Lesson Unlearned

This year, an entirely new crop of articles has emerged on the Marine barracks bombing. Barry Rubin, the right-wing director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, criticized the Obama administration's statement on the anniversary of the bombing because it neglected to name Hezbollah, which did not yet exist in 1983, as the culprit, "under the guidance of Syria and Iran." Rubin is also upset that Hezbollah is no longer considered a terrorist group. But it does not engage in terrorism, so why should the United States consider it a terrorist group any more than it does the Irish Republican Army? Hezbollah under Hassan Nasrallah is a very different organization than the one that existed in Lebanon's chaotic 1980s.

Another egregious article was penned by fallen New York Times star Judith Miller, titled "War by other Names." Miller tries to draw a connection between the 1983 bombing and the September 11 attacks. "The attack offers several lessons, some of which are being resisted by those who favor compromise with militants who seek a worldwide Islamic caliphate and the imposition of a strict Islamic order on their fellow Muslim and non-Muslim citizens." First of all, no Shiite wants to restore the caliphate, which is primarily a Sunni concept. On a practical level, I've spent a lot of time with Islamist fighters in Somalia, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, and elsewhere, some of them linked to al Qaeda or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Nobody spoke about the caliphate or seemed to care about it.

Restoring the caliphate isn't really a motivation for most groups, not for the Taliban and not for al Qaeda, and definitely not for their recruits, who are usually responding to specific or general grievances. The Arab and Muslim worlds are too divided, nation-states and nationalism are too important, the Sunni-Shiite conflict is too serious to allow for them to take this seriously. Islamic metaphors or language are just a different discourse for older struggles, and those are typically more local and mundane, like foreign occupation, oppression, and support for Arab dictators.

Miller continues with more mistakes. "The first lesson is that by 1983, militants had already managed to overcome the historic divisions between Sunni and Shiite Islam. The Beirut attacks were a collaboration between Sunni Muslim Syria, a supposedly secular, leftist Baathist regime, and the Shiite Muslim Islamic Republic of Iran," Actually, the historic divide is much bloodier today, and more intense, than it was then. Sunnis were not fighting Shiites in the Lebanese civil war, but these days there have been Sunni-Shiite clashes here in Beirut, where I am writing from. The Iraqi civil war between Sunnis and Shiites is barely over, and the Shiite victory has made Sunni dictators in the region nervous, just as Hezbollah's victory over Israel has also struck fear into the hearts of these so-called "moderate" Sunni countries. Furthermore, it is wrong to view Syria in the 1980s as a Sunni Muslim state. This is the Syria that was massacring thousands of its own Sunni Islamists. Surely, Miller must remember that? It was happening practically at the same time. At the time of the Marine barracks bombing, the struggle was not about the Sunni-Shia rift. Today's sectarian strife, on the other hand, is very much a result of the American occupation of Iraq and sectarian agitation on the part of the Americans and the Saudis.

"Another lesson of Beirut is that terrorism works," Miller explains, because the Americans and others on the multinational peacekeeping force pulled out of Beirut following the attack. "[T]he United States abandoned Lebanon to its fate: years of civil war and the rise of Hezbollah as an entrenched political party that sponsors terror when violence suits its aims." However, it defies the imagination to believe that Lebanon's future would have been brighter if the Americans had remained as occupiers. Hezbollah is powerful because it is a successful model of resistance to Israeli and American hegemony and because it effectively serves its constituency, the largest group in Lebanon, nearly all of whom support it.

Bizarrely, Miller found hope in an official of the Saudi Interior Ministry -- an institution which tortures, executes, and holds people without charges or trial -- an official of the state which supports the very ideologies that lead to al Qaeda, the Taliban, hatred of Shiites, and the oppression of women. "Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon are both gaining ground," Miller also warned. This conflation of two national liberation movements, which have nothing in common with al Qaeda or the Taliban, is a dangerous and irresponsible misreading of the Middle East's political landscape.

There are indeed lessons to draw from the bombing 26 years ago: America should avoid meddling in civil wars it doesn't understand. An even simpler lesson is to leave people alone. Stop killing Muslims, and there won't be any Muslims who want to kill you.

PREVIOUS 12

Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

BOREDWELL

7:12 PM ET

October 30, 2009

AMEN

Your summation says it all in a nutshell! AMEN!

REPLY

KHALID MUFTI

12:40 AM ET

October 31, 2009

First time...

This is the very first time I have read in our media an honest explanation of the hostility and violence seen in the last few decades between the "Muslim world" and the "civilized world."

It's not going to help your popularity in the corridors of power, Mr. Rosen.

It's not as though other analysts don't know that the truth is bigger than "They hate our freedoms". They do. But they deliberately prevaricate and spin, to conform to sinister agendas. When major issues arise, freedom of the media goes into hibernation, and everyone falls in line with the official theme, led by that bastion of integrity, The New York Times.

Just as the attack on our marines in Beirut followed the murder of uncounted Lebanese Muslims by our bombs and bullets, so also 9/11 was a direct act of revenge for the destruction of Iraq and the murder of over a million Iraqis.

Since 2001 we have massacred another one million Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. And no one seems to talk of the murder of thousands of Palestinians by US-supplied weapons, and the uprooting, suppression and humiliation of an entire nation by colonialist Europeans. What response of revenge will these atrocities elicit? I shudder to think.

SREEKANTH

2:39 PM ET

"Restoring the caliphate

"Restoring the caliphate isn't really a motivation for most groups," ...

In other words, who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes ? A google search for bin Laden or al Zawahiri with restoring the caliphate yields tens of thousands of results. The wikipedia entry for caliphate says

One of clearly stated goals of the radical Islamist group al-Qaeda's is the re-establishment of a caliphate.[41] Bin Laden has called for Muslims to "establish the righteous caliphate of our umma."[42]

I could go on all day. I could also point out multiple other exaggerations and untruths in your article, but this was just the most egregious example

ITONLYSTANDSTOREASON

2:38 PM ET

November 2, 2009

Who does the Caliphate serve?

Rosen doesn't deny that some groups declare support for a renewed Caliphate. The fact that some do doesn't cut against the statistical/demographic argument that few are motivated by such a grand goal.

Implicit is the point that US hawks make more of the issue than most of the islamists or muslim nationalists themselves. Miller wants us to think that the civil wars of the Middle East are consequential for our very existence. Fear for your future! Bah. Once Al Qaeda was able to launch a significant terrorist attack. Most believe AQs operational capacity is no longer up to another one. None has the ability to threaten our existence, and few seem to want to - their local wars are sufficient to occupy their attention.

Where do you stand? Do you believe there is any real prospect for a renewal of the Caliphate against the entrenched interests of local power holders? (Remember the disastrous infighting of the Arab League?) Do you believe that a renewed Caliphate would threaten our security? (It would have so much more infrastructure to bomb than the terrorist/insurgent groups.)

GRANT

5:06 PM ET

It seems that there are good

It seems that there are good and bad points to find in this. While the author is essentially correct in that most major militant Islamist groups are focusing more on creating Islamic states rather than trying to rebuild a Caliphate there are still several groups that see that as their ultimate aim, notably Al Qaeda. Personally I feel that the 'nationalist Islamist' groups are more dangerous to allies of the U.S than the 'Caliphate' groups, but the Caliphate groups show more willingness and interest in launching terrorist attacks in lands that are not historically Muslim. By comparison to Al Qaeda the group Hamas (a nationalist one) has not launched a single attack outside of Palestinian/Israeli land to my knowledge.
On Lebanon, to be sure the United States acted without proper planning and coordination but that hardly excuses a terrorist for launching a terrorist attack. The decision to pull out may have been no worse than a decision to stay, but it .convinced terrorists and insurgents that the United States is unwilling to sustain casualties. Lastly Hizballah (or Hezbollah if you wish) does not have quite the universal support in Lebanon that the writer suggests.

5:38 PM ET

>>>Personally I feel that the

>>>Personally I feel that the 'nationalist Islamist' groups are more dangerous to allies of the U.S than the 'Caliphate' groups, but the Caliphate groups show more willingness and interest in launching terrorist attacks in lands that are not historically Muslim.

There is an interesting third category, regional groups with irredentist claims upon lands that were once Muslim inhabited or ruled. Hence the south Asian Islamists' obsession with India or parts thereof (Kashmir, and even land-locked Hyderabad)

JEFFBOSTE

6:33 PM ET

Reply to Grant

Your point of view is arrogant and costly in the very long run. Above all your opinion is one of a colonist.

Where right and wrong no longer has defined boundaries. In the name of wrong we continue to do what is wrong because we know so little and are led by leaders who even less: Here's and example:

The US House of Representatives is expected to vote Tuesday on a resolution calling on President Barack Obama to reject the UN's Goldstone report, which accuses Israel and Palestinian militants of war crimes in Gaza.

The bipartisan proposal calls on President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration" of the Goldsone report, dismissing it as "irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy."

The measure also "reaffirms its support for the democratic, Jewish state of Israel, for Israel's security and right to self-defense," as well as "Israel's right to defend its citizens from violent militant groups and their state sponsors."

Named after former South African judge Richard Goldstone, who headed the inquiry committee, the UN report accuses Israel and Hamas militants of war crimes during the 22-day conflict that erupted on December 27, 2008.

When the fighting was over, 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were thought to have been killed.

The UN General Assembly will take up the Goldstone report one day after the US House of Representatives vote, which is sponsored by two Republicans and two Democrats.

Goldstone recommended that the report's findings be referred to the International Criminal Court prosecutor in The Hague if Israel and Hamas failed to conduct credible investigations within six months.

Israel has strongly criticized the report as "unjust" and "flawed."

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=6408

8:25 PM ET

In re. to Sreekanth: I

In re. to Sreekanth: I personally consider those groups to be nationalist as well. As an example, in Kashmir the Islamist militants seem to want to create an independent nation of Kashmir (whereas both India and Pakistan want all of it in their own nations).

In re. to Jeffboste: I hardly see how it is 'colonial'. I wasn't suggesting that the United States should occupy other regions and remain in them for decades so much as I was stating that the decision to pull out of Lebanon, along with the matter of Somalia in the 90s, led insurgents and terrorists to assume that the United States is unwilling to accept casualties in combat. Given news coverage where eight dead is reported in the media as 'the bloodiest month yet' I would say that those assumptions are correct. Incidentally, in both Somalia and Lebanon the United States was there as a member of a U.N force, hardly a colonial matter.
Also, I really don't see what the Goldstone report has to do with Lebanon or colonialism. The United States doesn't have a presence in Palestine currently, votes on the report really can't be seen as anything but international politics.

GERONIMO

4:11 PM ET

November 1, 2009

Rosen's Lebanon

In 1949's civil war in Lebanon Eisenshower sent in marines to enforce a UN
effort to end the conflict. At the time the array of oppositon resembled the lineup in 1983 when marines were sent in again in linkage with a UN effort to peacekeep. In both cases the US collaborated with the elected Lebanese head of state of the time.

In 1949 Nasser was the behind-scenes instigator of the uprising; in 1983 it was the Syrians (who, incidentally, for some years joined in a union with Nasser's Egypt) .To a lesser extent the Iranians also meddled (in support of oppostional Shiism in Lebanon).

Mr. Rosen's version of events is an oppostional one ( though a leegitimate case could be made for a melding of Syria and Lebanon, provided Damascus began acting in ways consonant with a peaceful Middle East, rather than an irrtant of it).

CHRIS_T

10:10 AM ET

Thanks!

Thank you sir.

You speak the truth.

I hope you don't plan to run for office! ;)

There is indeed a reason why we are subject to terrorism, besides Mr Bush's "They hate our freedoms...." --

They hate our immoral policies is closer to the truth.

Many of terrorism's _causes_ (generally) are legitimate and correct, even though their _means_ are reprehensible and wrong.

e.g. Hamas is completely correct to want freedom from Israeli chokehold -- even though they are wrong to use rockets to achieve this aim.

One has to be able to keep those two non-contradictory thoughts in one's head to understand the origins of terrorism.

KIMAC

4:28 PM ET

Making your own Reality

The more important point of McFarland etal's constant invocation of the good ole days of Reagan (black hats/white hats, them/us, kill/be killed, ad nauseum), is how the myth, repeated consistently, eventually becomes the reality. Remember the story of Liberty Valence? No? Then try Joseph Goebels (sp?) and the Big Lie.

Guys like this have similarly been rebuilding the myth of Reagan higher and taller than even that world-class poseur was in real life. The episode in Beirut is important since it contributes to a mindset being propagated by the neocons. It is being made into something it wasn't by McFarland, and others, in order to prepare the populace for a Next Step against Iran: whose biggest crime, when you really get down to it, is their underlying impudence.

We could pick nits in Rosen's analysis, but the way the neocons are working to CREATE our current reality through simply, consistently and relentlessly raising their voices and KEEPING AT IT, is what is really scarey. How much in the way of well-honed rationality will it take to offset the drum-beat and vision McFarlane, etal, are selling?

Don't blame Hezbollah for the Marine barracks bombing. The United States is at fault, for becoming a combatant in Lebanon's civil war.

BY NIR ROSEN | OCTOBER 29, 2009

(11)