The greatest threat to world peace, especially in these times of a lone unchecked superpower, is this narrative of “American Exceptionalism,” and the notion that whatever we do be judged by our good intentions alone (which are never questioned) rather than objectively based on our actual actions. In other words, if we do it, its not colonialism, imperialism, torture or terrorism because unlike other nations, our goals are noble.
This narrative is ingrained early in life here in the US from elementary school onwards, and reinforced throughout our lives in the MSM. Can you imagine accepting without question the noble intentions of a German Manifest Destiny, an Iranian Monroe Doctrine or a Russian Guantanamo/War on Terror, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Anyone who deviates from this narrative is marginalized and/or ostrascized, with the distinguished Helen Thomas simply being the latest example. This narrative’s mindset blinds us as to why much of the world sees us and many of our our actions as wrongheaded and/or hypocritical. In my humble opinion, it is likely the source of apparently silly questions about why they hate us. The courage of those who are willing to publicly step outside of this narrative in order to identify and stop the crimes being committed in our names is what defines a true patriot.
Posted by Imran on Apr 1, 2010 at 1:36 PM
While I agree with most of what Mr. Bacevich has written, I have to respectfully disagree with the apparent dichotomy he suggests between secularity and modernity in the Islamic World (“Yet modernity requires that God get out of the way”).
In my humble opinion, this false dichotomy is a lingering symptom of the “Orientalist” narrative: i.e., that the route taken to modernity by Europe via secularism is the ONLY path (without recognizing its uniquely Christian characteristics). It is important to note that the European break was not between the state and “religion,” but with the centralized political authority of the Pope and the Vatican (Islam has no such authority and operates based on the individual interpretations of scholars who require no “papal blessing”). And while there is no denying that individual state authorities promote(d) some over others for political gain, this was no different from Europe’s 17th century kingdoms and the differing Protestant denominations on their march to modernity.
Despite the inflammatory semantics of some Islamists (who seem never to be overlooked by a MSM looking to reinforce such narrative) Muslims accept that God no longer directly speaks to Mankind (following the dictation of the Quran), and that in the absence of the Prophet Mohammad to interpret such revelation, it is humans that now must provide their “best guess” as to correct solutions to current problems (“democracy, the rule of law, legitimate governments, and economies able to innovate, adapt and provide jobs”). Many “moderate” Islamist parties deemed unacceptable to the US due to their anti-imperialist policies advocate this very modernity to the Muslim world within the language and confines of Islam. Most Muslims accept that “God in His wisdom seems willing to permit this.”
This is hardly a new phenomenon in Islam, as Ibn Rushid (Averroes), who is considered by some to be the founding father of European secularism, was able to do so within the confines of the Islamic discourse over 800 years ago (I might add, at a time when the paths to “modernity” were an exclusive domain of the Islamic world). Having just climbed out the “dark ages” ourselves only a few hundred years ago, we should be a little more circumspect about lecturing a nearly 1500-year-old religious heritage about terms and concepts that we likely inherited from them (especially in light of our colonial and imperial past), and must allow them to develop whatever path to modernity they chose, even if it includes references to God.
Posted by Imran on Apr 2, 2010 at 11:29 AM
To me it is quite clear that European society is far more secular than is Muslim society. In fact, as can currently be seen, European society is even more secular than American society. The gradually increasing influence of Christianity in US politics over the past three decades to the peak it has reached today is proof of this fact.
I believe that in modern times, the state of religion reflects the patterns of development in any given civil society. In Europe, the Church was eclipsed by the philosophical enlightenment and political revolutions which relegated religion to the private sphere and gradually blunted the power of the Church. Though America has always been a deeply religious country, the influence of the enlightenment on the American Revolution and the thought of the founding fathers led to principles such as the separation of Church and State as epitomized in the establishment clause of the US Constitution’s First Amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law…regarding the establishment of religion…” Though this point is still a major contention in US politics today, numerous US Supreme Court decisions have upheld this principle. It remains the law of the land.
The problem in Muslim societies such as Iran and elsewhere, is that repeated US/UK intervention and imperialism have deliberately arrested the development of secular, democratic politics and parties. Two obvious examples are the western backed coups in Iran in 1953 and Iraq in 1963 which brought dictatorships to power crushing democratic and reformist regimes that could have led to secular, democratic societies in those countries. The west’s motivation was chiefly oil. We are currently reaping the fruit of our past greed.
The reason that until recently western imperialism has accepted Islamic extremism, and even fomented it, is that western policiy makers have always seen this as the best way to create compliant rentier states in the Middle East serving the west’s oil interests. Regardless of how repressive and violent these states could become, they would sell oil, in the quantity and at the price, desired by the west. Such states were seen as profitable and thus gained western support.
Today, we are suffering what has been called by analyst Chalmers Johnson, “blowback” for the past century or so of foreign policy mistakes in the Middle East. Turning the situation around will take time and effort.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 2, 2010 at 12:25 PM
The overriding concern of US policy makers (both Republican and Democratic) has been imperial foreign policy, and they have oppressed local democratic groups (whether they be secular or religious-based) whenever and where ever they interfere/conflict with such policy. We should not automatically assume that “secular” and “democratic” are synonymous terms.
In different times and places, we have supported and opposed both secular dictatorships and religious based monarchies solely upon on their correlation with US interests, irrespective of their inherent secular or religious merit. The only constant was opposing the democratic will of local populations that might interfere with imperial policy.
For example, while the current vogue is to define the alleged inherent evil of “Extremist Islam,” we have supported it in Afghanistan in the past, and currently support the Saudi monarchy, both of whom rely for legitimacy upon what many in the Islamic world would consider extremist interpretations of Islam.
And while we now preach to the Islamic world about Secularism as the true path to “modernity,” we have supported (and in many instances continue to support) secular dictatorships that have brutally oppressed both religious and secular democratic parties, with no apparent concern for either “modernity” or “democracy” in these countries.
This is the dilemma we now face: conducting an imperial foreign policy, supported by a public indoctrinated in the narrative of American Exceptionalism, that is contrary to both the interest of the target foreign populations, as well as our own long-term interests.
What we should be doing is supporting democratic parties, be they secular or religious that advocate the interests of their local populations and are accountable to them for their actions. The point is simply that both Secularism and Islamism are capable of supporting dictatorships, autocracies, monarchies, democracy, and yes, perhaps even “modernity” in the Islamic World.
Posted by Imran on Apr 13, 2010 at 11:27 AM
It is true that the US supported Islamic fundamentalism when it suited its foreign policy objectives, especially when arming the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan in their resistance to the Soviet invasion. This came back to haunt us. US/UK imperialism did its best to bury secular democratic movements of the left in the Muslim world years ago and now both the West and the Muslim world is paying for this horrible mistake. Progressive democracy will not be a possibility for a very long time.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 14, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Reader Comments
The greatest threat to world peace, especially in these times of a lone unchecked superpower, is this narrative of “American Exceptionalism,” and the notion that whatever we do be judged by our good intentions alone (which are never questioned) rather than objectively based on our actual actions. In other words, if we do it, its not colonialism, imperialism, torture or terrorism because unlike other nations, our goals are noble.
This narrative is ingrained early in life here in the US from elementary school onwards, and reinforced throughout our lives in the MSM. Can you imagine accepting without question the noble intentions of a German Manifest Destiny, an Iranian Monroe Doctrine or a Russian Guantanamo/War on Terror, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Anyone who deviates from this narrative is marginalized and/or ostrascized, with the distinguished Helen Thomas simply being the latest example. This narrative’s mindset blinds us as to why much of the world sees us and many of our our actions as wrongheaded and/or hypocritical. In my humble opinion, it is likely the source of apparently silly questions about why they hate us. The courage of those who are willing to publicly step outside of this narrative in order to identify and stop the crimes being committed in our names is what defines a true patriot.
Posted by Imran on Apr 1, 2010 at 1:36 PM
While I agree with most of what Mr. Bacevich has written, I have to respectfully disagree with the apparent dichotomy he suggests between secularity and modernity in the Islamic World (“Yet modernity requires that God get out of the way”).
In my humble opinion, this false dichotomy is a lingering symptom of the “Orientalist” narrative: i.e., that the route taken to modernity by Europe via secularism is the ONLY path (without recognizing its uniquely Christian characteristics). It is important to note that the European break was not between the state and “religion,” but with the centralized political authority of the Pope and the Vatican (Islam has no such authority and operates based on the individual interpretations of scholars who require no “papal blessing”). And while there is no denying that individual state authorities promote(d) some over others for political gain, this was no different from Europe’s 17th century kingdoms and the differing Protestant denominations on their march to modernity.
Despite the inflammatory semantics of some Islamists (who seem never to be overlooked by a MSM looking to reinforce such narrative) Muslims accept that God no longer directly speaks to Mankind (following the dictation of the Quran), and that in the absence of the Prophet Mohammad to interpret such revelation, it is humans that now must provide their “best guess” as to correct solutions to current problems (“democracy, the rule of law, legitimate governments, and economies able to innovate, adapt and provide jobs”). Many “moderate” Islamist parties deemed unacceptable to the US due to their anti-imperialist policies advocate this very modernity to the Muslim world within the language and confines of Islam. Most Muslims accept that “God in His wisdom seems willing to permit this.”
This is hardly a new phenomenon in Islam, as Ibn Rushid (Averroes), who is considered by some to be the founding father of European secularism, was able to do so within the confines of the Islamic discourse over 800 years ago (I might add, at a time when the paths to “modernity” were an exclusive domain of the Islamic world). Having just climbed out the “dark ages” ourselves only a few hundred years ago, we should be a little more circumspect about lecturing a nearly 1500-year-old religious heritage about terms and concepts that we likely inherited from them (especially in light of our colonial and imperial past), and must allow them to develop whatever path to modernity they chose, even if it includes references to God.
Posted by Imran on Apr 2, 2010 at 11:29 AM
To me it is quite clear that European society is far more secular than is Muslim society. In fact, as can currently be seen, European society is even more secular than American society. The gradually increasing influence of Christianity in US politics over the past three decades to the peak it has reached today is proof of this fact.
I believe that in modern times, the state of religion reflects the patterns of development in any given civil society. In Europe, the Church was eclipsed by the philosophical enlightenment and political revolutions which relegated religion to the private sphere and gradually blunted the power of the Church. Though America has always been a deeply religious country, the influence of the enlightenment on the American Revolution and the thought of the founding fathers led to principles such as the separation of Church and State as epitomized in the establishment clause of the US Constitution’s First Amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law…regarding the establishment of religion…” Though this point is still a major contention in US politics today, numerous US Supreme Court decisions have upheld this principle. It remains the law of the land.
The problem in Muslim societies such as Iran and elsewhere, is that repeated US/UK intervention and imperialism have deliberately arrested the development of secular, democratic politics and parties. Two obvious examples are the western backed coups in Iran in 1953 and Iraq in 1963 which brought dictatorships to power crushing democratic and reformist regimes that could have led to secular, democratic societies in those countries. The west’s motivation was chiefly oil. We are currently reaping the fruit of our past greed.
The reason that until recently western imperialism has accepted Islamic extremism, and even fomented it, is that western policiy makers have always seen this as the best way to create compliant rentier states in the Middle East serving the west’s oil interests. Regardless of how repressive and violent these states could become, they would sell oil, in the quantity and at the price, desired by the west. Such states were seen as profitable and thus gained western support.
Today, we are suffering what has been called by analyst Chalmers Johnson, “blowback” for the past century or so of foreign policy mistakes in the Middle East. Turning the situation around will take time and effort.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 2, 2010 at 12:25 PM
The overriding concern of US policy makers (both Republican and Democratic) has been imperial foreign policy, and they have oppressed local democratic groups (whether they be secular or religious-based) whenever and where ever they interfere/conflict with such policy. We should not automatically assume that “secular” and “democratic” are synonymous terms.
In different times and places, we have supported and opposed both secular dictatorships and religious based monarchies solely upon on their correlation with US interests, irrespective of their inherent secular or religious merit. The only constant was opposing the democratic will of local populations that might interfere with imperial policy.
For example, while the current vogue is to define the alleged inherent evil of “Extremist Islam,” we have supported it in Afghanistan in the past, and currently support the Saudi monarchy, both of whom rely for legitimacy upon what many in the Islamic world would consider extremist interpretations of Islam.
And while we now preach to the Islamic world about Secularism as the true path to “modernity,” we have supported (and in many instances continue to support) secular dictatorships that have brutally oppressed both religious and secular democratic parties, with no apparent concern for either “modernity” or “democracy” in these countries.
This is the dilemma we now face: conducting an imperial foreign policy, supported by a public indoctrinated in the narrative of American Exceptionalism, that is contrary to both the interest of the target foreign populations, as well as our own long-term interests.
What we should be doing is supporting democratic parties, be they secular or religious that advocate the interests of their local populations and are accountable to them for their actions. The point is simply that both Secularism and Islamism are capable of supporting dictatorships, autocracies, monarchies, democracy, and yes, perhaps even “modernity” in the Islamic World.
Posted by Imran on Apr 13, 2010 at 11:27 AM
It is true that the US supported Islamic fundamentalism when it suited its foreign policy objectives, especially when arming the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan in their resistance to the Soviet invasion. This came back to haunt us. US/UK imperialism did its best to bury secular democratic movements of the left in the Muslim world years ago and now both the West and the Muslim world is paying for this horrible mistake. Progressive democracy will not be a possibility for a very long time.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 14, 2010 at 3:25 PM