The new crusade: it's about ideology,
not oil
By
Rajeev Srinivasan
March
28, 2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/mar/28rajeev.htm
Now
that the long-predicted Iraq war is a reality, it is worth looking at possible
post-war scenarios. What is the driving force behind the war? What is the
desired end point? What are the likely outcomes?
There are a number of
obvious factors: first, the American desire to mould the world in its own image,
a sort of updated 'manifest destiny', with their ideas of democracy, McDonald's
and an MTV culture. The US has the will and the means to impose its fiat through
a pax Americana. The lure of oil is part of the picture, as the Americans
would prefer to keep their own reserves in the ground and use up West Asia's
supply. It is also true that the military-industrial-media complex needs a good
little war periodically to keep its production going and to field-test new
weaponry.
But what has become more
obvious is the moralising angle. I am astonished at the venom expended on France
just because it dared to foil American designs on a UN Security Council mandate.
French fries have become 'freedom fries'! Frenchmen and even the hitherto
revered French cuisine have become persona non grata! This is more than
a little pouting, and can only be explained in moral terms
The Americans have always
had a moralising streak; after all, the ruling WASP population is derived from
the Puritans, who were kicked out of England for being unbending
fundamentalists. There is a tendency on the part of Americans to be
self-righteous, fire-and-brimstone types who see the world in Zoroastrian
black-and-white, good vs evil stereotypes. They are not particularly moral
people, but good at moralising and believing, literally, that God is on their
side.
A large majority of
Americans profess to be Christian believers; many are literalist believers in
the Bible. Note the success of apocalyptic books about the so-called Rapture and
the coming 'end of the world.' Clever cult leaders such as Pat Robertson and
Oral Roberts have taken full advantage of unthinking flocks to build up hugely
profitable business empires.
In this Manichean worldview,
there always has to be an Evil to balance the Good that America is supposed to
represent. When Ronald Reagan talked about the 'Evil Empire,' he meant it
literally, and it resonated as such with a lot Americans. For a long time, the
Soviet Union supplied the Evil. After its demise, for some time China was the
main candidate. Then, fortuitously, along came 9/11 and Osama bin Laden and
Islamists. It turns out they are the perfect enemy, and with good reason: they
have the same Manichean worldview, only with roles reversed.
There are a lot of Christian
fundamentalists (and neo-conservative Jews) in the Bush Administration. They
view with alarm the strategic future of West Asia, and especially the future of
Israel. On a tactical level they are also worried about sites viewed as holy,
like the Dome of the Rock, the Al Aqsa mosque, the Wailing Wall, the Church of
the Nativity, all under dispute between Islamists and Christians/Jews.
A number of leading lights
on the American Right put together a plan a while ago that outlined their view
of the world: this included massive increases in military spending, an assertive
forward approach to bilateral issues, and so forth. Much of this has now become
institutionalised in the Bush Administration's policies. Which simply goes to
say, Samuel Huntington was right after all: this is becoming a clash of
civilisations. It was but a Freudian slip when George W Bush talked about a
crusade.
For, despite loud
protestations that the 'war on terrorism' is not a war on Muslims, the reality
of it is a war on Islam, or more precisely, on Islamism. The unstated objective
of the attack on Iraq is likely to be to contain Islamic power, to redraw the
map of West Asia and make it a US protectorate, much like Japan after World War
II. If so, this has serious implications for India.
West Asia has existed in its
current form for only a few decades, as sovereign states mostly ruled by
dictators. Previously, they were largely colonies, first of the Ottoman Turks
and then of various European powers, especially the British. When these nations
were merely inhabited by desert Bedouins, this did not much matter. However,
with oil wealth, as well as the dispute with Israel, they have begun to matter.
What if the Americans were
secure in the knowledge that Iraq and its oil reserves -- the second largest in
the world -- were safely in the hands of a friendly post-Saddam Hussein regime?
The US would feel free to uproot the House of Saud, for one thing. They have
been treated as sacrosanct, even though they are the moneybags behind a global
scheme to radicalise Islam through Wah'abi madrassas. Emboldened by an
easy victory in Iraq, the Americans are likely to depose the House of Saud.
What if Saudi Arabia were to
be taken over by the Americans? This would be a humiliating and bitter defeat
for the Islamists, who have been propagating their fierce and triumphalist brand
of Islam which glorifies the victories of Islam. There are two possibilities:
one is that the 'Arab street,' that is, public discontent in West Asia, will
boil over in massive anti-American fury and that these new American colonies
will become ungovernable. The other possibility is that the average Arab will
just carry on. It is not entirely clear which is more likely but I think it is
the latter.
An Arab friend of mine
suggests that attempts to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia may be counter
productive, for the proportion of Islamists among the population is high, and it
may bring to power someone even more retrogressive than the House of Saud.
Americans will have to run the country as an occupied state, a colony. They may
even redraw the boundaries in the region, for example separating oil-rich
provinces in Saudi Arabia from pilgrim centers. They may fundamentally alter the
national boundaries, too.
In this scenario, the loss
of funds from Saudi Arabia, and the loss of face from an American occupation of
the country, will have a devastating effect on Islamist groups like Al
Qaeda. This may lead them to efforts to impose pain on Americans, whereby
terrorist attacks on US interests will go up. But unless they are able to mount
some truly spectacular attacks on the US, the Americans will endure. They are
also taking steps to systematically emasculate 'sleeper' cells in their country;
I am sure they will not hesitate to take harsh steps against suspected Islamists
living in America.
What does all this mean for
India? Plenty on the minus side of the balance sheet. First, energy supplies
needed for India's growth will be under the control of the US, which is a
dubious ally. Second, there might be unrest among Muslim Indians in the wake of
the war in Iraq: remember that the Khilafat movement,
about the removal of the Caliph in distant Turkey, led to the horrifying Moplah
Rebellion in Malabar. Third, the demoralisation of Islamist forces
may nudge the Pakistanis into a desperation attack on India: as they may well
be, as Musharraf has said, a target once the US sorts things out in West Asia.
On the plus side, reduced
enthusiasm for jihad is clearly a good thing for India. The defeat of the
Islamists will be a setback for our strategic enemy China, which has assiduously
cultivated a Sino-Islamic axis and supplied Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and possibly
Libya, Syria etc. with weapons of all kinds. Finally, the destruction of various
multilateral power structures where India had no part to play -- NATO lies in
tatters, and so does the UN Security Council -- will mean that India will be
able to do more bilaterally from positions of some strength, especially as its
economic power increases.
All in all, this is a deeply
disturbing and volatile situation with highly uncertain outcomes. In addition to
the human rights issues associated with the long-suffering population of Iraq,
these strategic issues make Gulf War II a watershed. It would behoove the
Americans to remember that hubris goes before nemesis. And Indians to remember
that this clash between fundamentalists is not our problem: let us keep a very
low profile.