On March 7, 1906, US troops under the command of Major General Leonard Wood massacred as many as 1,000 Filipino Muslims, known as Moros, who were taking refuge at Bud Dajo, a volcanic crater on the island of Jolo in the southern Philippines. Above, US soldiers pose for the camera in the aftermath of the massacre. (Photo from The National Archive)
An Iraqi under US custody at the infamous Abu Gharaib. Photo/Wired
Is the United States after Muslims?
Anyone looking at the above pictures cannot resist reaching that conclusion that the US is hell bent on humiliating, killing, and destroying Muslims. Some will see the US war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and northwest areas of Pakistan as an extension of the Christian Crusades or Holy Wars.
But that is not the case. The US is basically an imperial power and so it after any government or country which refuses to part with its resources. Horrific pictures of US covert and overt wars against Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, and dozens of other countries would confirm that assertion. Some religious nuts like George Bush or other right wingers use religious terminology but fundamentally it is the corporations who call the shots. Thus the US does not discriminate between Muslims or Christians, or between Africans or Latin Americans or Asians when it goes to war. Like religious fanatics, they strongly believe that they have some God given right to impose their interpretation of democracy on the entire world.
Manifest Destiny
Every imperial power, which colonizes directly or indirectly, has to produce some reasoning to justify its stealing of another country’s natural and/or other resources, and grabbing of territories. Various arguments were put forth by the leaders and writers in the United States to defend its territorial aggression and/or annexation of other countries. Then in 1839, journalist John O’ Sullivan came up with the idea of manifest destiny. Six years later, in an article entitled Annexation, he justified annexing the Mexican state:
“Texas is now ours. … the sweep of our eagle’s wing already includes within its circuit the wide extent of her fair and fertile land. She is no longer to us a mere geographical space–a certain combination of coast, plain, mountain, valley, forest and stream. She is no longer to us a mere country on the map. She comes within the dear and sacred designation of Our Country …”
He then invoked the divinity:
“[It is] our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.”
The phrase is not in fashion for some time now, the spirit, however, inhabits the corridors of power in the US. And Obama’s foreign policy echoes the continuation when he put forth his doctrine:
“As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy — one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin.” “I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”
Stated goals are usually unachievable and are meant to calm down or fool various segments of society. It is the unstated goals which are to be pursued and are mostly carried on successfully.
How can Obama end the war against Iraq responsibly when the US is building a huge 104 acres embassy cum base in Baghdad?
Taliban have been around since the 1980s and have tasted power in Afghanistan between 1994 and 2001, whereas Al-Qaeda is around since the late 1980s. They do not have a majority support but have sympathy from a substantial minority and have access to money and weapons and are well entrenched in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. So it seems it is beyond obama’s power to finish them.
As far as the nuclear weapons are concerned, the “terrorists” are not in possession of any of them. About “rogue states”, Iran does not have nuclear weapons and Pakistan which does have is an ally.
For true energy security, the first step needed to be taken is to say good bye to the Middle East. And that is not possible because Middle East is the second home to the United States.
This is not the Twentieth Century; the world has changed. China, India, Russia, Brazil, the European Union are the other powers with their own agendas and interests and are not going to toe the US line. And so the alliance would not be easy to build.
Obama lost a historical opportunity by not concentrating on ending the wars and creating a secure homeland for the Palestinians.
What Obama should have done?
Obama should have disowned what he had said during the campaign and should have instead halted the drone attacks on Pakistan and concentrated on an exit strategy from Afghanistan. This could have earned him support and sympathy from Afghans and Pakistanis in particular and the world in general.
The right wing in the US and his critics would have been upset and would have labeled his campaign statements as political rhetoric. That would have been fine rather than what has happened. He has gotten himself do deep in the war on terror mess that none of his spin masters would be able to save him.
It is no exaggeration to state that one year ago, President Barack Hussein Obama was seen as the greatest hope for a substantial number of people in the United States and for a majority of people worldwide. These people hoped that it will be a different and a better world. Alas! Such is not the case. The only difference his election made was to disappear George Bush. If the world is not any worse than it was during his predecessor’s reign, it is not any better either.
He has not done much on the home front. But that will not hurt him much, and will be taken care of by his PR section and the sympathetic section in the dominant media. It is the foreign front which is going to drag him and his Nobel Peace Prize down the drain of history.
Long before Obama assumed the US presidency, the Al-Qaeda and Taliban bombings and atrocities had become known the world over. Anyone familiar with their philosophy knew well that their ultimate goal is to gain power. (They are equally fanatics as the US establishment and would go to any extent.)
On the other hand, the Taliban/Al-Qaeda axis could only gain power through ruthless tactics because their philosophy has no attraction for most of the Pakistanis—who are more close to South Asia than to West Asia. This would have created repulsion among the people in the region and would have prompted early response from the people and the government and would thus have put a dent in their support.
Andrew J. Bacevich’s observation about the Moros and the Afghans and Iraqis demands our attention:
“Above all, however, the results of the campaign to pacify the Moros suggest that pacifying Afghans or Iraqis or others in the Muslim world today will require extraordinary persistence. The Moros never did submit. A full century after Leonard Wood confidently predicted that ‘one clean-cut lesson’ would bring the Moros to heel, their resistance to outside rule continues: The present-day Moro Islamic Liberation Front, classified by the Bush administration as an Al Qaeda affiliate, carries on the fight for Moro independence.
“For advocates of today’s ‘long war,’ eager to confer on Muslims everywhere the blessings of freedom and democracy, while reserving the honor of the US military, the sheer doggedness of Moro resistance ought to give pause.”
Positive Outcome
One positive thing that has come out of Obama’s winning the presidency is that the colored people, excepting the die-hards, who had supported him with a feeling of color affinity, would come out of the fantasy land that a colored person belonging to the higher echelon of society would implement programs beneficial to them.
B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com