the provable oil reserves.

Fact 4: The highest provable oil reserves are present within Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait and Iran, all countries present in the Middle East, not ignoring significant reserves in Qatar and Libya.

Fact 5: As reserves become exhausted in Russia, America and the North Sea, OPEC countries will account for more of the global oil production rising to over 55% by 2020.

Fact 6: Unlike the oil beneath Alaska's frozen parks, or the oil locked in landlocked Central Asia, Gulf crude is readily accessible and at less than $1.50 a barrel some of the cheapest in the world to produce.

Fact 7: Control of Gulf Oil ensures control of key resources of main trade competitors, who are more reliant on the Middle East for oil than America is currently, due to her diversified oil supply from countries like Venezuela, Mexico and Nigeria. "Controlling the Persian Gulf translates into control over Europe Japan and China, its like having our hand on the spigot", says Michael Klare Professor of Peace and World Security at Hampshire college.

Fact 8: US security policy states that if any outside force gains control of the Persian Gulf then this will be met by any means necessary (Carter Doctrine 1980). Robert Ebel of the think tank the Centre for Strategic and International Studies puts it more bluntly when he says, "if the ruling family is ousted [in Saudi], if they decide to shut off the oil supply, we have to go in," Rand ex-strategist Laurent Murawiec goes further advocating an immediate "US occupation of Saudi oil fields" calling the Saudi regime "a kernel of evil".

Fact 9: Even before September 11th and after the first Gulf war, America insisted it have military bases and 'pre -positioned' equipment in most of the countries of the region.

Fact 10: Leading American think tanks are already calling for the privatisation of the Iraqi oil industry. "One of the major problems with the Persian Gulf is that the means of production are in the hands of the state". Rob Sobhani an oil-industry consultant told an American Enterprise Institute conference last autumn in Washington, "The beginning of liberal democracy can be achieved if you take the means of production out of the hands of the state." Ahmed Chalabi the Pentagon's new 'Iraqi Hamid Karzai' puts it more bluntly when he says "American oil companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil." This is reiterated by a leading neo-conservative strategist, Robert Kagan, who recently told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. When we have had economic problems it's been caused by disruption in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

After all of this does anyone really believe that after Iraq the US and her allies have no further plans for hegemony? We have already seen companies like Halliburton and Bechtel, who are close to the US administration already receive lucrative post war spoils. In terms of future actions against other Muslim states, it is indeed a question of 'when' and 'whether it can succeed' and not 'if'. The Muslim Ummah may not be able to stop the 'when' but she has more than the capability with Allah's (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) help to decide on the success of any future attack.

Sajjad Khan

Source: Khilafah Magazine May 2003 Edition