This War Started 28 Years Ago
Watching the House debate, this has emerged as one of the leading GOP memes--that the current struggle against Islamic extremism started not on 9/11, not with the Cole bombing or the first WTC attack . . . but with the taking of the hostages in the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979. If true, then the GOP needs to rethink a few things, like the greatness of Ronald Reagan--a president who actually sold missiles to our Iranian enemies. I don't want to go all Ann Coulter on y'all, but that could be described as treason--selling arms to our declared enemies?
Of course, this is a silly frame, and it's really silly as a frame for the Iraq clusterfuck. Whatever one can say of Saddam--bloodthirsty tyrant, megalomaniac, psycho, that he liked to play dress-up, etc.--he was not an Islamic extremist. So, even if we have been fighting Islamic extremism since 1979, the Iraq invasion was still a mistake.
But, strangely enough, I was reading the latest issue of the London Review of Books, in which James Meeks reviews Lawrence Wright's Looming Tower: Al-Qaida's Road to 9/11, and there's an interesting passage at the very end of the article. Here it is:
Although this is not what it explicitly sets out to do, Wright's book supports the conclusion that the direct struggle between revolutionary, counter-Enlightenment Islam and post-Enlightenment world began some time before the Cold War ended--specifically, in 1979. That was the year of Iran's revolution, in which, significantly, Islamic reolutionaries overcame not only the pro-American Shah but also their leftist counterparts; the Soviet Union sent troops to Afghanistan to protect its leftist regime against Islamic rebels; and the Grand Mosque in Mecca, the holiest site in Islam, was seized by a band of Islamic fundamentalists. It took Saudi forces more than two weeks to oercome the four to five hundred insurgents involved, who had demanded that Saudi Arabia isolate itself culturally and politically from the West, remove the royal family, expel all Westerners and stop selling oil to the U.S. Before the battle ended, women among the insurgents shot the faces off their dead male comrades to stop them being recognised. It was the first fortnight of the new Islamic year, the year 1400, the dawn of Islam's 15th century. The rest of the world was still operating according to a different calendar.
I'd never read about that before. I don't buy that we've been at war with Islamic radicalism since 1979, but that passage about the shooting off of dead men's faces sticks with you, doesn't it?
2 Comments:
Rather convenient and myopic to start in 1979, no? To wit, if I were an impartial observer, wouldn't I have to conclude that the West is really most responsible for the latest phase of the East-West conflict, especially when we remember that it was the Brits and other western colonial powers who began meddling in the ME after the Turks and their Ottoman Empire were folded up and when we recall that the US basically just inherited British rule after WWII and we too began to meddle? The Iranians in particular have a reason to be aggrieved at the US for the installation of the pro Anglo-American puppet Shah in 1953 to counter the Iranians' democratic decision to nationalize their oil in 1951. And the pro-US House of Saud oil barons are no different than the Shah.
In the face of such meddling, is it really surprising that radical Islamic groups such as Al Qaeda have sprung up and keep getting more radical the more we try to tighten our grip on oil resources by doing stupid things like, say, invading Iraq?
The same article quoted states that radical Muslims are still aggrieved that the Muslim Turks were turned back from Vienna in 1683. And Ferdinand and Isabella drove the Muslims out of Spain in 1492. So this struggle has been going on a long, long time, I guess. There are a large number of frames available.
But 1979 is a rather convenient year, no? It also puts Iran decidedly in the, um, crosshairs.
Post a Comment
<< Home