Ihenacho�s Home Truths


What we suggest for this president [Bush] is what President Bill Clinton used to do so efficiently in his troubled days, namely, compartment-alization.
Monday, March 10, 2003



David Asonye Ihenacho
ANNOUNCE THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR FRIENDS
WAR WITH AL QAEDA AND SADDAM:
A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS?

SPONSORS



n that fateful day of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden and his terrorists' organization known as al Qaeda recorded their most spectacular victory so far against their nemesis-in-chief, the west's only surviving superpower, the United States of America. They not only reduced to rubble the twin towers symbolizing America's capitalistic revolution and wealth, the World Trade Center, killing nearly three thousand innocent business people, they successfully attacked and destroyed part of the formidably fortified American symbol of impregnable defense, the Pentagon, massacring in the process a great number of innocent public servants. Since that epoch-making event, scholars from across the world have been grappling with the construction of an appropriate conceptual framework within which the chain of events that culminated in that monumental tragedy could be comprehended.

One of the frameworks that have continued to be bandied about claims that the terrorists' attack of 9/11 as well as the slew of events that has ever followed it represented "a clash of civilizations." By this is meant that the Islamic civilization, which dominated a large chunk of the known world many centuries ago, but eventually lost out to European Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution as well as cultural revolutions, democracy movements and the free market economy championed by the United States of America, is desperate to reassert itself and reclaim its lost glory in the contemporary world. According to this analytical framework, this desire to re-impose itself on the ever-secularizing west has brought the Islamic religion to a head-on-collision with the freewheeling, fun-loving, casual-sex-promoting and materialistic cultures of the western nations represented by the US. The explosions in New York and Washington DC on September 11, 2001, it claims, were specific instances of the collision between these two antithetical currents.

For the proponents of the "clash of civilizations" theory, the re-emerging neo-militant Islamic cultural current has found its strongest voice so far in the ever-sprouting Islamic fanatical groups around the world whose best-known representative and champion is the Saudi-born millionaire called Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden and al qaeda movement that he founded have emerged as the champions of the new militant efforts to restore Islam as the single most dominant culture in the western world. According to some Arab commentators, the ultimate goal of bin Laden and his movement is to establish an Islamic caliphate system of political administration in the Middle East. This entails destroying or banishing all foreign military and political infrastructures in the region. And since America dominates the defense and politics of the region through her military pact with the Saudi family and her military installations in Saudi Arabia as well as her unassailable military and economic assistance to the state of Israel, al qaeda sees the USA as its enemy number one. Therefore the successful attack against the US on 9/11 represented a major milestone in al qaeda's worldwide efforts, for it bolstered its confidence to aim even higher in its desire to dominate the world. On its part, according to the clash-of-civilizations theorists, the west has responded vigorously to the challenge posed to it by the neo-Islamic militants. It has drafted to the fight its own power, namely, the unassailable military might of the United States of America. In the view of these theorists, going after bin Laden and his group is the natural duty of the USA as the defender of the west and the entire free world against the fundamentalist Islamic threat to its way of life. Hence what we are witnessing today is not just a mere standoff between the two individual blocs, it is the beginning of a major cultural war between Islam and the west, and ultimately between Islam and Christianity. According to this conceptual framework, the present tension and imminent war in Iraq are as a result of a battle line drawn between the forces of the neo-militant Islamic resurgence of Osama bin Laden and the contemporary champion of the western civilization, the Americans.

Islamic civilization of the contemporary era seems better represented by the western-oriented cultural revolutions in Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc., rather than the Islamic anachronisms that are being pursued by al qaeda and bin Laden.

Over the past two years, this clash-of-civilizations framework has been gaining in popularity and acceptance. Commentators, politicians and even security experts have been invoking it as a key to understanding the ever-escalating tensions caused by the activities of terrorism in the Middle East region in particular and the world as a whole as well as the reprisals that are being meted out to them by the west led by the United States. But what continues to be of a great concern to this column is the apparent lack of an appreciation of the implications of this conceptual framework. It is our view that the clash-of-civilizations theory seems to have been uncritically enunciated and endorsed by many scholars and leaders of thought in the world in a rash of emotions following the tragedies of 9/11. Hence it seems to hurt more than help the cause of fostering a peaceful world.

Our anxiety with the clash-of-civilizations theory is borne out of a fear that it may in fact be aiding and abetting the political interests of the fringe elements of Islam and Christianity that are always trying to instigate cultural and religious wars in the world. Moreover this dualistic manner of viewing the present crisis seems to greatly assist the advocates of these two positions in their efforts to gain more zealots to their causes. It is little wonder that many people have continued to be converted to either side of the divide on the presumption that they are enlisting to fight in a critical cultural battle between Islam and the west. This kind of sentiments is couched in the USA with the patriotic words of fighting to defend "our freedom and our way of life." But for the neo-Islamic militants the claim is that it is a fight to defend the Islamic faith from the immoral and harmful cultural imperialism of the west. Hence the battle cry is laced with false patriotism and religious sentimentalism on both sides.

Furthermore, the claims of these feuding blocs tend to hide some potentially dangerous implications of the framework. For instance, hidden under the claims of the west's interest in saving its way of life is a lack of appreciation of the fact that some of the so-called "western ways of life" can sometimes be legitimately seen by non-Christians especially Muslims to be harmful to their own way of life, or to be subtly in furtherance of the interest of the west's favored religion, Christianity. In trying to prosecute the war to save "our freedom and way of life," there seems not to be enough appreciation and remorse on the potentially harmful effects of these demagoguery "ways of life" on cultures of the non-western world. Rather there is that arrogant belief that the western way of life is the one God has destined for the human race. President Bush said as much recently when he declared that the United States had been called by God to bring God's gift of liberty to "every human being in the world" (Newsweek, March 10). Hence the west arrogantly asserts its values with a fanatical zeal that members of other cultures cannot but wonder whether such values are not just a Trojan horse.

On the other hand, the claim of neo-Islamic militants that they are fighting to save Islam from the domination of the immoral cultures of the west is legitimately seen often as a direct insult and provocation of the west. Sometimes these militant fanatics use it as an excuse to blackmail Christianity as well as ultimately foment aggression against western societies. Furthermore, the self-righteous manner with which Islamic fanatics pass ignorant judgments on western culture even as they show absolute dependency on it cannot but strike westerners as hypocritical. They glory in describing Christians as infidels and the west as land of immoral unbelievers who deserve only to be violently converted en masse to the morally sound Islamic faith. But they cannot resist western products and lifestyles. By this ambivalence Islamic fanatics sustain their manipulation of Islamic doctrines to support their violent aggression towards non-Muslims. Through such a criminal manipulation of Islam terrorism becomes for a great many of them a missionary enterprise.

Apart from supporting these rather perverted ways the two blocs look at themselves and at each other, the clash-of-civilizations theory preferred by contemporary elite seems an implicit endorsement and a shorthanded declaration that the so-called war against terrorism being feverishly pursued by the American President George W. Bush is ultimately a religious war between Islam and Christianity. That is to say, at the back of the minds of these theorists is the belief that the surrogates of Islam and Christianity are fighting the religious war on their behalf. While the disaggregated forces of Saddam and al qaeda are representing Islam, President George Bush's America fights on behalf of the Christian west. In other words, the real implication of the theory of a "clash of civilizations" is a division of the world into two camps, the camp of Islam championed by bin Laden and Saddam Hussein pitted against the camp of western Christianity championed by President George W. Bush. But is this accurate?

Notwithstanding the dangerous implications of this conceptual framework as highlighted above, the more basic question for this essay remains; is there any truth in masking the present crisis with the cloak of a clash of civilizations? Do the champions of this crisis represent two civilizations in the real sense of the word? What type of civilization is represented by the fringe elements that champion this crisis? Is there any basis to claim that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein represent mainstream Islam? On the other hand, is there any ground to believe that President Bush's war in Iraq is in defense of western civilization and western Christianity? Or are the self-professed leaders of these movements just wearing masks and representing other interests besides what they claim to profess? In a simple statement; are President George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, the commanders of the "armies of god" of their respective faiths as implied in the clash-of-civilizations framework?

First, I must register my distrust for such bumper-sticker contraptions as a "clash of civilizations" because of their tendency to over-simplify and reduce to almost meaninglessness complex issues like the upsurge of terrorism in the contemporary world. The American-led war against terrorism and the imminent Saddam-war in Iraq cannot be so easily simplified or reduced to a war of civilization currents. In fact it can be claimed that issues of civilization are the least in the minds of these religious fanatics. Moreover, it seems absolutely a misnomer to describe what the born-again fundamentalists and Islamic fanatics are doing as civilizations. Nothing in my view could be further from the truth. To describe what bin Laden and al qaeda represent, as the current nature of Islamic civilization seems absolutely anachronistic and unfair to mainstream Islam that has been grappling to catch up with the industrialized west. Al Qaeda and bin Laden are far from standing for the mainstream Islam that is the repository of Islamic civilization.

Islamic civilization of the contemporary era seems better represented by the western-oriented cultural revolutions in Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc., rather than the Islamic anachronisms that are being pursued by al qaeda and bin Laden. Al Qaeda and their patron, Osama bin Laden belong in the fringe of contemporary Islamic civilization. They have no established government neither do they have a formal army. Their lifestyle is completely barbaric, nomadic and totally removed from civilization, as we understand it today. For their habitation they live in caves and mountain burrows. They have no body of thought that could be termed civilized. Though bin Laden has become a cult hero in most Muslim nations, his ideas are far from mainstream and they are anything but civilized. He is absolutely a fringe element and belongs among the degenerates of modern civilization. The same can also be said of Saddam Hussein's type of Islam. It is hardly a true representation of the current state of Islamic civilization. Saddam's political philosophy that is a hybrid of Sunni Islamism, ethnocentrism, absolute dictatorship and socialism has to be in the minority when talking about the present state of Islamic civilization. In the last analysis, both Saddam and bin Laden cannot be legitimately said to be fighting on behalf of a true Islamic civilization. They are individually fighting to propagate and perhaps perpetuate their personal bigotry. If anything they are parts of the degenerates of the Islamic civilization.

Why is the president willing to sacrifice such precious international bodies as the Security Council of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the different agencies of the United Nations, etc., in order to pursue a narrow interest in the tiny nation of Iraq?

While it seems pretty easy and straightforward to classify the enterprises of people like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as belonging to the fringes of Islamic civilization, the same is hardly the case with the efforts of the United States of America and her president George W. Bush. It seems well within the right and privilege of President George W. Bush of the US as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth to claim that he represents the interests of western culture. America is the undisputed cultural, economic and military leader of the world. The president's office in a way makes him the guardian of the values and wealth of western civilization. Moreover the aftermath of 9/11 bought to the current president of the US some worldwide goodwill, sympathy and respect as a world leader. Hence his decision to go after bin Laden and his al qaeda movement made him the commander-in-chief of the world army against terrorism. In going after al qaeda in Afghanistan President Bush enjoyed international loyalty as the premier general of the world army. But does this transform him into a defender of the Christian faith to the extent that whatever he does must be seen in this light? Does the loyalty President Bush garnered in the aftermath of the tragedies of 9/11 transform him into a defensor fidei of the west's most popular religion?

Through some inexplicable reasons resulting from either bad advice or miscalculation, the president decided to stretch his luck and ride the post-9/11 world's goodwill and allegiance into settling an old score with Iraq. World leaders who had been by his side in the military efforts in Afghanistan became suspicious of his motives and skeptical of his ambition for a greater Middle East fertile for democracy and favorable to the state of Israel to be established with the military might of the United States. With Iraq thrown into the mix, it became very hard to know what the president's mission in the world was all about. Is it about the defeat of the afflictions of terrorism in the world, which has a worldwide support, or is it about replacing undesirable Muslim leaders in the Middle East with more pliable ones, which would be a very controversial policy to pursue in the present world. The president did not care to explain clearly what actually was his motive. Rather he plunged himself farther and farther into beginning a military campaign in Iraq. And that brought a total confusion in his noble fight against terrorism in the western world. Many people became confused and have remained so ever since. But the president does not appear to care. For the umpteenth time he had said that popular agitations and worldwide riots would not deter him from realizing his mission in Iraq and beyond.

To the president's credit he and his lieutenants have of late been struggling to explain their war mission in Iraq, which had had the unintended consequence of dividing post-9/11 worldwide coalition and bringing a total confusion in the international efforts that had swung into action to rid the world of the evils of terrorism. But their explanations have been shifting to no end. Initially it was that Saddam Hussein and his "evil" government collaborated with al qaeda and provided safe haven to al qaeda terrorists. The president demanded nothing less than a regime change in Iraq. And that made a whole lot of sense. If Iraq harbored al qaeda's fugitives, it must be treated exactly in the same way the Taliban of Afghanistan who harbored them first had been treated. As the Taliban regime was toppled so must that of Saddam be toppled if only to make the world safe from terrorism for every one. For a while this more than justified the efforts to go after Saddam Hussein. But as time went on, the argument lost its persuasive force thereby opening the door for reasonable people across the world to cast doubts on the president's motives. Unfortunately for the president his allegation against Iraq in this regard was all but struck down recently by no other person than Osama bin Laden himself in one of his more recent tapes. Bin Laden derisively described the present government of Iraq as socialist and secular.

When it dawned on President Bush that bin Laden had once again pulled a fast one on him, he resuscitated his old argument that Saddam still harbored weapons of mass destruction. This was despite the fact that about 95% of such weapons had been declared destroyed in the more than a decade of random UN inspections in Iraq. Moreover, nearly two-months of intrusive inspection had not produced any shred of evidence to corroborate the president's pet-allegation that Iraq had such weapons. But the president still clung to his belief and continued to threaten war against Iraq. However, when it seemed that this allegation was not eliciting public support, the president came once again with another excuse to invade Iraq. According to him it is to liberate the people of Iraq from the dictator Saddam Hussein and install democracy in the Iraqi nation that will serve as an example in the Middle East. Notwithstanding the fact that not many people found such an excuse convincing enough to go to war, the president has continued his frenzied build-up for the invasion of Iraq. Today, more than a quarter-million American and British soldiers are massed around Iraq waiting for the president's order to begin their forward movement towards the devastation of the Iraqi regime and nation. The world holds its breath as America marches to war under the military commandership of President George W. Bush.

However, the question in the mouths of many commentators is why is this president so hell-bent on going to war in Iraq despite the tenuousness of his reasons? Why does he not listen to mammoth protests worldwide against a war that could destroy precious lives in Iraq? Why do messages from respected world leaders like Pope John Paul II, Nelson Mandela, religious leaders of all faiths, etc., not seem to move him? What does he know about "evils" in Iraq that many other leaders of the world do not yet know? How does he get such knowledge? Why does he not share such knowledge with world leaders who do not yet believe him? Why does he appear this willing to indulge the incalculable risk of staging a war in Iraq that could possibly cost many prime lives of American GI's and the innocent Iraqi civilians? What political and economic benefits could accrue from an invasion of Iraq that could end up leaving the world permanently dislocated and destabilized? What will be the state of American leadership in the world after the devastation of Iraq? Why is the president willing to sacrifice such precious international bodies as the Security Council of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the different agencies of the United Nations, etc., in order to pursue a narrow interest in the tiny nation of Iraq? Why is he so willing to sacrifice the delicate balance in the Middle East in order to get at one single nefarious individual in Iraq? What shall it profit this president if he conquers and takes control of Iraq but destroys the peace and security of the world in the process?

As we continued to mull over these questions, some disturbing revelations became available in the press last week. The revelation of the president of America in the media as a born-again, bible-reading and a literalist Southern Baptist Christian who keeps his counsel and makes up his spiritually charged mind oblivious of realities on the ground tended to introduce a brand new dynamic to the war preparations in Iraq. A series of publications this past week in Newsweek, US News and World Report, Washington Post, New York Times, MSNBC, etc., presented a very scary image of how the president of the United States comes about his decisions. On top of the list of such publications was the beautiful article in Newsweek by a great journalist Howard Fineman titled Bush and God. In that article, Fineman reveals that President Bush wakes up every morning reading the evangelical sermon book by Oswald Chambers: My Utmost for His Highest, a Scotsman and a Baptist missionary preacher at the beginning of the 20th century. According to Fineman it was the president's meditation on this book that perhaps informed his recent address to religious broadcasters at Opryland in Nashville that, "the terrorists hate the fact that � we can worship Almighty God the way we see fit � that the United States was called to bring God's gift of liberty to "every human being in the world" Newsweek, March 10). It is perhaps the second part of this statement that tends to provide a window into the mind of the president on the issue of Iraq. He believes that God has called America to the missionary work of spreading freedom and democracy in the world. He believes that Iraq provides a wonderful stage for the launching of this worldwide mission.

But our problem is; how does this president come about such a revolutionary conviction? How does the leader of the west and the defender of the Christian west make up his mind on such vital international issues? According to Fineman, President Bush's spirituality was molded in a non-denominational Bible-study group, which he had been "coaxed" into in his midlife days by his friend Commerce Secretary Don Evans. The specific program he was involved with was called Community Bible Study (CBS). It was dedicated to "an intensive, yearlong study of a single book of the New Testament, each week a new chapter, with detailed reading and discussion in a group of ten men." The real turning point in his life, according to Journalist Fineman, was the CBS program. It gave him the faith, which now serves him right in this critical time in his presidency. According to Fineman, Bush is a more unalloyed product of the Bible belt�. (He) found in Bible study an equivalent mental and spiritual discipline which he would soon need to steel himself for his main challenge in life�" Bible study gave the president his sense of mission. According to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post "Bush has come to view his leadership of post-9/11as a matter of fate, or of God's will. He has said the country is 'called to defend our nation and to lead the world to peace,' and he often says the mission is to extend liberty, 'god's gift to every human being in the world'" (Washington Post, March 9). He is now a man with a sense of destiny. According to David Frum interviewed by Fineman for his article, "There is a fatalistic element" in the president's view of his mission. And this can be briefly summarized thus: "you do your best and accept that everything is in God's hands�. If you are confident that there is a God that rules the world, you do your best and things will work out." New York Times columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof suggests that, "there may be an element of messianic vision in the plan to invade Iraq and 'remake' the Middle East (March 4). Writing on MSNBC.com, Fineman attributes the diplomatic shortcomings of President Bush on the issue of Iraq to his "mixture of Bible belt certitude and West Texas bluster: You declare that you are in the right, stake the most aggressive land claim in all the oil patch, talk big and strong and dare them to call your bluff."

What we suggest for this president [Bush] is what President Bill Clinton used to do so efficiently in his troubled days, namely, compartmentalization.

The only thing we can gleam from our brief scouring of the president's background and modus operandi is that he seems fired by the spirituality of fringe elements in western Christianity. The president is a born-again Christian. He has Jesus as his personal philosopher. The president is a literalist as far as biblical understanding is concerned. His daily spiritual vision is fashioned and re-oiled by a man who lived nearly a hundred years ago, Oswald Chambers. From all indications the president does not work from within the framework of the spirituality of majority of Christians in the west. Though it is testified everywhere in the news reports of last week that he regularly consults with his pastors, the president seems largely a spiritual loner who depends for his spiritual vision in a personal understanding of the bible and spiritual books. This may not be any different from what many Protestants do since their tradition encourages independent interpretation of the bible. It only becomes dangerously risky when this personal spirituality is elevated to such a level that it begins to play a key role in the determination of public policy that could impact the lives of millions of people beside the individual spiritual being.

Moreover, the president of the oldest democratic nation in the world does not seem to exercise his spirituality in the company of majority of the Christian west. How then does he claim to defend their values and interests? Considering the number of Christians the world over, the president's spirituality that is based on a literalist interpretation of the bible is hardly mainstream. The president neither represents the view of the more than one billion Catholics worldwide, nor that of mainstream Protestantism even in America. He is a man who has a private faith that is informed by a narrow interpretation of the bible and a simplistic vision of reality. It seems therefore unsound and in fact unfair for him to base his judgment to go to war in Iraq or not, on such a narrow perspective on life informed by his born-again faith. There is more to life than could be grasped within the framework of a born-again hermeneutic.

What we suggest for this president is what President Bill Clinton used to do so efficiently in his troubled days, namely, compartmentalization. President Bush should learn how to compartmentalize his born-again spirituality when making decisions of national and international consequences. It is absolutely risky for him to say "I have made up my mind to go to war. And I am at peace with my decision having prayed about it." This seems absolutely undemocratic to say the least. If the president wants to include prayer in his decision-making process about war in Iraq, he should first of all find out what the majority of Christians the world over is praying about. From all indications the overwhelming majority of Christians in the west are praying for peace in the world and not any more war in Iraq. If the president gets a different message from his prayers, before acting on it he must first check whether such a message truly comes from God. It is not enough for him to feel good about his decision after praying and reading the bible. Billions of Christians in the world are praying and reading the same bible and yet getting messages totally different from the one the president claims to get from God on Iraq. It is very hard for many Christians to understand the doctrine of a pre-emptive war in Iraq that could destroy many innocent lives. It could have been far better to call up God and find out what exactly God thinks about going to war in Iraq. Since this is not possible, it is not fair and healthy to use one individual's alleged communication with God as a basis for decision of such magnitude as making war in Iraq. The most reasonable way would have been to find out what majority of Christians think God is telling them about going to war in Iraq. Such a process has a far greater potential to produce opinions reflective of God than that generated by a single leader who claims to be in a hotline communication with God.

Moreover, democratic ethos requires that the president crosscheck his personal spiritual vision with what the rest of the Christian world is thinking. We believe that the crosschecking of his spiritual vision with people of faith in general is very important for this president because that is about the only way he could extricate himself from being branded somebody who operates from the fringes of religions. He needs at least in his policies to get himself out of the spiritual fringe and join the mainstream. He must have known enough by now the type of people who live in the fringes of religions. They are not mainstream people. They are people like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. They are very dangerous to the world.

The president of America does not belong among this group. He is the leader of the western world, the guardian-in-chief of western civilization and the self-proclaimed defensor fidei of the dominant religion of the west. He cannot afford to be a man working from the fringes of western spirituality. He must be a mainstream man, a mainstream president, a leader who embodies the values and aspirations of majority of people in the western world. This is where democracy thrives and belongs. Democracy does not say, "I have prayed about it, I have read my bible and received inspiration from God. I have made up my mind and I am at peace with my decision. Therefore I am headed to war that risks destroying innocent lives in Iraq." Rather it says, "I have listened to my people and have considered the matter from all perspectives. I have taken into consideration the wishes of my people and what best secures their lives and property. I am still praying to God to enable me act in a manner that secures my people as well as satisfies their wish to live in a peaceful and war-free world. I will see and treat war as a last resort which it must always remain."