Bullying, ideological neo-con Daniel Pipes has a father at whose ultra- (but more traditionally) conservative knee he grew up. Richard Pipes was an ultra-conservative historian of Russian history at Harvard who was extremely influential during the Reagan years. Richard Pipes was always extremely hawkish on Cold War issues…
And now, he’s being accused of seeking to “rewards” terrorists… This, because on Thursday he published an op-ed in the NYT titled “Give the Chechens a Land of Their Own”.
After making a very appropriate reference to the scale and extremely atrocious nature of the Chechen separatists’ recent terrorist action in Beslan, North Ossetia, Pipes Sr. wrote:
- In his post-Beslan speech, Mr. Putin all but linked the attack to global Islam… But the fact is, the Chechen cause and that of Al Qaeda are quite different, and demand very different approaches in combating them.
Terrorism is a means to an end: it can be employed for limited ends as well as for unlimited destructiveness. The terrorists who blew up the train station in Madrid just before the Spanish election this year had a specific goal in mind: to compel the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. The Chechen case is, in some respects, analogous. A small group of Muslim people, the Chechens have been battling their Russian conquerors for centuries.
… Because Chechnya, unlike the Ukraine or Georgia, had never enjoyed the status of a nominally independent republic under the Communists, the Chechens were denied the right to secede from the Russian Federation after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And so they eventually resorted to terrorism for the limited objective of independence.
I was amazed, indeed delighted, when I read Pipes’s op-ed on Thursday. He was quite right to seek to take on the whole insidious, anti-political discourse of “terrorism” in the way that he calmly did there… Terrorism is a means to an end: it can be employed for limited ends as well as for unlimited destructiveness.
This is an argument that many of us on the anti-war side have been trying to make ever since 9/11. The problem with the whole discourse of “terrorism” is that term gets used indiscriminately to describe, basically, any violent act of which we disapprove.
(Remember when Nelson Mandela and the ANC were routinely denounced as “terrorists” by the apartheid government in S. Africa, which built up a whole globe-circling campaign aimed at marginalizing and combating the ANC? Until, that is, they decided to try negotiating with them. At which point, they found the ANC to be very effective negotiating partners… )
And so it still is today. Indeed, Prez Bush’s johnny-one-note stress on the “Global War on Terrorism” has drowned out nearly all the essentially political aspects of what the US government needs to be doing in the world in a chorus of “You’re either with us in the GWOT, or you’re against us!” And meanwhile, the whole rhetoric of the GWOT has provided a boon and a comfort to dictators everywhere–include Putin in that– who simply by murmuring the accusation that their opponents are “terrorists” have been able to win continued strong support from Washington in all their attempts to suppress them.
So today, the NYT carried three letters from people excoriating Pipes for what he wrote…
Okay, make that two excoriatory letters. The third, from Mark Medish (described as “senior director for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian Affairs, National Security Council, 2000-1”), was more nuanced. Medish made the excellent and logical point that,
- Richard Pipes is right to underline the fundamental logic of Chechen autonomy if not outright independence. Of course, if the logic of self-determination were simple in practice, the Palestinians and the Kurds would have homelands, and Tibet would be free, too.
But then he holds back from following that train of thought to its logical conclusion by arguing,
- Mr. Pipes’s effort to distinguish between the terrorists you can negotiate with and those you cannot is unconvincing. There is ample evidence that the Chechen separatists have been aided and guided by Islamic fundamentalists, including Arab militants, having no ethnic connection with Chechens.
As we have seen in various other places, valid national liberation movements may be intertwined with international terrorist networks, making it much harder to tell the good guys from the bad guys.
Ah, so the idea here is some concept of “contamination”, whereby anyone who has ever had anything to do with “Islamic fundamentalists” should in turn be quarantined and not dealt with…
But wouldn’t that include… the US of A, which was indeed, for a very long period of time in the 1980s, “aided by Islamic fundamentalists”, including in Afghanistan and elsewhere? Including, indeed, Mr. OBL himself.
Actually, if there is “intertwining” going on of the kind posited by Medish, wouldn’t it make even more sense to try to woo the people and movements whose aims are more straightforwardly those of traditional national liberation movements away from the fundamentalists by engaging them in serious dialogue and negotiation about those of their demands that are quite legitimate?
That was what US diplomacy did all the time during the Cold War, when the “enemy” was identified as the Soviet Union.
But no. That wouldn’t make sense for the Bushies, would it? It increasingly seems to me that they really want this so-called GWOT to go on and on and on… It helps to keep the US citizenry mobilized in their support– plus, it means a continuation of all those great, juicy profits for the military-industrial complex.
But if, on the other hand, Bush, Cheney, and Co. were to adopt an effective, and more “political” approach to wooing the Chechens, Palestinians, Iraqis, etc etc away from the embrace of the fundamentalists– why, the whole GWOT might then just collapse within a matter of months!
Without a vast global ocean of “condoners” of his actions to swim in, OBL himself might soon end up isolated, vulnerable, incapacitated, and captured.
Then where would Halliburton get its profits from??
I have always said, from the very first days after 9/11, that the trick to “defeating” someone like OBL is to focus on the millions and millions of people who basically condone his actions… I’m not talking about the smaller hard core of his active supporters. I’m talking about the much broader group of people who, when they see him or his supporters doing something “suspicious” that seems to have an anti-US or anti-western bent, make a quiet decision not to turn them in to the authorities.
It is those people, the condoners, who have to be wooed away from that positition; and to be effective, that wooing has to be accomplished through persuasion, not coercion. Coercion of condoners will nearly always backfire!
But how do you effect that persuasion? By building relationships with those people; by listening to their views; and by engaging with them on all the legitimate parts of their grievances. That’s how.
You think Chechens don’t have legitimate grievances against Moscow? You think Palestinians don’t have legitimate grievances against Israel? Or Iraqis, against Washington? Of course they do. So those grievances have to be calmly listened to and engaged with. Politically….
That way, incrementally but in quite a short period of time, millions upon millions of people who currently condone Al-qaeda’s activities can be turned into anti-Qaeda allies.
But where, you ask, is the profit for Halliburton in that? H’mmm, you know what? I really don’t care.
I doubt either Pipes Sr. or Pipes Jr. follow this blog. And, while I cannot speak for them, one can guess there replies might be:
1) A residue of anti-Russia sentiment from the Cold War should make readers of my NYT article sympathize with the Cechen separatist cause. Russia, the cradle of pogroms, is still a reservoir of anti-Semitism, a buddy to Saddam to the end, and friendlier to the PLO than to Israel. Without condoning the terrorist act, both archaeo-cons and neo-cons can at least home that, as a comuppance (you asked for it Vlad), it may weaken Putin the way Chernobyl weakened the dying Soviet regime.
2) Israel is a refuge to persecuted Jews, including plenty who came from Russia, and is a tiny enclave in a sea of hostile Arabs. Its defensive actions cannot be compared to the pan-Slavic Russian state’s suppression of minority ethnic movements and identities.
By the way, much as it might seem a surprise, is there really much difference between Pipes Jr. and the Left (EC, Juan Cole, et al) over what to do now about Iraq? Neither he nor you believe that the US military is likely to pull of democratic nation-building there.
See: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1316
I’m not surprised that people whose reputations and power are not tied to success in transforming Iraq think the current policy is a failure. It is a failure! It was predictably a failure! The scary part is how long the delusion of progress has held on.
John,
Associating Cole with the left is an undeserved blemish on the left. Cole is a sour America-can-do-no-right while Islam-can-do-no-wrong apologist with an academic aura.
My humble opinion,
David
For years now, I’ve thought there must be a “Report from Iron Mountain II” that I missed.
It would postulate a GWOT as a cover for American imperialism (okay, if you wish, call it hegemony).
Helena seemed to hit the nail on the head:
“It increasingly seems to me that they really want this so-called GWOT to go on and on and on… It helps to keep the US citizenry mobilized in their support– plus, it means a continuation of all those great, juicy profits for the military-industrial complex.
But if, on the other hand, Bush, Cheney, and Co. were to adopt an effective, and more “political” approach to wooing the Chechens, Palestinians, Iraqis, etc etc away from the embrace of the fundamentalists– why, the whole GWOT might then just collapse within a matter of months!”
GWOT is just what the doctor ordered: “We can secure our global energy supplies — assuring ourselves of enough oil for a generation, and making sure that India and China are dependent on us.
You want mfg. jobs? Planes, RPGs, Land mines, munitions, Meals Ready to eat, etc., etc.
We’ll just let Southeast Asia supply us with the day-to-say stuff we need.
There are other benefits. At home we can shut up all those would-be terrorists and their apologists.
And TWOT– it will go on forever. Anybody who launches a violent action anywhere — other than ourselves or our proxies, of course — can conveniently be labeled a terrorist. Drug Lords? Well if we could marry OBL to SH, why not to the Drug Lords? Pity there aren’t more of them in Venezuela, or other key sources of petroleum.
Like Helena, I am amazed that Richard Pipes at implies that terrorism is at least sometimes a legitimate (my word) means to an end — sometimes even a just end.
If patriotism is the last refugea scoundrel, perhaps terrorism is the last refuge of a patriot. it has been, the final weapon of the oppressed. Think Ireland, think India, think Phillipines. Think, in fact the U.S. during the revolution.
Still, I wouldn’t expect our policy makers to suddently realize that the exitence of terrorists or support for them among the populace is evidence that we need to open channels of communication and air these grievances, and set about to resolve them.
After all, as Helena points out, where would the profit be in that for Halliburton, or all the other wonderful benefits that will flow from a permanent GWOT?
Mike
Mike
Mike, you say, “terrorism is the last refuge of a patriot.” Really? To whom does this adage apply? OBL? Mohammed Atta? The 80’s Contras? Unabomber?
All are equally unsavory to me. I would give more credit to patriots who act by means other than intentional killing of civilians.
Furthermore, enough of “Blame Halliburton” mongering. it is US oil apppetite that feeds big companies and creates our security dilemma, not the other way around. And Americans are unlikely (don’t even dream) to vote for a candidate who proposes a $2 / gallon “GWOT tax” to encourage conservation and fund domestic security programs. We are addicted to cars and dispersed suburban life. That is the problem.
Helena,
Very good post. I’ve begun looking at your site regularly and appreciate your perspective.
David,
“Cole is a sour America-can-do-no-right while Islam-can-do-no-wrong apologist”
I’m curious how much you have read of Professor Cole. He has always seemed quite moderate and well-informed. His anger at the lies and bungling of Iraq and the transfer of resources away from Afghanistan, and accelerated duplicity of the US regarding Israel do seem to have changed his tone. However, I can’t see how that lessens his expertise, and seemingly highlights genuine humanity and integrity often missing in academics.
He wrote the following, in beginning to explain his present persective. This is about American and Likud policies in Israel, but can easily be extrapolated to Iraq and the whole War On Terror.
“……. So, why do I do it?
It is September 11. It is obvious to me that what September 11 really represented was a dragooning of the United States into internal Middle East political conflicts. Israel’s aggressive policies in the West Bank and Gaza have poisoned the political atmosphere in the Middle East (and increasingly in the Muslim world) for the United States. It is ridiculous to suggest that radical Islamists don’t care about the Palestine issue.
Now, if it were a matter of Israel’s simple existence causing trouble for the U.S., then I would say, “Too bad! We stand with our friends, and won’t allow you to harm Israel.” But if it is Israeli expansionism and aggression that is causing trouble for the United States, then my response would be to put pressure on Israel to get used to its 1949 borders, which are its only legal ones.
Unless the Israeli Palestinian issue is resolved, there will be more September 11s on US soil. So they should resolve it already. And, it is resolvable. If there were a Palestinian state with leaders who would certify that they are happy with Israel, then 99% of Muslims would accept that.
It can’t be resolved as long as the Likud Party has an aggressive colonialist agenda. It cannot be resolved as long as the United States government is afraid to say “boo” to Ariel Sharon. The taboo erected against saying what I have been saying is a way of ensuring that the Likud gets its way without American interference, even if it means America suffers from the fall-out of Likud aggression.
In addition, what the Likud government is doing is ethically wrong. It has put hundreds of thousands of colonists into the West Bank, stealing land, water and resources from the Palestinians there. It has made the Palestinians’ lives miserable with a dense network of checkpoints, highways, and other barriers to ordinary commerce and movement. And what possible claim could the Likud have on the West Bank of the Jordan? The original Zionist colonizers put almost no settlers there. It was not the part of Palestine that the United Nations awarded Israel in the partition plan. The United Nations Charter, to which Israel is a signatory, forbids the acquisition of territory by warfare, so the mere fact that the West Bank was conquered in 1967 gives Israel no rights in it.”
As for terrorism, it’s interesting that the terrorism committed by Jewish settlers that ran the British out of Palestine and led to the founding of the Israeli state is never mentioned. Perhaps that’s where the Pipes clan learned to love it.
Regarding the Pipes/Chechen connection, I was genuinely suprised to read in the Guardian/CommonDreams an article about the neo-cons deep ties to certain elements of the Chechen seperatists (which I would have to imagine relate to loosening the Russian grip on the region… by the way, Chechnya just happens to be the convenient location of oil pipelines – absolutely shocking!). However, I find it much more useful to use this as a helpful start in trying to heal some of these festering sores around the world than as a way of pointing the finger at neo-cons as terror supporters. The fact that somebody like Helena agrees with me on this is quite a boost to my ego.
Hey, John, lighten up a little. I was speaking tongue in cheek, as perhaps Dr. Johnson was. My comment hardly applied to all terrorists; nor do I seriously think that all patriots are scoundrels — just false ones, which is what Boswell reported Johnson had in mind.
Try this URL: http://tinyurl.com/26hhy
Terrorism is often — maybe mostly or only, depending on how the term in defined — activity in pursuit of a political goal. It is particularly repugnant when completely innocent victims are involved. Perhaps it is never justified. I am — like you, I suspect — committed to non-violence.
But perhaps terrorism is justified when all other mean of achieving political ends are barred– de jure or de facto.
That’s the point Richard Pipes was arguing. Right or wrong, it is a definitely and arguable position, one worth fully exploring.
Instead, now that we are launched upon GWOT, the definition of terrorism has been expanded to include anyone we don’t like. They don’t even have to be violent. Just against our political agenda. How about Rod Page labeling the AFT “terrorist.” What’s next, the Sierra Club for opposing drilling in pristine wilderness? And how many times has an economic boycott called “terrorism”?
The Unabomber, George Metesky and their ilk — maybe even Tim McVeigh — are psychotic sociopaths, not terrorists.
On the issue of Halliburton, I agree with you. It’s a convenient shorthand for all the economic impetus behind GWOT, but I do happen to think that it is the Bush administration’s Teapot Dome.
On the larger issue, we have lacked a sensible energy policy for 30 years or more, or the will to implement one. IMV, such a policy would aim to foster development of alternative, more benign sources of energy, and increased energy efficiency in every mode and use of energy (that’s conservation by another name).
Price is an important component of such an effort, and I would support a hefty tax on gasoline (think $3-5 per gallon). At the same time, we need to be sure that this tax doesn’t fall disproportionately on the poor and middle class.
I would like to clarify my previous comment re:the glossing over of terrorism is by Jewish settlers in Mandated Palestine.
In attempting to differentiate between
I have one significant quibble with jeremy’s Juan Cole quote: Israel’s 1949-67 “borders” are not its only legal borders, as Cole asserts.Israel has no permanent, legal, internationally recognized borders.The borders of 1947’s UN Partition Resolution 181 were internationally recognized, but were never implemented.The 1949-67 arrangement was based on armistice agreements and were never intended to be permanent.The final borders were to be determined by UNCCP-mediated two-party negotiation between Israel and the combined Arab delegations, but Israel refused to cooperate with the UNCCP once it had gotten what it wanted out of that peace process – UN membership.
I trust no one is so ignorant of how the current arrangement came about that they need my sketchy explanation.
penis enlargement pills penis enlargement pills done right! at http://www.usa-penis-enlargement.com