10 March 2005

The Arabic Dilemma

In face of the New American Strategy

Dr. Mohamed Houni

Introduction

I proceeded to write this article in an attempt to offer a perspective that differs from the nationalistic point of view that has dominated the Arab scene for sometime. Unfortunately the Arab mindset is constantly on the lookout for conspiracies, and usually fails to recognize the dynamics of change in the world around us. Our approach to new issues is faulty and unscientific, our judgment is hasty and our conclusions are predetermined. We also tend to believe that a single factor is behind all social phenomena, an illogical thinking that is out of place in this new era.

So, let us set aside preconceived opinions and deceptive ideologies, and withhold judgment till we actually have time to examine the new questions carefully. We – the Arabs – should make an effort to accept the fact that there is more than one valid answer to our questions, and tolerate those that do not agree with our beliefs, instead of launching the usual vicious attack that entails accusations of betrayal and infidelity.

These days, the political speech of the Arab masses recognizes only dual notions: God’s side or the devil’s, patriotism or betrayal, right or wrong, virtue or vice, which means that we are completely blind to the rainbow-like diversity of ideologies ―a faulty logic with perilous consequences.

The Arab regimes today can be best described as oppressive, unjust and fanatic. Unfortunately, the same can apply to some of the elite intellectuals of our conflicted nation. We have frequently witnessed some of those seek the authorities’ help to crush their opponents. How many times did the regimes tyrannize one group of intellectuals to appease the other which holds more sway over the public opinion?. The autocratic regimes are the sole winner in this ideological warfare, as they use this bitter conflict to prolong their lifespan.

As we plead with the authorities to put an end to oppression and grant more freedom, we should urge the intellectuals to reconcile, resolve their conflicts amicably, and refrain from using the same coercive methods used by the regime. It is unthinkable that activists resort to suppression, an inexcusable attitude regardless of the type of beliefs of the other fellow activist. Symbolic suppression is no different than literal suppression, one of them is usually a prelude to the other, this was proved in many instances, for example: Aly Abdel Razek whose work and only source of income were targeted; the “fatwa” (Islamic opinion and license) issued by the “Azhar” condemning Naguib Mahfouz novel “Awlad Haretna” which was a preamble to the attack on his life; the Egyptian journalist Farag Fouda and the Sudanese Mahmoud Taha who were assassinated, and Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid who was forced out of his country—in addition to others who were mostly victim of ideological violence. Intellectuals should realize how dangerous it is to incite the regime against one other, and recognize that spiritual or material violence set the ground for a barbaric society. A civil society can not be established without a fair amount of tolerance and non-aggressive dialogue. How can we expect Arab citizens to follow the lead of those heroic figures who have turned out to be more oppressive than the current regimes are? Logically, they would not be willing to make big sacrifices just to replace one jailer for another – particularly if the new jailer has also monopolized the interpretation of the Divine Will.

Back to our topic, as mentioned in the beginning of this article, the Arabs do not realize that the world around them has changed after the end of the cold war, they also do not perceive the changes triggered by the events of September 11. They believe that the only change that took place was the emergence of a single supreme power, that the events of September 11 only prompted the U.S. to put its long-standing domination plans into effect, and will resort to the usual means in order to achieve this goal. Consequently, they can best deal with the current American strategies by copying what their predecessors did during the last five decades. The problem with this point of view lies in the fact that it has become the only acceptable view, and has totally conquered the political speech, which reflects badly on our Arab causes.

As new events unfold and History continues to evolve, we should consider all possible scenarios and take a new look at ourselves and the world around us. A true and valid understanding of “the other” requires that we actually see him for who he really is, and not as we wish him to be.

The Arabic political speech today is mostly ideological, reflecting an egotistical attitude, and consistently finding “the other” guilty of all sorts of wrong-doing. This speech has caused considerable damage, and its detrimental effect is evident in our present situation, isolated as we are from the rest of world, subject to the actions of others and unable to act ourselves. Our attempts to react have been desperate and suicidal, and only succeeded in aggravating our bleak situation—a situation that motivated me to write this presentation about the American strategy, from a totally new perspective, hoping that it will be granted a rational, and non hysterical criticism.

1. The American Strategy during the Cold War

Just as the Second World War reached its end, the world was startled by the onset of a new war between the allied forces groups which have only joined together to defeat the “axis” troops, but who were, nonetheless, engaged in an irreconcilable ideological dispute. Two different and conflicting blocs emerged, one governed by the communist ideology and led by the USSR, while the other embraced the liberal ideology and followed the lead of the United States of America. The key to win such war would have been the use of nuclear weapons -similar to what happened in the Second World War when the U.S. used nuclear bombs against Japan- in which case the price of American victory would have been the annihilation of entire populations. Barely out of the monstrous clutch of Hitler and Mussolini, not a soul could approve of another war, no matter how justified it might be, not to mention an unethical war between allies who fought together and lost millions of lives. In this context, an actual war, fought in the battlefield, was not possible. Instead, the allies of yesterday engaged in another type of war just as their armies reached Berlin, which was to be known as “The Cold War”.

The United States believed communism to be a menace against the liberal world which consisted of the US itself along with Western Europe. The management of such momentous threat posed a challenge to the U.S. On one hand, its European allies practiced a different type of democracy that involves multiple parties, unlike the Anglo-Saxon democracy that allows for dual parties only. Communist parties were deeply engaged in the political and social life in these countries, some of them were about to access power, and others were already ruling as part of a coalition—as was the case in France and Italy after the war. On the other hand, the Third World countries, struggling then for independence, considered Britain and France – America’s biggest allies – their historical colonial enemies. On the other side, the USSR gave its support to liberation movements, to the states who have just gained their independence and to the communist parties in Western Europe. The mighty opponents continued to exchange blows, engaging in a costly arms race and in proxy wars where other countries or militias fought on their behalf, as was the case in Vietnam where the U.S. was defeated or Afghanistan where the USSR was defeated. The huge expanses required severely debilitated the failing Soviet economy.

Our main concern - as we present this analysis – is to understand the cold war impact on the Arab World and vice-versa.

The majority of the Arab states were under occupation, and the remaining independent states had foreign military bases on their lands and high delegates undermining the state’s authority and dignity. During the Second World War, a number of battles were fought on Arab grounds, and the Arab colonies were dragged into this war as unwilling slaves, or were compelled to join the armies to escape miserable conditions and poverty. Hence some fanatics’ support to Hitler and the Nazis, as a reaction against colonization, hoping that Hitler’s victory will rid them of the hateful occupation—a typical emotional and unwise reaction, and an Arab pattern of thinking still in effect today.

Following the Second World War, the United States devised the “open door” policy, in an attempt to bridge the gap in the Middle East after the British and French colonization came to an end. This policy was an element of the American strategy, aiming to lead the new world in the post-war era, and effectively thwart the communist enemy chances—which explains the American warning issued to Britain and France during the Suez war in 1956.

The fight against communism remained a priority for the successive American administrations and the Central Intelligence Agency, to the point of becoming an obsession during the McArthur period, thus threatening the same values of human rights and liberties they were fighting to preserve.

The American strategy was formulated in the document # 86, issued by the National Security Council in April 1950. The document stated that the USSR is targeting the values of the free world whose survival depends on the outcome of the cold war. The United States, therefore, should carry on the fight against the Soviet enemy until it is defeated and completely stripped of its evil power. Obviously, the United States was not intending to just deter its Soviet opponent, but to subdue it completely.

This attitude can explain the failure of the Soviet endeavor to unite East and West Germany into one neutral state in 1952, since this union didn’t serve American purposes to overpower the Eastern bloc at that time. The United States and the West in general were not below using any type of weapon to achieve their goal, heedless of the cost – i.e. the end justifies the means.

2. The End Justifies the Means

This famous Machiavellian quote served as the basis of pragmatic non-ethical politics, and though disowned by all, is still used all over the world by those who strive to reach their goals. We can expect this Machiavellian approach to survive indefinitely as long as men persist on gaining power at the expense of their fellow humans. This concept will, unfortunately, continue to shape individual and collective behavior while hiding its unethical nature behind ideological masks.

Historical events prove that the United States used all possible means -whether legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, military or non-military, political or non-political- in order to achieve its goal. The Means included direct engagement in wars in Vietnam and Korea, proxy wars such as Afghanistan; granting open support to tyrants who sided with the US, and even bringing into play criminal mobs like when it used the Mafia fishing fleet to spy on the Soviet fleet in the Mediterranean Sea.

In this article, we are more concerned with proxy wars, because of its impact on the Arab World and Islamic countries. This is not a historical account of the Afghani war, but an attempt to shade light on what happened to the Afghani nation who was used as a pawn in the cold war by the US and its allies.

The armies of the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan at the request of the Afghani government, a trap into which the Soviets fell unaware. As soon as the army went in, the United States “sounded the horn”. However, “the horn” this time was of a different nature as it unearthed the religious duty of “Jihad” (Holy War) from the ruins of the middle ages, equipped it with modern weapons, sent it back to flourish in the caves of Afghanistan and fight Islam’s foe who dared to attack an Islamic country. The US sent its agents in the region to mobilize volunteers, and the countries that were then bowing to American power responded by rallying mercenary armies, providing intelligence and financial support, and shoving thousands of young Muslims and Arabs into battle. As a result, foolish young people from every Arab and Islamic country fell into this American trap, fueled by dreams of Islamic heroism, and envisioning Afghanistan as the ultimate gate to Heavenly Paradise. Some of those started to view themselves as religious elders “Sheikh”, allowed to issue religious licenses “fataw”, to endorse the murder of innocents, such as Ben Laden and “el Zawahri” along with many others.

At the end, the US and its agents had their victory, and the invading Soviet armies departed from Afghanistan, leaving it in the hands of those militias who made killing in the name of religion a profession, and proceeded to fight among themselves when there was no other enemy to fight. As the US achieved the end it sought, it washed its hands of the whole situation, leaving the Afghani people to its bleak fate. At last, one of the militias managed to defeat the others, and established the infamous gang-like state of “Taliban”. The sick minds that were once tricked by the US, and manipulated to fight a battle that wasn’t theirs, found themselves purposeless, holding weapons and spurred by Middle Age concepts, but with no target in sight, and with no idea how to manage the mock state they created to be the core of the new Islamic rule “Khelafa”. Consequently, some of them went back to their homeland to resume the battle, as was the case in Algeria, where the cost of Islamic triumph was 150000 Algerian victims. Others went to Yemen, Libya, Egypt and Saudi Arabia where they waged war against their fellow citizens, and as matters escalated, many Arab states found themselves plagued by those “Afghan-Arabs”.

Having adopted “the end justifies the means” as a framework for its tactics, the US stood by tyrants and corrupted rulers as long as they belonged in its camp, becoming in that process an enemy of the people suffering under those rulers. Using a double-standard policy, the US launched a fierce attack on tyrants belonging to the other camp, using all means to depose them or thwart their regime, while cleverly wielding notions of freedom and human rights. Conversely, tyrants belonging to the US camp were accorded America’s blessing and its open support; at the very least, it conveniently turned a blind eye to their criminal actions.

This pattern was evident in several instances during the cold war and later until September 11, 2001. To cite a few examples: Soharto in Indonesia, the “Shah” of Iran and Pinochet in Mexico. The nations that were struggling for freedom considered the United States their utmost enemy, the evil empire whose interests should be targeted and harmed, or as Khumaini called it “The supreme devil”.

Herein lies the amazing paradox, the Islamic World in general, and the Arabs in particular, were aware of the US complete support of Israel, their historical enemy, as they were aware of the way the US backed up its “adopted” tyrants, and how it interfered in the region’s affairs to protect its own interests at the expense of the other nations. Nevertheless, when the US brandished the Islamic flag, calling on them to defend Afghanistan against the communist enemy –which in fact was a supporter of Arab causes– they responded to the call wholeheartedly, buying the American interpretation of the situation and treating the Afghani cause as a life or death issue. This issue deserves a thorough investigation, which can’t be possibly done in this small article, but preferably in a separate research as to detect the “why” and “how” of this matter.

3. The End of the Cold War and the Emergence of a Monopolar World

The cold war ended as the wall of Berlin fell, the USSR broke up into separate republics, and communist parties in Eastern–Europe lost their monopoly of power, resulting in a change of regime.

A monopolar world emerged under the leadership of the United States. We can reasonably say that the US and its allies managed to achieve a great victory after a 50-years war, where all types of weapons were used, except for nuclear weapons, the use of which would have meant the annihilation of both parties. The possession of nuclear weapons on both parts served as a guarantee for the maintenance of peace, any disturbance in this balance inspired real terror, since it could signal the end of the human race.

Although the major structure of the Eastern bloc has collapsed, there were still minor loyal nations who have been under the protection of the Eastern camp which has kept their regimes safe. These regimens were still in existence and some of them were capable of surviving for a long period of time. The United States had to devise a way to end their existence, as they were part of the defeated camp, and as such were labeled “the axis of evil”. The “cold war” American strategy remained firmly in place, with the addition of economic sanctions and blockage or what was knows as the “containment policy”. This policy proved later to be a failure, the economic blockage imposed on Yugoslavia being proof enough of that. However, the West continued to apply this economic weapon liberally, different forms of economic blockage were imposed on Libya, Iraq, Cuba, Iran and North Korea, via direct internal decision or under an international flag, through the National Security Council resolutions.

The countries classified as US allies or friends were not disturbed by these incidences, their eyes being set on the profits they could gain now that the West has won. All that those states had in common with the Western World was the fact that they were “serving” in its backyard during the cold war. In exchange the West offered its protection to their regimes, applauded their political wisdom, and guarded them against their own nations. On the other side, a number of regimes fell as they now lacked the protection of the defeated camp, including the economic protection. Lastly, a few states- the “orphans” of that age- remained at a loss of what to do, and which way to head, in the wake of this earthquake.

The US had to find a pretext for the new “warm war” it was about to wage, hence the list of accusations about the violation of human rights and international conventions, and terrorist attacks against civil airplanes during the cold war. However, these alleged reasons lacked sufficient credibility, even in the eyes of the Western World… Why?

First, many states, on both sides, either committed or were accused of committing acts of terrorism during the cold war. The nature and philosophy of this war dictated this type of action which was not met by as much international censure as is the case today. Examples abound: the US hit an Iranian civil airplane, Israel dropped a Libyan plane in the desert of Sinai; the Soviet Union dropped a civil Korean airplane in its air field—these incidents prove that this type of operations was not frowned upon during the cold war.

Second, the pretext of human rights violation is not a solid one either, since a number of countries counted among the Western coalition committed worse violations, some of them even did not grant the right of citizenship to part of their nation, as is the case of the Bedouns in Kuwait; Pakistan, as well, was not deemed among the mutinous countries though its legitimately elected government was overthrown several times.

All the above leads us to believe that the US did not alter its strategy once the cold war was over, it applied the same criteria and played by the same old rules, even as the world all around changed dramatically. Was it the elation of Victory? Possibly.. a victory brought about after a war that lasted for 50 years is bound to be overwhelming, keeping the winner out of balance for a considerable period of time.

Panorama of the Middle East after the Cold War

The ravages of the cold war could be seen in the entire world, which was left in turmoil as the war ended. The economic system of the former Soviet Union –as of this time becoming the republic of Russia– collapsed, forcing Russia to beg for outside help in order to rebuild itself. Eastern Europe countries beseeched to join the winner’s alliance and markets in an effort to resolve its problems. The third world underdeveloped countries that gave their allegiance to the Eastern camp were failing as well, their new governments had to adopt a new mentality and new policies in hope to gain the West’s approval. On the other hand, other countries which sided with the West during the cold war, started to suffer financially, now that they were no longer playing a significant role they were denied the funds they were granted in the past- the same applies to the United Nations which started to lack the funds necessary to assist the underdeveloped countries.

In the Middle East, some states were living in extreme poverty; while others thrived on oil revenues, a means by which the authorities controlled the people, and protected their rule. As for the people of these nations, they only cared for one thing: The Israeli enemy. The Arab regimes used the Arab-Israeli conflict as an excuse to impose emergency laws and courts, restrict freedoms, and reject all pleas for political reforms, as if those reforms would inevitably weaken the society or lead to defeat. However, these autocratic regimes failed to accomplish a single victory during their long tyrannical reign, otherwise we would have been tempted to agree with their view.

Three major issues held the attention of the Middle East in the post-war phase

• The globalization trend along with the revolution of information technology and communication have transformed the world into some sort of universal village, its inhabitants are exposed to an up-to-date flow of knowledge and events, even though it is internally divided into groups that could be galaxies-apart if judged by economic and scientific standards.

• The US open support to the most corrupt states in the Middle East and the Arab region had a negative impact on the US image, as many believed it responsible for the tragedies befalling the Arabs,

• The lax and unfair American attitude toward the Arab-Israeli conflict.

A. Globalization: The revolution of information technology and communication impose new policies:

Globalization is a new phase of human evolution brought about by the application of scientific progress into everyday life. Throughout the ages, humanity went through many phases: from gathering fruits and taming domestic animals, to herding cattle, farming and cultivating lands, from manual labor to industry, and so on… Humanity is continuously evolving as new laws of physics are discovered and applied. Human history records the persistent struggle against nature, to detect its laws and control its phenomena for the good of mankind. Weapons were first made from stone then from metals, which were also used to fashion agricultural tools, on to the phase of steam machines, and power generation that was at the base of the industrial revolution.

Similarly, globalization came about as a result of the scientific revolution in the field of information technology and communication. In today’s world information is transferred at the speed of light, people all over the globe can be aware of happy and painful events as they are taking place. A person, sitting at home, has access to newspapers from all over, exchanges information with any one in the four corners of the world, and can buy or sell different items, all thanks to this digital technology. In that context, advanced technology has managed to grant people everywhere an additional citizenship, as they became “universal citizens”. As such, globalization is not an option, subject to acceptance or rejection—a favorite topic in political debate, particularly in the Arab world, and indeed one of the most ridiculous. It is now an undeniable state, almost a fact of life, which leaves us no choice but to accept it. Most importantly, we should work to improve its performance and readjust its course to a more humane one, in order to maximize its benefits.

So, is globalization, in its current stage, absolutely good or absolutely evil? None of the previous phases in human history could be labeled as absolutely good or absolutely evil, and the same applies to globalization. Each stage has its own mixture of good and evil, advantages and disadvantages, and it is up to philosophers, sociologists and citizens in general to assess the situation, make the necessary adjustments and try to limit the number of the marginalized and less fortunate society members. There are those, in our time, who stand against globalization because they are painfully aware of how far behind they are in comparison to others. In doing so, they are akin to a person who closes his eyes not to see the bottom of the pit, but close them as he might, the pit will not cease to exist!

The question here is whether this universal village lives in harmony or not? The answer is obviously negative. There are all types of contradictions within this universal village, not only because of the different languages, races, religions and cultures, but also because of the disparate living conditions of its inhabitants. There are some who live in sumptuous palaces, and others who live in tin-shacks; some who throw away the food in waste bins, and others who lack even the strength to look for their food in the waste bins, some who go shopping at the most extravagant shops, and others whose only chance to catch a glimpse of those luxurious goods is in TV commercials or in shop facades. Is it possible then for the inhabitants of this village to co-exist peacefully? Moreover, this village grants all inhabitants the right to export their products, without restrictions on where or to whom. However, it forbids the inhabitants to come within reach of the residences and palaces of the wealthy elite, sending a clear message that: products and goods are welcomed, but not humans―a characteristic of the materialistic civilization, that focuses on commodities, and has a shallow humanistic dimension.

The less fortunate inhabitants have to abide by quality standards, otherwise their products will be rejected, the same will happen if they do not confirm the products components, quality tests and assorted guarantees. Yet, no such care was given to guarantee fair and humane conditions for the workforce. Issues such as children labor, working hours, wages, and the right to strike, were deemed insignificant, the quality of the product being what matters the most, and not the life conditions and well being of the producer.

Though this universal village is open to an unrestricted, constant flow of products, information and messages, it is internally divided into separate locked zones, much similar to old ghettos. While there are no restrictions on the flow of good, new laws and regulations are constantly devised to obstruct people’s movement from one zone to another, what a pity that goods and products can enjoy universal “citizenship” but humans can not! Moreover, a mere fifth of this village population hold 4/5 of its wealth!

Keeping these facts in mind, can we possibly expect this village to be able to maintain a long-lasting peace? We can confidently say that there is no way for this to happen. Under different ideological pretexts, the marginalized and impoverished who constitute the majority of the village’s inhabitants will seek to ruin the lives of the rich minority. Direct assaults and waves of illegal immigration can both disrupt their privileged world.

Seemingly united, this universal village is in fact divided on itself, and cracking under the burden of huge discrepancies that threaten humanity in the present and future time.

Finally, there is a point worth mentioning about the fate of globalization had the cold war been still raging. It is very likely that we would have a limited version of globalization encompassing the Western World only. As the cold war almost reached its end, globalization was already in effect, but only in the Western World since the other countries did not have free economy or open market policies. The end of the cold war signaled the end of state-controlled and planned economy triggering the collapse of political, economic and psychological barriers, and heralding the globalization era. Globalization represents the latest phase in the evolution of the free economic system, economy based on supply and demand values as opposed to the capitalist state economy relying heavily on the public sector. Strangely, most states in the Arab region had a foundling economic pattern that is not related to either of the two markets, a retarded pattern, controlled by a retarded state that deals with economy as one would deal with spoils, to be distributed at its whim! It created what is known as the public sector, which has nothing to do with public service, and everything to do with theft and bribery. In some states, the public sector companies are given to tribes who plunder public resources while the regime turns a blind eye as long as they remain its submissive allies. In other states, the public sector is at the service of the army generals, who rob public funds and smuggle them across borders.

Those states were zealous followers of the Socialist doctrine. However, there was no public support for this doctrine, which left the way open to opportunists, hypocrites and false devotees who abused the national funds, and made huge fortunes even as they kept the pretense of being faithful public servants. The extent of this theft is shocking, in some states the amount of stolen public funds surpassed the national external debt!

Sadly, the citizens do not think that the theft of public funds is unethical or illegal, since they have no specific owner, furthermore they consider it to be a smart exploit! This is not an unusual thinking as Islamic “Fekh” (doctrine) does not consider the theft of public funds to be a punishable robbery. Blame for such thinking could be laid on the Bedouin mentality of the population which was never amenable to the notion of a modern state. Actually the two are sworn enemies, constantly at war with one another, if the state wins it will impose taxes on the Bedouin and seize his properties, and if he wins he can then overpower the state authority and plunder its funds.

B. Repercussions of the American Support of Corrupt Regimes during the Cold War:

Both parties were determined to destroy their opponent, making use of any available weapon to ensure their victory. For more than fifty years the states of the Middle East were used as a pawn in this war, and although they enjoyed the full protection of one side or the other, some of them switched loyalties and sides as a result of a political uprising that believed the change to be more beneficial. In all cases, the “Masters” – in either sides – were holding the regimes of the Middle East hostages, while these regimes also held their own people hostages, using oppressive and unfair measures to reinforce their authority, and manipulating the national resources to remain in power for as long as possible. The countries which relied mainly on oil revenues, sacrificed a considerable amount of national income to purchase weapons that none of their citizens knew how to operate! Sadly, these regimes were well aware that they were facing no real threat, and even if a threat existed, it would be thwarted by the supreme power protecting them. Moreover, their obsession with weapons reached a point where they started to manufacture weapons and ammunition that exceeded their army’s capacity, and had no prospective buyers.

Notably, when it comes to industrialization the Arab rulers’ first ambition is to manufacture weapons―an Arab disease plaguing us since the days of Mohamed Ali and till the present time, confirming the fact that we still embrace the Bedouin mentality that pays the highest tribute to fierce power and conquests, and that we are much more concerned with power and control than we are with development.

It is probably useful to shade more light on the situation of the Arab states that were allies to the US during the cold war. In addition to the common diseases that plagued all Arab nations – as we mentioned earlier - the majority of the states that were under US control stood against all sorts of national projects at that time. The American Central Intelligence Agency “CIA” provided financial support for these autocratic regimes, as a tactic of war. A number of state presidents committed grievous errors that can be almost regarded as high treason according to national legislations. For example: they spied on confidential Arab summits for Israel’s benefit during war time; they had a very narrow-minded understanding of the Islamic doctrine; they implanted the darkest and most regressive concepts of Islamic legacy into the curriculum of schools and universities, like the concept of “jihad” (Holy War) that justifies the murder and abuse of non-Muslims, and they demeaned women’s status in the society and showed very little regards to their rights. Since they have mobilized thousands of religious preachers to spread those repressive notions, millions of people in many generations were fed these irrational archaic concepts as they were growing up. This teaching was well received, as evident by the way those generations responded unreservedly to the US call to fight in Afghanistan, misled as they were by the tutoring they were given. Many of these young fighters thought this was their chance to practice the theoretic beliefs they have been studying. They perceived the communists to be more dangerous than the Israelis, since communists deny the existence of God. The late Islamic Sheikh “Metwali El Sharawi” offered a prayer of thanks to God in 1967, when the Israeli army, using weapons made by the American believers, defeated the Egyptian army whose weapons were made by Russian unbelievers!

The United States, who proclaimed human rights 200 hundred years ago, did not admonish those tyrannical rulers, or rebuke them for the oppressive practices and crimes they openly committed against their nations. America’s holy war against communism preceded all other concerns and the people of these nations became victims of a war that did not concern them in the least. The US could not care less about their fate since they played no active role in the ongoing conflict. In any case, the Arab citizens, in general, would not have sought the Western World’s help against their tormenters, but the Western governments could have, at least, advised the Arab rulers about the importance of development, or warned them against wasting their countries’ resources to purchase worthless weapons, and filling the Western Banks up with robbed public funds. Obviously, the Western World did not think much of their Arab allies, actually they were treated more like lowly agents then allies, and the West showed no concern for their woes.

Such was the panorama of cold war battlefield in the Middle East: victimized and impoverished nations that lost faith in all types of ideologies, and placed any hope left in the after-life paradise.

Although the cold war ended, the Western World under the leadership of the US remained indifferent to the fate of these struggling nations, providing it did not affect its interests and as long as the Arab oil continued to flow unhindered. Clearly, the End still justified all means!

C. The Arab-Israeli Conflict

Let us take a close look at the latest development of this issue without going into the details of the Palestinian cause and its historical stages. One fact that is worthy of attention about this long and extremely bloody conflict is that the players on the Arab side were constantly changing, in contrast with the Israeli side. In the early stages, the government of the Arab crescent States were directly involved, while the other Arab governments provided an in-depth strategic support. Throughout this dispute, the Arab armies suffered several defeats at the hands of the Israeli defense army. The cost of each military defeat was the loss of more Arab territories, and after Israel managed to gobble up the Palestinian land, it started to bite chunks off of the Arab crescent territories.

In brief, the Arab states monopolized the Palestinian cause, just like they did with all major issues such as democracy, freedom and development. Moreover, they used the Palestinian issue as a well-aimed weapon in their continuous struggle with political dissidents, claiming that those opponents, advocators of freedom, are aiding the enemy in his efforts to destroy the nation. Thus, opposition members were invariably accused of treason. Oddly, whenever an Arab leader lost a war, instead of relinquishing his position willingly or being compelled to resign, his popularity would soar, and his viciousness when dealing with local dissidents would increase—a most unusual outcome that is not to be found anywhere else in the world, an Arab characteristic that should be subject to an in-depth psychological, sociologic and anthropologic study.

Following the defeat of June 1967, the Arab regimes directed their attention to inwards and their first priority became the liberation of their own territories, pushing the Palestinian cause into a shadowy corner. However, at this stage, the Palestinian opposition movement emerged, adding one more player to the scene. Little harmony existed between the different players whether concerning the organization, public support or objectives, and if not for the devastating defeat of the Arab regimes and their armies, this new player would have never been able find a foothold among them.

Although the Arab regimes attempted to hide the shocking extent of the defeat by twisting the Arab vocabulary around and calling the defeat a “relapse”, the Palestinians realized that this was their chance to breakthrough the monopolization of their cause, and face their enemy directly. However, this new development plunged the Arab scene into turmoil, as the public resistance started to pose a threat to the regimes themselves which retaliated viciously, as seen in the events of “Black September” and culminating in the regime’s determination to marginalize the role of the new “intruder” and eliminate him if possible. The resistance was then deported from Beirut and sent to Tunisia, away from the battleground.

he traditional players managed to revive the cause in the 70s of last century, when the Egyptian army accomplished a semi-victory. The politicians’ first concern then was to regain their lost territories, establish peace, and to wash their hands of the bloody conflict that was posing a serious threat to the regimes. As for the excluded player - the Palestinian resistance – it merely performed a few operations, just to prove that it sill existed. As a result, a new player once more was introduced into the scene, this time it was the Palestinian children who were born during the Israeli occupation era, using rocks as their only weapon to fight the occupation armies. The children’s revolution gained a real international support and sympathy, which compelled Israel – for the first time – to admit that there is a Palestinian cause, and a people whose children are determined to fight for their freedom and survival.

After the “Intifada”, the deported Palestinian leaders returned home and formed a nucleus-state, giving the Palestinians some sort of control over their land. A close look at that conflict shows that the Palestinian children are wiser than their elders, and their honesty exceeds that of the professional militants who were waging an oral war from far away. It is truly appalling that the Palestinian authorities’ first concern was to establish a harsh and oppressive security system, and rather than building schools and providing care for the handicapped children that were injured during the revolution, some of these officials misappropriated the money grants and transferred them to their personal accounts.

Afterwards, Islamic organizations joined the melee, proclaiming that liberation should encompass the lands from sea to river, while brandishing inaccessible slogans that were in fact the same national ones used in the Sixties wrapped in religious garb.

In the wake of the cold war, the Arab regimes opted for silence, dejectedly dropping their cherished mottos after the fall of the supreme power that supported their causes. On the other hand, the subdued Arab populace started to suffer from serious psychological and social disorders. Growing up believing that the Palestinian issue is their foremost cause, the conflict being a life or death issue for the whole Arab nation, yet, they were not allowed to express their feelings of bitterness and frustration, even if only through demonstrations. They had no choice but to repress those emotions and put the cause out of their mind. Their attention was also diverted to their own problems with the tyrant rulers, and as they tended to their own wounds they could no more reach out to others. However, after years of being taught about the Palestinian cause at home, in school, mosques and mass media, the Arab citizens could not simply forget about it. Their voices silenced, they were seething at the unfairness of the situation, and at their own helplessness. This inner turmoil reached a point where the Arabs easily believed that the whole world worked against them, misgivings turned into a constant search for conspiracies and evil plotting. It was this repressed anger that made the Arabs susceptible to killers and fanatic summons, ready to applaud them, particularly when they are promised wonderful rewards in the after life.

4. September 11: The End of a Historical Era

The world was shaken by the terrible events of September 11, 2001, when a number of young men from different Arab countries used civil airplanes to attack civil targets in Washington and New York, causing the death of more than 3000 victims. A live TV transmission showed the attack’s victims as they tried to escape the hellish fire, with no choice but to throw themselves from terrible heights, and failing to evade death in both cases. This tragic scene signaled the end of a historical era and the beginning of another, as it was the first time the United States found itself under attack on its own ground.

4.1. How did this tragic event change the world?

Two hundred years ago, The United States of America came into being as its fifty states united and formed a federation possessing an amazing economic and military power unheard of throughout human history. A gigantic power that managed to turn the tide of the second world war in favor of the allies, and the fate of humanity would have changed completely if not for the American involvement in the war. Moreover, The United States devised the Marshall Project to rebuild Western Europe, and it was the only party capable of devising such a project. The Americans had unshakable faith that their homeland was totally secure, a feeling justified by the following strategic and geographical facts:

First: The union of the 50 states was a democratic free choice, made willingly without coercion - the first empire of its kind in human history – which provided its citizens with a deep sense of security, power and confidence.

Second: The geographic protection granted by the Pacific and Atlantic oceans removed all security concerns from the American mind, even during war time. The wars fought by the US armies were in remote countries, continents apart, and except for the distant memory of the civil war, the United States was not familiar with the horror of battlefields and the trail of destruction left by wars. The American administration - which spends on the institutions of strategic studies, the intelligence and the army a sum that exceeds the total national income of the Arab nation – was unaware of the looming threat, since the enemy who was capable of possessing nuclear arms was defeated and remained unbalanced.

Clearly, the United States was not facing a concrete enemy in that stage, and the mission of the American administration was to take out the mutinous states that could possibly endanger the West in the near future –an easy mission, as there was a worldwide compliance to the directives of the supreme power which reigned unchallenged. On the other hand, the United States was getting ready to reap the financial fruits of its victory, as there were no more military or ideological barriers to get in the way of the multinational American companies.

As that dreadful day dawned, the United States was expecting nothing but profits and prosperity.

Then, the unexpected happened: the world center twin towers –symbol of prosperity and a launching point for globalization– were hit, as well as the Pentagon, the symbol of American military supremacy, and the center that issues the commands liable to change the fate of the world. The attack could have reached the Congress and the White House if the plane heading in their direction hadn’t crashed with its unfortunate human cargo.

Naturally this attack evoked feelings of sympathy for the victims and utter disgust at its perpetrators, it is a barbaric act that no human being can justify.

As the shock started to wear off, the American nation and its leaders asked significant questions in an effort to understand and analyze the situation:

What made The US vulnerable to the point that a few terrorists were able to breakthrough its defenses and carry out their mission?

How is it that the perpetrators belonged to Arab countries that were the US allies during the long cold war?

What was the purpose of the attackers, and what was the message they wanted to send to the US and the world?

How can a country which failed to defend itself grant its protection to others?

the American society was haunted by these questions, and the American administration responded by revealing part of the answer to the public opinion with the intention of gaining its support for its undisclosed future plans. Our purpose is to try and figure out the implicit aspects of the new American strategy.

4.2. A Terrifying event and even more terrifying prospects

Shaking off the shock, the American administration had to face a bitter fact: the US is not untouchable, the conflicts raging in the world can reach out and attack the American nation on its own grounds turning it into a battleground much like most other countries. The attack was just the prelude of a new era of tensions and quarrels. The enemy, however, is of an exceptional type: he neither lives in a specific territory, nor belong to a specific state. Therefore, they are unable to target his homeland or have his state subject to penalties by international verdicts. The new enemy can be literally found anywhere, has the ability to move across the globe as it wishes -even within the US itself- is able to disguise itself and is using the latest technical devices to acquire funds and weapons, determine his goals with accuracy and cause maximal damages.

An unprecedented type of war, one that the US was not equipped to fight, used as it was to fight an enemy with identified address, politics, ideologies and weapons―an enemy which can be subdued or defeated. As for this new “ghost” enemy, capable of shrewd, misleading maneuvers, it posed a challenge to its mighty intelligence and research agencies. The new enemy has also the advantage of a huge reserve army, consisting of all the nations that considered the US the egotistical foe of defenseless people during the cold war―whether the accusation is false or true. As regar