From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sun Aug 11 2002 - 19:09:56 MDT
Analyst Calls for Redefinition
of 'War on Terror'
ABC Lateline
August 5, 2002
>From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
TONY JONES: The Prime Minister is promising a parliamentary
debate on the question of Australian forces joining a probable war
against Iraq. He is also said that he expects there will be bipartisan
support if it comes to that.
So would we be joining the next phase of the war on terror?
Our next guest argues that that euphemistic phrase is misleading,
that the US and its allies should be clear about their real target.
In 1995, Daniel Pipes wrote that powerful militant Islamic forces
had unilaterally declared war on Europe and the US. It's a point
he's consistently hammered home as a columnist for the New
York Post and the Jerusalem Post.
He's written eleven books, the latest of which is called Militant
Islam Reaches America.
He's also the director of the Middle East Forum and a member of
the special taskforce on terrorism and technology at the US
Department of Defence and he joins me now.
Daniel Pipes, welcome.
DANIEL PIPES, DIRECTOR, MIDDLE EAST FORUM: Thank
you.
TONY JONES: Can we start with the way you want to redefine
what America is actually fighting for? It's a very important point
because you argue it's not a war on terror at all.
DANIEL PIPES: It's not a war on terror, it's not a war on Islam.
It's a war on a terroristic interpretation of Islam, militant Islam,
Islamism radical Islam, call it what you will.
TONY JONES: Is it as narrowly defined as that though? Is it that
Washington simply isn't interested in other forms of terrorism?
DANIEL PIPES: No, there are American troops in such countries
as the Philippines, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Yemen, Pakistan, all of
them concentrating on militant Islam.
There are no American troops for example in Sri Lanka or Peru,
where there are very virulent terrorist problems but they're not
connecting to militant Islam.
So in other words what I am saying is that the practice suggests
what the real policy is but the politicians are reluctant to name it
and I think that's a problem.
TONY JONES: It raises the question of why, for example, the
President included North Korea in his axis of evil.
Now he's not targeting North Korea but he did include North
Korea.
DANIEL PIPES: Or for that matter Iraq. Iraq is not a problem of
militant Islam. Iraq is a problem of Saddam Hussein, who is a
man without any ideology or any belief at all, except his own
being in power.
Militant Islam is a body of ideas which I would suggest is
comparable to the role of fascism in World War II or Marxist-
Leninism in the Cold War and now we have militant Islam as the
key body of ideas in this war.
It has nothing to do with North Korea as you pointed out and also
nothing to do with Iraq.
TONY JONES: What's the point then of the euphemism war on
terror? Why use that in the first place?
DANIEL PIPES: I think there's several reasons. In the first place,
it is diplomatic - you don't insult anyone. In the second place - it is
flexible.
You can include or exclude from your side whomever you wish
and in the third place it doesn't have any domestic implications.
So it is attractive on the surface but I think the problem is that by
defining the war in this unreal way, after all war on terror is a war
on a tactic, it's like declaring a war on trenches or was on
submarines or war on weapons of mass destruction.
It makes no sense, but by doing this, what we're not allowing
ourselves is to understand the full scope of the problem.
It's not about terrorists it's about supporters of an ideology which
has declared war on us, the whole West, including Australia and
we must defend ourselves from it.
TONY JONES: Is the euphemism at least, was that used because
the President wanted to be extremely careful not to use the word
Islam when invoking the public patriotic reaction that he did?
DANIEL PIPES: Correct and I think it was a good idea to avoid
targeting Islam the religion, the personal faith of something like 1
billion people.
That's not the issue.
In fact, I would argue that by focusing on militant Islam you
become aware that moderate Muslims who form the bulk of the
Muslim population are our allies.
They're very important in this war.
These are the people who suffer first, the predations of militant
Islam in such countries as Afghanistan where we saw the response
when people were freed or Algeria or Turkey or Egypt all over the
world.
It's not an insult to Muslims. Muslims understand that there is this
ideology, which is very radical, which is targeting them first.
TONY JONES: Now you've written about this for many years, tell
us, if you can, about how you see the origins of militant Islam.
DANIEL PIPES: Militant Islam is of modern phenomenon a
twentieth century phenomenon that basically originates in the
1920s, the era of totalitarian enthusiasm, the era when fascism got
going, Leninism got going, so did militant Islam.
And just as we destroyed the power and attraction of fascism and
Communism, now it's our burden to marginalise and destroy this
virulent totalitarian radical utopian ideology.
TONY JONES: We know that 15 of the September 11 hijackers
came from Saudi Arabia. More than a third of those held at
Guantanamo Bay are Saudis.
We also know that Wahhabi Islam, which is virtually the state
religion in the desert kingdom is what Osama bin Laden
effectively preaches.
Wouldn't that make Saudi Arabia then a prime target for a war
against militant Islam?
DANIEL PIPES: Saudi Arabia is a problem and what I urge the
US Government to do is to follow the President throughout the
simple precept of you're either with us or against us and approach
the Saudis with this and say, look, "Either help us or you're against
us."
Which we have not done by the way and I think that would be
very clarifying and do a lot of good in getting the Saudis to be
responsible and shut down the schoolbooks, the school
curriculum, the mosque sermons, the media reports that are all
very much along the lines of militant Islam.
TONY JONES: Bin Laden has considerable support in Saudi
Arabia and part of that is derived from the fact that US troops are
already there.
The 'Cole' bombing was, I think, the largest terrorist attack on
Americans before September 11.
That was in Saudi Arabia. I'm wondering, though, if America goes
to war with Iraq, doesn't that threaten the Saudi regime, the Saudi
royal family?
DANIEL PIPES: Actually, the biggest attack before September 11
was in 1983 in Beirut, but I take your point.
Yes, it will be problematic for the Saudis. Yes, they are worried
about this, but they have to make up their minds, just as President
Musharraf of Pakistan had to make up his mind.
Which side are they on? Are they on the side of Al Qaeda, the
Taliban, bin Laden and militant Islam in general or are they on
our side, the civilised world's side against that?
Mind you, there are many Muslim states, which are on our side.
Notably such states as Turkey and Egypt and Kuwait and others.
So there's nothing inherently difficult but the Saudi regime has to
make up its mind. I think that's going to become an issue of some
importance in the months ahead.
TONY JONES: Why does it have to make up its mind though?
Why can't a State make up its mind to look after its own business
and not America's?
Why can't it simply say, "We don't want to take part in a war on
Iraq, that's not in our national interests and that could threaten our
royal family?"
DANIEL PIPES: We're in a war. The President has said so over
and over again and he's said over and over again either you're on
our side or you're on the other side.
In effect, you have to choose if you're Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or
other states. You ignore the United States at your peril when the
United States is at war.
TONY JONES: In a sense, you pointed to the contradiction in this
argument yourself when you said that Saddam Hussein is not in
fact part of the militant Islamic movement, he's more like a
Stalinistic dictator.
DANIEL PIPES: Precisely.
TONY JONES: He's a secular dictator at that. How does he then
fit into a war against militant Islam?
DANIEL PIPES: He doesn't in any rigorous sense. What happened
was a year ago, before the events of September, Americans
weren't paying a whole lot of attention to the outside world.
As a result of September 11, Americans are emotionally
concerned about the outside world and are ready to take steps.
What the President basically did was to parley this readiness to act
into a focus on Iraq, but strictly speaking, it's a completely
different problem.
There could be some connection between Iraq and September 11,
I'm not denying that.
TONY JONES: Is there any evidence of it?
DANIEL PIPES: There is.
TONY JONES: I mean, this has been talked about. Do you know
of any specific evidence that links Saddam Hussein?
DANIEL PIPES: I don't want to have the perspective military
action against Iraq depend on that link. I think the problem is a
quite a different one with Iraq.
The Iraqi Government signed an agreement with the United States
back in 1991 that would allow inspection of its military arsenal.
It permitted those to go on for seven years and then it stopped
them. It is in breach of that agreement from 1991.
I believe we have the right to take action because they're in breach
and that's what I think the perspective war is about. I, therefore,
don't think it requires -
TONY JONES: Doesn't that mean there's more than one war
going on - there's a war against militant Islam and then there's a
war against Saddam Hussein to stop him possibly developing
nuclear weapons?
DANIEL PIPES: Two different things. They just happen to be in
the same part of the world. One certainly affects the other, but
they're essentially two different concerns.
The way I put it is the threat of militant Islam is the strategic
enemy. This is the long-term, complex, massively supported
ideology.
It's a body of ideas that attracts intelligent and capable people.
Saddam Hussein is something very different.
Saddam Hussein is a brutal totalitarian ruler who believes nothing
in particular and can be quite easily dispatched.
There's no ideas there, there's no beliefs, just one cruel dictator.
The Iraqi people will be the most delighted when they're rid of
him and will move on.
It's simple. Militant Islam is not simple.
TONY JONES: You're saying there's going to be potentially a
short war against Saddam Hussein and a longer one against
militant Islam. Is this the way the United States Administration
sees things?
DANIEL PIPES: Yeah, basically, but not publicly.
TONY JONES: You're saying that we're in for a protracted period
of warfare, even after-
DANIEL PIPES: The President has cleared that this is a long war,
but he hasn't explained why. In other words, if it's just terrorists,
presumably it's something we can get rid of.
But if it's what I say it is, and what I think everybody actually
knows but doesn't always want to say, then you understand that
this is a very attractive ideology to a substantial body of people
that cannot simply be gotten rid of.
It is something that must be waged war against over years and
decades.
DANIEL PIPES: It means, though, doesn't it, that a small country
like Australia, which is contemplating giving military support to
this war against Iraq, could get sucked into a much longer conflict
that goes, as you say, over many years and spreads beyond one
country.
DANIEL PIPES: I don't think so. I think signing up for the Iraq
campaign is one thing, and then you and we and the whole
Western world or indeed the civilised world, has this problem of
this radical version of Islam, which is going to come to you
whether or not you sign up for the war there. It's going to come to
you.
By the way, it's important to note that this isn't start a year ago in
September. This really began in 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeini
came to power in Iran. One of his most prominent slogans was
death to America, and America is a symbol of the West as a
whole, and Americans started to be killed and other Westerns as
well. This is not a new phenomenon.
What happened last year in September was that this traumatic,
large-scale event brought it to everyone's attention in a way it was
not clear before, but it has been a problem now for some 25 years.
TONY JONES: Daniel Pipes, I'm afraid we'll have to leave it
there. Thank you very much for joining us tonight on Lateline.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:52 MDT