A year of living dangerously: Osama the crafty mouse vs GWB, of little intelligence, less knowledge

Beware of adventurers, Hassan Nafaa* argues as he reviews the exploits of the 'great men' of 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2000 was the year of George W Bush, a man of little intelligence and less knowledge, brought to power on the shoulders of the ultra-right in one of the most open democracies in the world following the strangest presidential election ever. 2001 was the year of the enigmatic Osama Bin Laden, leader of an underground organisation of limited means and capacities who successfully masterminded the most stinging slap in the face to the most powerful nation in the world through an attack that defied even the most vivid imagination. 2002 was the year of both these peculiar men. The repercussions precipitated by 11 September and the new US administration's handling of these generated a powerful chain reaction that left all other parties standing on the sidelines watching how George W and Bin Laden performed the roles they created for themselves for their ultimate showdown on the international stage.

Thus, George W flexed his terrifying muscles. Fleets of warships set off across the high seas. Squadrons of warplanes soared through the air as satellites honed in on their targets and land forces took up positions to advance and occupy. American might was unleashed first in Afghanistan, then it regrouped to pounce on Iraq, while declaring itself ready to fight on two fronts -- and more, if necessary. Meanwhile, Osama moved as a mysterious spectre, capable of demonstrating his corporeal existence through prerecorded videotapes and powerful enough to act anywhere in the world -- in Bali or in Mombassa, should he so decide.

The contest between Bush and Bin Laden over the past year, in some of its superficial aspects, brings to mind that comical sketch of the vicious cat plotting to devour a cunning mouse that manages to outwit the cat until it is inevitably caught and gobbled up. However, once one probes beneath the surface one realises that this contest, billed as "the fight against terrorism", is propelled by deeper motives and forces that threaten disastrous consequences. This is no ordinary game of cat and mouse. From the outset the protagonists have sought to set the international scene for a confrontation between the Christian West and Muslim East, with Bush and Bin Laden the self-appointed and sole spokesmen for the respective sides. That many international forces believe they have an interest in a global clash of this nature adds frightful force to the nightmare.

That the protagonists are seeking to polarise the world along a religious axis presents a serious challenge to political thought. It has become imperative to formulate a rational perception of the causes and mechanisms that have propelled those two unique specimens of human beings to the forefront of global events at a time when mankind, at the turn of the 21st century, appeared at the pinnacle of development and sophistication. It may seem logical that the Islamic world, fragmented, conflict-ridden and as full of contradictions as it is, would produce a personality as complex and dangerous as Bin Laden. Indeed, it may also appear logical that that person, in the absence of an alternative capable of generating a minimum degree of harmony between the sharp, discordant voices in the Islamic world, should rise above all that dissonance to pose himself as a solution capable of filling that alarming void. However, it does not make sense that a country with solid democratic institutions should voluntarily hand over the reins of control to a person of the nature of George W Bush at this sensitive phase in the development of the global order. It does not make sense because the perilous polarisation that is taking shape defies rational comprehension, as is evidenced by the political and religious myths and fictions -- and how many they are -- that have served as axiomatic truths in the attempts to analyse and explain this phenomenon.

The irony of this hit home as I pondered the events of the past year and the prospects of the new one. At this particular juncture, historical events jump to mind to remind me that advanced societies, equipped with powerful and effective institutions, are not necessarily immune to the attempts of adventurers and gamblers to hijack them and that these societies, more often than not, end up paying a horrendous price for their choice of leadership or for their inability to stand up against those gamblers at the crucial time. Napoleon Bonaparte came to power in France through a coup d'état. After 10 years of revolution that changed the face of France, Europe and the world, he plunged his nation into a series of military adventures that not only ended in ignominious defeat but into the reversal of the French Revolution and the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy.

In Germany during the inter-war period, many domestic and regional factors conspired to augment the influence and popularity of the National Socialist Party led by Hitler. In 1930, the party won 107 seats, or approximately a quarter of the seats in the German parliament (Reichstag). The following year, it won 230, and the year after 298, placing Hitler in a position to impose a totalitarian dictatorship and, eventually, to embark on a campaign of military adventurism that culminated in catastrophe, not only for Germany but for the entire world.

The German example is particularly instructive for its affirmation of the view that the electorate does not always choose wisely and that the democratic process, alone, does not necessarily furnish sufficient guarantee that the society whose voice the elected government is supposed to represent is strong enough to prevent it from being commandeered by an adventurer. By extension, the free elections that brought Bush to power in the US do not on their own guarantee the probity of his rule. Such a judgment must ultimately rest upon his behaviour in power -- not the means that brought him to office. Therefore, Bush's contention that the post-11 September world has become divided between the "good", led by the US, and "evil", led by Bin Laden, is inaccurate and unfounded. Although the entire world condemned Bin Laden's actions as criminal and barbaric, it did not simultaneously give Bush a carte blanche to act in its name, preferring instead to judge the man for itself on the basis of how he would react to that tragedy.

2002 showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that the administration in Washington -- representing the American ultra-right and brought to power through polls in which there were suspicions of tampering and which had to be resolved by court order -- exploited the events of 11 September to mobilise the American public behind a special political agenda. One cannot help but recall the manner in which Hitler manipulated the German people to adopt the agenda of the Nazi Party. Developments over the previous year have demonstrated that Washington is not so much concerned with eliminating the sources of international terrorism as it is with using terrorism to tighten its grip over the entire world and to eliminate all opposition to its policies. Had the US truly wanted to uproot the sources of terrorism, it would not have launched its strike against Afghanistan before investigation had confirmed the identities of all involved in 11 September. It would have put all its diplomatic weight behind solving some of the world's most intractable problems before dispatching its aircraft carriers across the sea.

The current behaviour of the US is yielding results completely opposite from what Washington says are its aims. The war in Afghanistan claimed thousands of innocent lives without having eliminated Al-Qa'eda or killed or captured Bin Laden, but it did justify what appears to be a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. The war it intends to unleash against Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, lacks all legal or moral justification and will also claim thousands of lives and inflict yet further destruction on Iraq. It will, however, justify an American military presence there. Nor is it likely that the war on Iraq will be the last of the US's wars under the banner of the fight against terrorism. Washington fingered Iran, haphazardly, as a member of the "axis of evil" it intends to do in. It has unleashed a media war against many other Arab countries, including allies such as Saudi Arabia. Washington's actions and polemics, together, suggest that it has targeted Islam and that it plans to reshape the region in a manner that will obviate the emergence of an Arab nationalist or Islamic ideology of unification or resistance. Towards this end, it most likely intends to redraw the map of the region on the basis of ethnic or sectarian rivalries.

For Arab and Muslim peoples and governments, US attitudes and policies towards the region are extremely provocative. Should what appear to be American designs see the light of day, Arabs and Muslims realise that the only nation to benefit will be Israel, and Washington will have paved the way for it to become an unrivalled regional power virtually overnight.

However, the increasing tensions between the US and Arab and Islamic nations are not the only development in 2002 that were cause for worry. The behaviour of the current administration threatens more profound and far-reaching consequences: if it persists it will ultimately abolish the political and security role of the UN, demolish the foundations of international law and sanction the unrestrained use of force as the only means to resolve international disputes. The result will be unmitigated chaos. Perhaps, indeed, that is precisely Bin Laden's aim, in the hope of introducing a new world order in which a united Islamic world is brought under his leadership or under the leadership of another "caliph" more capable of mobilising the energies of the Islamic nation towards assuming the power it deserves.

Sadly, therefore, it is possible that 2003 will be the year of the great conflagration. The US has yet to realise that its unswerving and blind support for Israel, regardless of who is in power, has helped to isolate the voices of peace and moderation in Israel itself and emboldened Jewish extremism. It was only natural for this to fuel the rise of Islamic extremism in return. Only when the US finally fathoms this dynamic will it be able start to fumble its way towards an effective solution to terrorism in the world. For Washington to persist in its current policy will lead the world down the same path Hitler led it, but with far more lethal power at its disposal.

We Salute Free Republic's Donors! Be one!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

Who knows how smart Bush is? He's a hell of a lot smarter than his critics think, but not as smart as the bots think. But, who cares? First, he is smart enough to surround himself with smart people. Second, how smart does one have to be to say, "Let the bombing commence now?"

From the outset the protagonists have sought to set the international scene for a confrontation between the Christian West and Muslim East, with Bush and Bin Laden the self-appointed and sole spokesmen for the respective sides.

Half right. GWB has done everything possible to remove religion from the equation. Probably more than makes real sense.

OBL wants to turn it into Christian vs. Muslim, of course. He should remember the old saying about being careful what you wish for...

Developments over the previous year have demonstrated that Washington is not so much concerned with eliminating the sources of international terrorism as it is with using terrorism to tighten its grip over the entire world and to eliminate all opposition to its policies.

This "writer" is a paranoid schizophrenic.

OBL wants to turn it into Christian vs. Muslim, of course.

I think that's pretty much the salamikaze party line. Somebody posted something from Hamas or Hezballah (sp? ahhh, who care's if it's not spelled right) a while back, and they actually called us "Crusaders."

Personally, I kinda like the idea of being a Crusader....

So if Dubya is dumb after not catching him in ~15 months, then how dern stupid is the Impeached Rapist for not getting him in 8 years?

The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University

Here's yours professor.

If there was ever a piece deserving of a half page BARF ALERT, this obscene diatribe is it!

"'Professor' of 'political science?'" [In a dictatorship?]

This moron's sons and daughters must all dance horizontally for the entire human resources department at cairo u.

>>>So if Dubya is dumb after not catching him in ~15 months, then how dern stupid is the Impeached Rapist for not getting him in 8 years? <<<

Hey - thats not fair. Clinton wasn't trying to catch him. Both he and my brilliant Senator, Mz Patty Murray, were watching him build schools, feed the people, and enforce the rule of sharia law in Afganhastan. How were they to know he didn't like us?

"For Washington to persist in its current policy will lead the world down the same path Hitler led it, but with far more lethal power at its disposal."

Why is it that those who hate the Jews the most are the first to compare the US/Bush with Hitler?

This article is pretty hilarious considering that President Bush is alive and in charge, and Bin Laden is one with the dirt. These Islamist losers are much funnier when they're putting out phony audiotapes.

The author is living in an intellectual world that is about 20 years out of date. That was when we used to care about the moral opinions of Arab commentators who condemn any violence but their own, any hatred but their own, any religious movement but their own. This was a dwindling force even before 9/11; it is virtually non-existent now.

I think the full validity of this fellow's argument is best illustrated by the fact that his "clever mouse" that cannot be caught is, in reality, a festering, maggot-covered corpse somewhere in the Afghan bush. His geopolitical thesis has a similar problem.

The author is illustrative of the quality of teachers in the Arab world, and as such helps us understand why these backward countries are in the shape they are in.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.