Al-Qaeda – the United States' Invisible Foe

The Current Discussion: CIA Director Michael Hayden says al-Qaeda is more or less defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should the Bush administration take credit? How much?

When wars are fought with an adversary who is largely invisible, how can one make the assertion that the war is over? CIA Director Michael Hayden says the war against al-Qaeda is over –“more or less.” Now if ever there was a wishy-washy statement, that is one. The question now is, is it “more” or is it “less”? The entire gambit of media output coming from the Bush Administration on Iraq, Afghanistan and indeed the al-Qaeda is so distorted and mixed up. At the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq. In the ensuing months, as the management of Iraq literally fell apart under the worst public management ever done by Mr. Paul Bremen and others, an insurgency against the U.S. flared up. This was, and is, a domestic movement, nothing to do with al-Qaeda or others. While some attacks have been attributed to and even claimed by the al-Qaeda of Iraq, this was largely a splinter element. Thus, to defeat the al-Qaeda is not consequential in Iraq. What is consequential is the larger issue of managing the country and bringing about order in a country where insensitivity to the aspirations of the people has led to the worsening of the situation.

In Afghanistan, while the al-Qaeda may well have existed and, perhaps, still do, the issue of law and order is more complex. I have no doubt that while the Taliban were hated by the people, the fact they reinstated order and stopped the internal civil war is what the Afghan people remember as more important. Hamid Karzai has had a tremendous task on his hands. Whether he can restore order has to depend on his handling of the tribal and social fabric of a difficult country – hopefully doing it without foreign troops propping him up.

I have always argued that the underlying problems of these societies have to be resolved, not just through cosmetic changes at the top or on the surface. This means bringing economic well-being to a broader spectrum of people, accepting that the aspirations of each might be different from what the U.S. may want. Yes, al-Qaeda may well be a matter of concern for the U.S. Administration, but one has to understand that within these societies the issues are much larger and more acute than they might expect. One has to admit that mismanagement of these societies was going on well before the U.S. intervened. However, if the purpose of the intervention was to make things better, this has been a total failure and the result is clear – we’ve allowed a destabilized society to be exploited by all factions in this invisible war.

Internet No Automatic Revolution

From my Postglobal piece

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/05/internet_no_automatic_revoluti.html



The Current Discussion: Egypt has detained a number of its citizens for using the social networking site Facebook to organize anti-government protests. What online sites are most effective in influencing politics -- and is the impact positive?

In the context of Egypt, the government’s reaction to the use of sites like Facebook to influence politics within the country forms a broader pattern of media control. In essence Facebook, Hi5, and other social networking communities do get the wrath of governments on the basis of alleged erosion of 'social values'. This is a delicate subject for most of the emerging world, but I am not entirely sure that Facebook, per se, is known for being a platform for political dissent. For instance, the entire protest against General Musharraf's handling of Pakistan’s Judiciary, while absolutely high-handed, has not been reflected in places like Facebook. Yet blogs, other internet sites and even email e-blogs have become more effective mainly because they remain more targeted.

As far as the internet media is concerned, it’s becoming more powerful, especially with the ease of net traffic and of course more flexibility in content presentation. However, in a number of cases even the more serious political platforms on the internet have questionable effectiveness as instruments of direct change. Burma, Tibet, Iraq, the Arab World, Israel’s behavior and American insensitivity to world opinion – all have figured in various prestigious platforms. The result has been that while people may end up being better informed, I am not sure they are willing to do much more about it than perhaps an occasional protest email.

Take the example of PostGlobal itself. While there is no doubt this forum has a respected readership, there is perhaps, judging by some reader comments, a tendency to only read the headline and the first paragraph and then leave a comment. (To use my last post as an example, some readers felt I was asking only the Arabs to accept Israel, when I was additionally arguing that Israel has to stop its inhuman treatment of the Arabs and even quoted Amnesty International.) So on balance, the situation is not as simple as saying that if it’s on the Internet, it will influence opinion. It is more likely that it will shape some opinions, but unless the leadership or the audience that needs to act is really going to take serious note of the media on the net, I would argue that it will still be some time before we can say that Internet-based opinions matter. Perhaps this is because of the fractured nature of the Internet, and because I can hardly see General Musharraf, President Bush or Hosni Mubarak waking up each morning and reading the hundreds of blogs out in cyberspace.

Nevertheless, for those who care and do understand the writers’ complete arguments, there is a case that it can provide the basis for interaction and perhaps eventually action.

An Orphaned Tibet

The Current Discussion: Protests over the Olympic torch relay have led to a crackdown in Tibet. Is Tibetan independence a lost cause? If not, what should its supporters do to win it?

Tibet's plight is not just about the sadness and loss of country that Tibetans feel - it is a constant reminder of the lack of a moral stance that countries have on this issue. World riots over the Olympic torch merely highlight the world's enthusiasm for showing they do not agree with the Chinese government. This is a message that is not getting to the governments, which continue to behave as if there is no problem with Tibet. There is no second thoughts about the fact that Tibet was invaded by the Chinese, albeit decades ago. There seems to be a suggestion that since the takeover of Tibet happened so long ago, it might as well be considered a lost cause.

The upcoming Olympics raise China's profile and hence the urgency to show the world that not all agree with how the Tibetan issue has been handled by the community of governments. While calls for its boycott are equated with the boycott of the Moscow Olympics over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, most athletes and governments don't really want to create a fuss over the continued Chinese occupation of Tibet. However, there are different faces to this protest; perhaps taking part in the Olympics but boycotting the opening ceremony. Imagine the Chinese televising the opening ceremony, with only the Chinese team in attendance?

Realistically, the Tibetan cause is lost in terms of pressure, sympathy or action from any of the governments that can exert even moral pressure on China, not that such moral pressure work on the mind of the Chinese leadership. However, it is obvious that people around the world do care about the Tibetan issue; this is where the current protests come into play to try and raise the interest in this lost cause. Tibet has no strategic value for the Americans, British or the French, and perhaps their need not to offend China far outweighs their moral responsibilities here. In a sense, the current protests around the high-profile Olympics are the last chance for people who support the Tibetan cause to do something about it. If they fail, the issue will recede back to being a footnote in the newspapers and in our minds.

Arabs Must Accept Israel

My PostGlobal piece http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/05/arabs_must_accept_israel.html
The Current Discussion:Israel celebrated its 60th birthday last week. Will it survive to celebrate its 100th?

This may sound shocking coming from a Pakistani living in Dubai, but the reality is that Arabs must learn to accept Israel in their midst. While a great deal is said about Iranian leadership and Hamas wanting the destruction of Israel, if we move beyond the rhetoric, the country is there to stay.

Israel has come so far, irrespective of the controversies that surrounded its creation and its position on the Middle East political map. It will indeed make it to its 100th birthday. What will affect Arab perceptions of Israel is the way the country conducts itself. Yes, there are acts against Israel which are violent, and there are acts by Israel that create the conditions for violence to gain steam. But the issue of forcibly taking Arab lands is real: part of the inherent problem lies in claims that since an Arab farmer does not have proof of land ownership, the State of Israel can then take it.
I am not suggesting that violence on the part of the Arabs is an answer, but there is enough liberal thought on both sides to acknowledge that both have done wrongs and that these need to be stopped and then corrected wherever possible. There is a consensus among most NGOs that Israel's track record on human rights in the Occupied Territories is appalling; its surprising that a people who suffered the Holocaust at the hands of the Nazis could themselves treat people with such indignity in their own lands. This is of course not a reason to wish for an end to Israel, but more an appeal to the voices of reason on both the Arab and the Israeli sides, to bring about tolerance, acceptance and fairness into the equation.

Thus, the question is not whether Israel will make it to its 100th birthday, but in what manner will it conduct itself as it does so? In a 2004 report on Israel, Amnesty International claimed:

"…abuses committed by the Israeli army constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes, including unlawful killings; extensive and wanton destruction of property; obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel; torture; and the use of Palestinians as human shields."

People will suggest that I am ignoring Arab violence against Israel. I am not. I am merely asking critics be fair and look ahead and see that it takes two hands to clap. I wish Israel well, as I do all its neighbors.

Love

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/02/stronger_love_for_troubled_tim.html

Stronger Love For Troubled Times
The Current Discussion: For Valentine’s Day, this question: What is the future of love?

Although our moderators asked this question in the interest of lightening up the debate, it comes across somewhat like asking as to the future of global warming, or the future of the U.S. economy. Perhaps our approach to life, love and happiness is too stunted to consider the esoteric elements of life anymore; is it in earnestness that we have commercialized Valentine’s Day and Christmas?

I am happy to report that at the most basic level, the future of love is there to stay, though in what shape or form is a matter of conjecture when it comes to the perspectives from which we approach it. But then truly love is, in its essence, a process, composed of a myriad of passions which bring a procession of expectations, joys, laughter, intimacy and much more to our heart, with the occasional heartache, too. To a jilted lover, love then is masochistic, to a newly loved it’s a joyous moment promised forever. In either case love between humans will remain, and for as long as humankind exists. Love is without a true gender; it is in its form nothing else then the process of loving through the expression of emotions. How society becomes more tolerant will dictate the more varied expressions of love, some to the dismay of many who would oppose same-sex marriage.

Love is, in the end, the process by which you realize your best in the other person. It’s an act of giving, and even though at a societal level we are faced with more cliched hatred then ever before, there is a higher probability that at the personal level love will sustain and perhaps in these troubled times grow stronger. I hope we as humans will not forget to love. As I once wrote to my wife, in a poem:

I have stepped forward
I have capitulated
And if this love were to annihilate me

Gladly shall I be its servile servant
For a soul surrendered to love
Is better than servitude to angered aloneness.

Hijab Politics

From my PostGlobal contribution

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/02/hijab_politics.html

Hijab Politics
I come from a tribal family from Pakistan and was brought up to respect the religious wishes and inclinations of all people. This meant that my mother and sisters never wore the veil, and even when my mother visited the tribal areas for the first time in 1942 and wanted to wear a veil, my father told her she should not wear it if she did not wish to. My uncles and aunts were initially shocked by my mother turning up in a sari and no veil, to which my father replied that religion was a personal matter.

Thus, all the noise in Europe over the issue of the veil seems to me a bit overblown. I personally do not believe that the veil in modern times is necessary, and as societies modernize and educate their people they will realize that the issue of a veil is more to veil one’s intentions rather than a simple cover up. In equal measure, I agree that Muslims in Europe and America can modernize and not necessarily Westernize. Yet when such societies are put under siege, with media pressure to abandon what they think is important, there is a tendency to drag one’s heels and avoid change. The freedom-loving sense within me says that if in a democratic and free system one religion is allowed to practice its beliefs, so must the others.

I feel a personal sense of disappointment that the Turkish parliament has decided to change a secular tradition in Turkey, but that feeling has to be weighed with the fact that this was an act of parliament and not an arbitrary decision by a mullah. Although as secular democrats we may find it as a loss to our ideals of freedom, we must also accept that this seems to be what the Turkish people voted for. In that sense, accepting it is vitally important, as is the hope that if indeed the people did not want it then the rule will be dissolved through the action of future parliaments. What is important is that the veil is not imposed, but is a matter of choice.

The issue of the veil is more contentious within ostensibly Christian countries, where Muslim minorities may wish to wear the veil (as was the case in France) and laws are passed to take away that individual choice. In UAE, where I live, there are Christian churches on land donated by the government and there is a freedom given to the various faiths. I do hope that other Muslim countries, especially Saudi Arabia, will eventually adopt the same attitude. Throughout history there are examples of coexistence that stand out, i.e. Spain under the Muslims. Passing laws that are targeted against religions never works, as we have seen in history, and in the same vein all that the Turkish government has done is granted the freedom of choice to women to either wear the veil or not. I would hope that in the long run, the veil will not be imposed but will continue to be a matter of choice. Choice is, after all, the premise of any democratic system, however we may disagree with it. Thus, to me, forcing women to wear the veil is also wrong.

America's economic barometer

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/01/us_an_economic_barometer.html


America's Economic Barometer
The Current Discussion: If countries around the world are doing so well economically, why are they still catching a cold when the United States sneezes?

In a more interdependent world, we simply can’t ignore the economic wellbeing of the world’s largest economy. A further slide in the U.S. cannot remain an isolated event. The U.S. dollar remains the major reserve currency, with all the major commodities being priced in U.S. dollars – so it is hardly surprising that the weakness of the U.S. financial system will have international ramifications.

A major fall of the U.S. dollar or its stock market will more than likely affect other economies as their financial assets in U.S. markets contract. That spells trouble for economies, as their asset base is mostly denominated in U.S. dollars. However, one has to admit that the economic landscape is changing in large measure as other economies are expanding, and while they would be affected by a U.S. slowdown it does not mean a compete breakdown will occur. The emergence of China and India as two major economic players, not far from becoming major economic powers, implies that the economic balance is changing. However, these markets are more likely to attract capital investments into their manufacturing and service sector and not their stock markets, mainly because it is hard for them to compete with the efficiency of the U.S. market.

However, the immediate impact of U.S. stock market changes is more a barometer to which other markets react, as is the case today. However, in the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council, i.e. the rich oil producers) generally the economic performance is relatively immune to a U.S. recession, even though their stock markets do have knee-jerk reactions. The question remains: in a world where globalization seems to be the direction of economic progress, will the woes of the U.S. dominate economic performance? Perhaps for some time to come the financial impact will be there, as the U.S. dollar remains a major reserve currency and perhaps the largest financial market. However, as other markets mature the direct impact will be minimized (though never really absent) as the impact of globalization will also mean that other economies like Europe, China and India will also be able to impact global economic performance.