Abu Hatem أبو حاتم

How did the war in Iraq originate?

It originated, unapologetically, the way most U.S. foreign policies originate - through policy think tanks composed of intellectual policy makers. Our government works through these policy think-tanks.

The neo-conservative movement is the major ideology behind the American Enterprise Institute - the policy institute which formulated the Iraq war. The head intellectuals which crafted Iraq policy were Richard Perle, Norman Podhorentz, Irving Kristol, and Robert Kagan were three of many intellectuals who signed a letter to President Bush in 2002 urging war with Iraq. In fact, Robert Kagan, an intellectual who’s father is a Yale professor and brother is a professor of International Relations, spoke to President Bush this past January when advising him about the surge strategy - and the Washington Post reported that it was Kagan who finally got Bush’s ear. Thus, it is important to know these people.

Now, “neoconservativism,” is not necessarily the devil. Democracies obviously consist of different people joining different political ideologies and advancing them in what they believe is for the public’s good and benefit. However, one must understand what exactly the neo-Conservative ideology stands on. You cannot dumb yourself down to only relying on the arguments of political pundits and ideologies whose shallowness rarely consists of the scholarly substance of those who really make our policy. Those who really make our policy are intellectuals in think-tanks who Congress and the President borrow when attempting to create legislation and policy based on their political ideologies.

International relations scholar John J. Mearsheimer does a good job in describing the neo-Conservative ideology in terms of foreign policy in this article while comparing it to the another theoretical perspective of international relations called “realism,” which Mearsheimer subscribes to. Mearsheimer in his recent work, the controversial The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy places the intellectual neoconservatives of the AEI as part of the “Israel lobby,” which they say is made up of Israeli lobbying organizations, neoconservatives, and Christian zionists (such as the CUFI group lead by John Hagee, conservative Christian minister). All of these groups agree on two things: the need for immense U.S. support of Israel, and support for the war in Iraq (one major reason of which was to support Israel’s interests - as well as to spread Democracy to the Middle East (as par the neoconservative belief in the Democratic Peace Theory especially highlighted in its chief intellectual - Francis Fukayama’s concept of the end of history), the so-called claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction and American security (which, even if you give the benefit of the doubt was not the only or even central reason for the war - as even top officials in the administration claimed after the war began), and the possibility of the oft-repeated mantra of “oil,” which is usually raised by the cooky and radical left, but who knows… (hey! if Alan Greenspan can mention it, then who knows!)

An interesting book to show people how public policy is actually made in the United States is Top Down Policy Making by Professor Thomas Dye, one of the most important public intellectuals of the past fifty years. Due to constitutional restraints of government through checks and balances our policy is made up through compromise between the major institutions of the government: the President and Executive Bureaucracy, the Congress, the courts, and state and local governments - with major influence from major institutions such as corporations, Lobbies, scientists, researchers and think-tanks. Think-tanks take the role of actually formulating a smart policy which will work.

The major think-tanks in Washington are The Council on Foreign Relations, one which is so aligned with the government that Dwight Eisenhour chaired one of its groups, policy-mastermind George Kennan - the formulator of anti-Soviet foreign policy during the Cold War - was one of its members, and Henry Kissinger - former U.S. Secretary of State - was also a member. Another major policy think tank, the moderate Brookings Institute, was crucial in formulating many of Bill Clinton’s policy iniatives. The other two think-tanks: The Heritage Foundation and The American Enterprise Institute hail from the conservative perspective, the AEI being from the neoconservative perspective in particular.

Another major factor in pushing the Iraq war was the media, something that American journalist and former Lyndon Johnson staffer Bill Moyers illustrated in his documentary, Buying the War. The media barely asked any questions in the entire run-up to the Iraq conflict basically giving the university a “blank check,” in going to war and shaping public opinion to be remarkable pro-war.

However, I do not believe this was a media conspiracy, contrary to the whisperings of the shallow in intellect - but instead a falling out on the media’s part. This is something that Dan Rather, and others in the media have stated. The administration also used and manipulated the media, especially after 9/11, to push these stories - but I will leave the explanation of all of this to Moyers.

Share This

We just finished watching Dr. Zhivago in my Russian politics class.  For those of you who don’t know, Dr. Zhivago is a love story film which chronicles the events of the Communist revolution in Russia.

In one scene of the movie, one of the Soviet officers who played a part in the revolution proclaims that he left his wife and child behind - with total apathy of them - because “the private life in Russia is dead,” and that he perferred working for the ideology of the revolution in establishing the Utopian society.

A central question relating to things like this is how do such horrid people like this come about?  Normal people like to live the private life.  The film of Dr. Zhivago shows the importance of being in love in life, having religion, having true and deep friendships, and sincerely living life experiencing love, care for others, and true companionship with people.

Our professor said that this highlights the central issue of political philosophy, ever since the time of Plato - and this is highlighted in the Republic.  Edmund Burke stated that in revolutions the worst of people rises to the top, and people’s worst aspects become manifest.  Our professor said the private life IS life - it should be the most important thing to you.  When people become so caught up in ideology, so Utopian that they disregard love, care, true friendships, and their family - when they find that political ideology is more important than the private life then this is when danger results.

The whole point of politics is to establish the means for people to live the good life.  In the good life, people have true loving friendships, fall in love, have religion, and truly care for people.  These societies are normal and stable and lead to human happiness.  But societies which, in their Utopian blindness, destroy the private life in their quest for Utopia - creating tyrannous police-states, will ultimately fail.  What good is there in a society which creates human beings who learn that lying, cheating, stealing, and hurting others is good?

The central issue which the Republic, a book I have loved to hate for its outdated Greek psychology (”the balance of the soul,”) and outdated morality (Plato and Socrates debating moral theories), is that the state is a reflection of the case of its people.  If a state is made up of good people and actively attempts to create good people by implementing justice, morality, and allowing “the private life,” then it will be a good state.  But if it tries to destroy “the private life,” if it is encouraging people to be bad people (like tyranny does) it will be a bad state.

Our professor also stated that religion is an immensely important part of society for its nurturing of “the private life,” and its creation of hope and faith in human beings who will then cooperate with others and love and care for others.  Religion creates social cohesion and love.  (Not to mention the fact that even atheist academics have studies that say religious people are happier, they have less anxiety, and religion’s function in providing societal cohesion.  Other than the perils of religious extremism, religion is a very important thing in society, whether you believe in it or not!).

I just found it interesting, after 3 years I finally understand that book (after having been made to read it many times).

However in other news I still hate political philosophy.  It is mostly useless.  Paraphrasing the founder of American political philosophy, John Burges, … well at least in modern terms… “If it aint broke, don’t fix it!”  We have systems that work!  We don’t need to discuss the cyclos in Plato’s Republic or Strauss and Voegelin’s interpretations of the Pelopenesian war!

Share This

I don’t usually write about religion, but I just wanted to give this point after seeing more and more hogwash about the so-called “system,” of economics said to be an integral of Islam and oft-repeated to be “neither capitalist nor socialist.”  Nancy Davis and Robert Robinson, two professors of sociology, released a paper at the 2004 Association of American Sociologists called “Islam and Economic Justice: A ‘Third Way’ Between Capitalism and Socialism?”

Throughout the internet, and in real life, there are ideological movements of people calling for a so-called “Islamic system,” of economics which they say is an economic system revealed by God that is a so-called “third way,” between Capitalism and Socialism.  Such intellectually lazy comments show an extreme ignorance of economic concepts and theories.  Many of such people lean to the socialist persuasion of economic theory.

Websites such as this one which state that Islamic economics promotes the idea of an extreme welfare state which offers welfare, food, shelter, and health care to every citizen.  It also states that prices are not a “method of distribution of goods,” (whatever that means?) and that in an Islamic state people do “what makes them happy, not what makes the most money,” and so in the end “everyone is productive,” and “there is no sin on high earnings.”

Hodgepodges such as these try to state that Islam has its own economic “system,” instead of the better word - laws, and that this is a cross between socialism and capitalism, as if the social-welfare state under a free-market has never existed before.  Muslims should pick up a few books of Ludwig von Mises, Adam Smith, and Robert Shumpeter before making such brash generalizations about economics.

In stating all of this, the author is not totally off the mark.  Islam does use zakat funds to provide life necessities to the poor and destitute - such as food, clothing, and shelter.  However, the statement that these are a “right,” is unsupported, and the fact of the matter is that there exists the possibility in which zakat funds are insufficient in paying for the necessities of every single poor person.  What then?  Does the Islamic government violate the right to property of those who have money to increase taxes?

Yet, this entire discussion is folly.  For, the author of this website is confusing some major concepts.  Such a state, yes, in all of its descriptions, would be a capitalist economy.  This is because of the existence of a free-market which the author implies.  The existence of a welfare state, that which the author is attempting to justify, is commonly misunderstood to be “socialism,” or a system which is incompatible with capitalism - and so the author states that this economy would be “not capitalist.”  Although the welfare state, “leans socialist,” we cannot exactly call it socialism - as I will explain.

Socialism often has much appeal and many adherents - however many really do not know what socialism is. I know many Muslims who have ideas close to socialism. They do not enjoy the fact that there is inequality in the economic order and seek a more egalitarian society. Firstly, one must note, that socialism is not the establishment of an egalitarian society - although this is one of its ends. Socialism is defined as “government control of the means of production,” or command economy instead of demand economy.

Capitalism, a system often criticized by many Muslims as economic oppression of the poor, in its purest definition is “private control of some or all of the means of production.” It is a market economy in which “the market is dictated by supply and demand.” While as Muslims we obviously reject the “or all,” the fact of the matter is that capitalism, in some form or another, has been in existence throughout Muslim history even up to the beginning of Islam. Islam speaks highly of trade, the Prophet Muhammad (may God bless him and give him peace) said “The most pure of money is through trade,” (athar al-mal al-tijara). Islam also affirms the right of private property, and thus the legality of free-enterprise.

The first stock market existed in Egypt during Islamic rule, before Europe even thought of the concept. It is also a historical fact that the first “market economies,” which led to the formation of capitalism, were MUSLIM! Ibn Khaldun speaks of low taxes and free markets in his Muqaddimah as far back as the 1400s! Something many Muslims will be shocked of is Ibn Khaldun, the great sociological, political, economic, and historical thinker - also a religious scholar of fiqh and judge - was one of U.S. President Ronald Regan’s favorite economic thinkers! Regan even mentioned him in a speech. In fact Regan’s policy of tax cuts to stimulate the economy was direct spoken of by Ibn Khaldun in the Muqaddimah.

Capitalism, my dear friends, is defined as private ownership of most of, or all, of the means of production.  Islamic law, while not providing an economic system, allows private ownership of most of the means of production - with few exceptions (such as water).  Socialism is a centrally planned economy by the state.  Islam, obviously, is not compatible with socialism.  And calling Islam a so-called “third way,” is rubbish, because there already is a “third way,” which is the varying degrees of a mixed economy or the social market economy which is actually the economy of a great portion of the world - including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany.

 Islamic law acknowledges the right and freedom of setting prices and buying and selling goods, as long as these goods are lawful under Islamic law.  While the money lending industry was inexistent (well, actually it still existed - see Capitalism in the Medieval Muslim World by S. Labib) there remained a free market economy in place.  Read the works of Ibn Khaldun and you will find policies which even inspired Ronald Regan.

In fact, the bartering system in such a free market was actually sound money of the Islamic dinar.  The State did impose taxes, yet the main taxes imposed by Islamic law are the mandatory zakat - which is 2.5% on a minimum income which goes mostly to the poor, destitute, and highly indebted.  There is no mandatory medicare or social security revealed in Islamic revelation, nor is there a 50% estate tax, nor a sales tax.

The state did not control and command the economy.   Instead, the market ruled the economy - Muslims generally had a free market, at least in the beginning, while some later despots would make this far from the case.

It was in fact the Islamic free market system, led by such multinational corporations as “the Karimi family,“ which led to the very free-market economic system which the West has today.  So instead of “socializing,” Islam - we should deal with the facts, Islam is compatible with free-markets (or in other nomenclature - capitalism or “mixed economies”), although Islamic law does affirm certain business laws which lead to the inexistence of certain industries - such as the money-lending banking industry - there is no use to sit around and philosophize while justifying that Islam is a “system” of economics.

If you don’t believe that Islamic society, even since the time of the earliest Caliphs, was “capitalist,” or “free market,” then please read Subhi Y. Labib (1969), Capitalism in Medieval Islam.

Islam does establish zakat and kharj taxes, obliging the payment of some charity to the poor, as well as strongly encouraging private charity to the poor, but this is no justification that Islam is socialist. What Islam condemns is certain industries of a capitalist economy - such as the money-lending banking industry which through usury leads to the economic slavery and oppression of the poor, or the alcohol and cigarette industries, or other industries which create products that harm human beings, but not industry and business as a whole. An interesting perspective on the matter can be found here.

None can say that Islam advocates government dictation of the economy, the failed “socialist-state.” This does not mean that pure unfettered free-market capitalism is a successful system either. Pure capitalism does not truly exist anywhere, at least in a nation-state, in the world; there is always some government regulation of the economy.

What exists, and are successful, in the United States, Europe, South East Asia and other developed successful countries is mixed economies. Now the degree of mixing has led to two separate mixed economy models both of which work and are successful for the most part:

First: Is the more free market leaning state like the U.S. The U.S. government has imposed very moderate regulations of the economy. A moderate corporate taxes on large businesses, a low income tax, and many other moderate and low taxes fund a relative few amount of government programs including free public schools to High School, an extremely limited welfare program of about two years called TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), social security provided for state-funded retirement, and Medicare providing health care for the lowest income Americans. Low taxes means greater consumption leading to economic growth. Healthcare is not free in the United States, nor college education.

However, one must note, that the standard of living in the U.S. is one of the best in the world. 12% of the U.S. population is underneath the poverty line, however these 12% often live with more money than the average income in some European nations. Another fact is that many of the 12% of Americans that are underneath the poverty line have a much higher quality of life than people in many developing countries. And lastly, the 12% of Americans underneath the poverty compared to the historical poor of the past three centuries are living much higher qualities of life.

In the American system although there is a lower class which exists the vast majority of Americans live in the middle class to upper class and enjoy a quality of life unprecedented economic affluence and prominence. Although money can’t buy happiness, as Economist and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich states in his great work The Future of Success, it can buy comfort, healthcare, housing, education, food, and leisure and luxuries which can lead to happiness and pleasurable experiences.

It is also an important aspect of the American economic system that there is social mobility. The fact that a poor lower class member can move up the social ladder, even politically (as famous Thomas Dye even notes in his elitist theory of American democracy described in The Irony of Democracy) is perhaps the most striking feature of American society. Rags-to-riches stories abound, a poor American can become a richer one (although with much less advantages along the way than a rich one has) through, if the person is blessed with a decent intellect, working hard in school and eventually graduating from a college or graduate school with a reasonable degree and then getting a job. Although the cost of college and graduate school may be very expensive for the poor man to afford - Americans counter this by stating the poor person could be granted government or private scholarships and also take out loans which he would pay back after success. In the same token, a richer person can become poor by messing up, not working, losing in risky enterprise, etc. So there is class mobility in the U.S. system.

Second: The second system that works is the “social market,” economy. A “social market economy,” is a European twist on the free-market and involves the extensive welfare state. It is a more socialistic (not socialist) form of capitalism. While free market and industry are available for wealth to be made (or lost), there also exists extensive taxes which redistribute wealth creating much less inequality. While a higher and lower class do exist in these countries, for the most part there is an enormously large middle class with differences in equality. The differences in income between the various occupations do exist, but they are much less than in the United States. For example U.S. doctors on average earn five times more than doctors in the U.K.

The social-market economy model has also worked. Although it has many problems, just as the American system does, it is for the most part a “lesser evil,” than the failed economic systems of socialism and communism - and the only true alternative economic system which works. Sweeden is an example of the extensive welfare state. It provides free government run healthcare, schooling up to Ph.D. level, welfare for the poor, pensions, and social security for all of its citizens (or expensive healthcare to a certain extent since it is payed for by up to 60% taxes on its citizens!)

There are immense problems with the Sweedish model however, although it is generally a working model. Firstly the limitation of free-enterprise leads to lower quality healthcare, lower quality products, and a stagnant economy. The Sweedish economy is in trouble. While nationalization of industry can often keep prices low or even eliminate them through raising taxes (an example of lower prices through nationalization is Democratic progressive Dennis Kucinich’s nationalization of the municipal electricity system to eliminate corporate monopoly), competition is also an impetus for innovation and lower prices and a central factor for the immense success of the American system.

Anyways, both types of market economies are the only successful economic system possible in the world today. It has been widely apparent that these two types of economies work.  There will always be schools against this fact, for example the Ludwig von Mises “Austrian school,” claims that social market “Third Way,” economies will eventually become socialist and that they have inherent problems.  At the same time, capitalist free-market economies have different underlying economic philosophies including the Keynesian school, the Chicago school, and the Austrian school.  This is too big of an issue to talk about on a blog. While there are many problems in the aforementioned economies, many are fixable through economic policy (such as for example proposals to create an affordable U.S. healthcare system, for instance) and those that are not - those that are inherent flaws in the economic system - are lesser evils than the evils humanity has seen in socialism and communism in the past century.

Share This

“The man is not he who says ‘My father!’ ‘My father!’

Indeed the man is he who is himself great”

Or so the classical Arabic proverb goes.  Being with the Arab and Muslim communities both at home and abroad, I find it is unfortunate that we live up to the standards of our forefathers.  As Arabs, we seem to only be successful at speaking of the greatness of our forefathers.  “We were,” “we were,” is what we hear constantly.  We blame everyone else for our problems.  It is always Israel’s fault, it is always America’s fault.  “The news media is biased against us!”  “The Jewish lobby!”  etc. etc.

Did we ever stop to truly think and be critical of ourselves?  We blame the West, yet we come to the West and live in it.  We speak of the West’s injustice and decadence yet it is only in this great country that we experience the freedoms that are denied to us in our own lands.  It is only in this country that we have rights, and liberties.  It is only in this country where we enjoy economic freedom and prosperity.

Arabs are unsophisticated people who take everything personally.  I say this as an Arab.  Instead of blaming “MSNBC News,” for their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis - we should blame our own selves.  Maybe the West got some things right?  Obviously we as Arabs, al-Hamdulilah, have our virtues - such as strong family ties, secure neighborhoods, morals and values, etc.  But even those are being taken away.  We seem to copy the West in everything bad and then oppose the West in everything good.

It reminds me of one of my favorite poets, Nizar Qabbani, who highly critical of Arab nationalism spoken in unforgiving terms of our horrid socio-economic-political condition.  One especially poignant picture of this was his poem written after Arab defeat in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war:

We have lost the war

It is not a surprise

Because we have entered it

With everything Middle Eastern of rhetoric and speeches

Those stories we quote of ‘Antar which did not kill a fly

You do not win a war

With a reed and a flute

Qabbani would later write another scathing line about our own condition:

Our days revolve

Around backgammon, chess, and sleeping

And you call yourselves, “The best nation which ever came to mankind.”

We must live up to what Allah has told us in the Qur’an.  We are the best nation which ever came to mankind, but we are hardly acting in such a way.  The Muslim world fortunately, with its Islam, has surpassed the West in morals and societal values - but our socio-economic-political downfall is because of our laziness and blame of others.  We are uncritical of ourselves.

Qabbani wrote a poem that said that when they announced the death of the Arabs there would be none to grieve over them.  We deserve everything we are getting - it is all from our own hands.  Actually Allah is being merciful to us because we deserve much worse.

As much as we remember our good points, we must remember our bad ones.  Deep down inside I believe that we are jealous of the freedom and democracy of the West.  And so to justify it - we attack the West and claim that “It was our idea!” or “The Classical Arabs lived better lives.”  We are ethnocentric.  We believe that we are the best people.  If any other civilization or culture thinks up better ideas - we are jealous of them and attack them.  We are unsophisticated people.  Unsophisticated people.

Instead of looking back, we should look ahead - and fix ourselves.  We have intellectual laziness.  We believe that just by saying a few things about the Israel lobby or the “Jewish media,” that this is going to make us intellectual.  Yet we do not read.  The average Arab reads in one year what the average European reads in one day.  We don’t write.  Or when we do write it is just gossip.  We have no idea, no idea… we are so behind.

As Qabbani said:

    Read a book

    Write a book!

    Nobody knows you exist in caves

    People take you for a breed of mongrels

Share This