-Caveat Lector-

URL: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/616/re4.htm

In the service of empire

Lamis Andoni, in the first of a series on America's war hawks, looks at the views of 
the man
who coined the phrase "clash of civilisations"



"Bernard Lewis has brilliantly placed the relationships and the issues of the Middle 
East into
their larger context, with truly objective, original -- and always independent -- 
thought.
Bernard has taught [us] how to understand the complex and important history of the 
Middle
East and use it to guide us where we will go next to build a better world for 
generations" --
Paul Wolfowitz, speaking via video phone at a special ceremony held in Tel Aviv to 
honour
the leading Orientalist in March.

American Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the US war hawks
are no doubt indebted to the Princeton historian: At the age of 86, Bernard Lewis has 
not
only provided historical justification for Washington's "war on terror", but has also 
emerged
as chief ideologue for the recolonisation of the Arab world through an American 
invasion of
Iraq.

Lewis's work, especially his book What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern
Response, has been a major source in what is practically a manifesto for advocates of 
US
military intervention towards "establishing democracy in the Middle East". By 
declaring that
the peoples of the Middle East, meaning Arabs and Iranians, have failed to catch up 
with
modernity and have fallen into "a downward spiral of hatred and rage", Lewis has at 
once
exonerated American imperial policies and provided a moral imperative for President
George W Bush's "preemptive strikes" and "regime change" doctrines.

But the role of the man, who 12 years ago coined the term "clash of civilisations" 
that was
later adopted by Samuel Huntington, has gone beyond that of "an apologist for 
colonialism",
as Edward Said, his foremost critic, describes him. In fact, Lewis, according to 
published
reports and his own statements, has been involved in lobbying, shaping and promoting 
the
Bush Administration's most hawkish policies in support of Israel against the 
Palestinians,
and for the aggressive use of American military force in the region.

His influence is not merely a result of his academic stature and prolific writings on 
Islam,
rather it is primarily a function of his membership in an alliance of 
neo-conservatives and
hard-line Zionists who have come to assume key posts in the Bush administration. Led by
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the powerful alliance has been trying 
to
put into practice a vision that they have been advocating throughout the nineties to 
ensure
unrivalled American supremacy through the elimination of all potential threats.

On 19 February 2001, representatives of the alliance, including Lewis, Rumsfeld, 
Wolfowitz
and others, signed a letter urging President Bill Clinton to launch a military 
offensive, which
would have included blanket bombings, to destroy the Iraqi regime. Since assuming 
power,
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, have called on influential friends like Lewis, and a host of 
hard-
line pundits, to press for an American war against Iraq.

In that capacity, Lewis has assumed a bigger "insider" role than some officials in the
administration who were not included in the decision-making on Iraq. According to a 
report
in USA Today, Lewis participated in a special meeting for the Defence Advisory Board, 
led
by the leader of warmongers, Richard Perle, on 19 September 2001. The meeting that was
scheduled before the 11 September attacks had occurred, was also attended by Lewis's
friend Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress. By various accounts, 
Lewis's
meetings with both President Bush, and especially a dinner with Vice-President Dick 
Cheney
(during his days of seclusion in the immediate aftermath of 9/11), were crucial to
promoting Wolfowitz's agenda of refocusing the administration's attentions on a war
against Iraq.

In those meetings, and many that followed, Lewis argued that 9/11 demonstrated the
danger the West was facing, especially if "Muslim terrorists" were supplied weapons of
mass destruction by Iraq, Syria or Iran. His message to the administration was that 
the US
could not afford to show weakness towards Arabs and Muslims. An American official told
The New Yorker magazine in April that Lewis advised them to disregard warnings against
inflaming the so-called Arab street since "in that part of the world, nothing matters 
more
than resolute will and force."

Lewis often cites the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon, which he criticised as 
"too
early", as an example of such signs of weakness that inspired the Palestinians to 
emulate
Hizbullah's "perceived victory" by launching the Intifada.

But it is his broad definition of the relationship between Islam and the West that 
makes
Lewis invaluable to the war lobby. Arab and Muslim grievances against the West, in 
Lewis's
view, are by in large baseless and no more than desperate attempts by failed societies 
to
blame external powers, especially the US and Israel for their self-inflicted misery. 
Lewis
provides "a scholarly" cover for a lobby that has been openly advocating the reshaping 
of
the regional map to eliminate "the Arab threat to Israel". Furthermore, Lewis considers
Israel and Turkey the only real nation states in the region and has been forecasting 
the
demise and the disintegration of Arab states since the Gulf War. "Most of the states 
of the
Middle East... are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a 
process.
If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold 
the polity
together, [and] no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to 
the
nation-state. The state then disintegrates -- as happened in Lebanon -- into a chaos of
squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties," Lewis wrote in 
Foreign
Affairs in 1992.

Lewis has repeatedly cited the rise of Islamism, following the decline of Pan Arabism 
and
socialism, as evidence that all Arab and Muslim responses to Western hegemony -- 
ranging
from the Palestinian resistance to intellectual anti-imperialist discourse -- result 
from
irrational religious fanaticism.

Lewis seemed to relish the rise of Osama Bin Laden, who he portrayed in a 1998 article 
as
the eloquent and poetic voice of Muslim rage, taking the Islamist's ascendancy as a
vindication of his own inattention to secular and democratic forces in the region who
oppose Western domination. In Lewis's world view, which has been adopted by countless
media pundits, only tyrants, oppressors and fanatics would stand up to US plans for 
radical
change in the region, while "true democrats", like certain figures in the Iraqi 
opposition, are
awaiting military liberation at Washington's hands.

At the opening of a conference entitled "The Day After: Planning For A Post Saddam 
Iraq",
organised by the right- wing American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Lewis put forward his
views with respect to the current context.

As Lewis sees things, the military campaign is actually a "vision of democratisation" 
that
elicits two types of responses. "The first could be summed up like this: The Arabs are
incapable of democratic government. Arabs are different from us, and we must be more,
shall we say, reasonable both in what we expect from them and in what they may expect
from us. Whatever we do, these countries will be ruled by corrupt tyrants. The aim of
foreign policy, therefore, should be to make sure that they are friendly tyrants 
rather than
hostile," Lewis told the opening session of the conference on 3 October.

"The other point of view is somewhat different. It begins more or less from the same
position -- that Arab countries are not democracies and that establishing democracies
within Arab societies will be difficult. Yet, Arabs are teachable and democratic 
governance
ought to be possible for them, provided we proctor and gradually launch them on our 
way,
or I should say on their way.

"That point of view is known as imperialism. It was the method adopted in the British 
and
French empires, in their mandated territories and in some of their colonies, creating
governments in their own image. In Iraq, in Syria, and elsewhere, the British created
constitutional monarchies and the French created unstable republics. None of them 
worked
very well. But hope still remains", Lewis said as he argued for the virtue of American
military intervention as an opportunity for the West to modernise the Arab world.

Lewis, who worked for British intelligence during World War II, not only has 
considerable
nostalgia for bygone days, but has put himself solidly in the service of the new 
American
empire, hoping it will pick up where the British and the French left off.

� Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 12 - 18 December 2002 (Issue No. 616)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/616/re4.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A<>E<>R
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; everything sent has to stand on its own merits, not on 
my
recommendation.  Some are true, some are absurd.  It's up to you to decide which is
which.
Yet, some truths become absurd; some adsurdities turn out to be true, unbelievably so.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without 
charge or
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of 
information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth
shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to