US Policy in the Middle East
US Policy in the Middle East
This is an interview of Dr. Khan by Marty Moss-Coane on the NPR-Philly show called Radio Times. Feel free to register your thoughts and reflections.
To listen to the show using mp3 player click here.
This is an interview of Dr. Khan by Marty Moss-Coane on the NPR-Philly show called Radio Times. Feel free to register your thoughts and reflections.
To listen to the show using mp3 player click here.
27 Comments:
I learned a lot from this interview and it was interesting to hear your opinions about the war in Iraq.
I agree with the fact that the war on Iraq shouldn't have happened, but since it has, we have to follow through. Our country has gone in and made a mess so the least it can do is clean up the mess before it leaves.
The reason I learned a lot from this interview is because I always felt that America's policies toward the Middle East were wrong, but it was difficult for me to think up a detailed solution to the problem. The idea that you had about giving Muslim-Americans more positions in the U.S government and allowing Muslims to have more military control is a very good solution to improving our reputation with the Middle East. That targets the problem right at the root because the whole reason why the Middle East refuses to cooperate with the U.S, is because they believe our country is immoral and therefore, should not be trusted.
I think this country has succeeded in many ways throughout history, but that doesn't mean it can't learn from the rest of the world.
I am not from the United States and I spend a lot of time in Brazil and Europe, I notice that the news in other countries is so centered on the U.S that often I get MORE information about U.S events out of the country than I do in the country. The U.S should be following the outside world a lot more closely, so that we as Americans can make more educated decisions and assume much less about other cultures and religions. After all, so many innocent people have died during the Bush administration as a result of bad decisions and assumptions, and a constant lack of planning.
The U.S can learn some valuable lessons from the Middle East and it should open its ears to the voices that need to be heard. The voices that may save a lot of lives in the future.
Carolina Ribas 10.17.05
I found it very interesting to hear your opinion on the war in Iraq. I was surprised to learn that the Muslim community once admired the United States as a role model colony that became highly developed. It is easy to see why there has been such a turnaround in their view towards the U.S. I completely agree that this war was not a just war and there is no reason to go in and tell a foreign country how to operate. However at this point we must stay to accomplish at least part of what we set forward to do. Withdrawal at this point would lead to anarchy for both Iraq and its surrounding nations. In addition Al queda would reinforce their already large and growing influence in the region. I liked your idea of passing along Military responsibilities to Arab Allies in the region. For countries such as Saudia Arabia and Egypt to take over main peace keeping responsibilities would alleviate much of the tension and violence that comes as a result of occupation by U.S. forces.
Nicole Appleman 10/17/05
I am a supporter of the War in Iraq, I was from the start. We entered a country devastated by a dictatorship to help the people. Yes, it was not perfect; War is messy by definition. And of course we need to stay in Iraq until a new government is stable and respects the rights of its citizens. But I would not term it as "the least the US could do". Democracy in Iraq is the mission to complete. Calling it the "least the US could do" is degrading the mission. Democracy in Iraq will take time, on the terms of 5 to 7 years. There will be more deaths, war is not clean, but there will be more advancements of democracy as time goes one. That is the point to focus on - the advancements of democracy.
Sarabeth Nicholson 10/17/05
Muqtedar Khan said...
Sarabeth, you make interesting point. But the US justified the war not in the name of promoting democracy. Since you were for the war from the beginning you must surely remember that the US went to war because it claimed that there were WMDs, democracy promotion was floated as a goal after it became certain that what the UN and Iraq had claimed all along was true, that there were no WMDS.
Everyone is coming up with possible solutions to the war in Iraq, when the U.S. can withdraw, and how we should establish democracy, so I was interested to hear your comments on this. I do not support the war in Iraq, but I agree that, since we are there, we need to finish what we started and not leave Iraq hanging, so to speak. I think the democratization process will take longer than most Americans expected (which is why public support of the war decreases with time) and I think more global support is neccessary for success. As Americans, we immediatley go to Europe for backup, seeing them as fellow Western thinkers. But you brought up an interesting point in that we should seek military support from other Muslim countries, like Egypt. Trying to reconstruct a Muslim nation while imposing our Western values would seem less imperialistic if we had such support. Iraqi citizens may be more receptive. I think it's an interesting, and different, approach to take.
Caitlin Ginley 10.18.05
I found your interview very interesting and insightful, Porfessor Khan. You sparked my interest specifically when you suggested that early withdrawl of US troops would lead to civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis to further research this topic, and I stumbled across this site: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0120-26.htm.
This author suggets that the civil war said to arise due to early US withdrawl would not occur between Shiites and Sunnis, but instead any war would result from foreign terrorists of the Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam. He suggets that it is a small faction of Sunnis that propose a threat to peace, instead of a larger, more general conflict. He even states that "the strong anti-sectarian standpoint of both Sunni and Shia leaders has been a powerful brake on any such tendency [toward war between these factions]". I do not necessarily support his opinion that US withdrawl would not be as devestating as some critics suggest,nor do I think a fast withdrawl of our troops is a good solution, but I am interested in your response to this article.
Rachael Casey
After listening to the radio show, I found it hard to disagree with Professor Khan’s arguments. Some of them I found particularly interesting are explained below; One being the various explanations on the U.S. presence in Iraq. It is seen as an illegal occupation, a way to bringing about democracy, a war against Islam and a Christian Crusade. These various reasons for occupation in Iraq is just an explanation of how misunderstanding is present in this conflict. In regards to the view that this occupation is anti-Islam, I found it interesting when Khan offered Muslims troops from surrounding countries to replace some American troops. This solution may eliminate this idea of American being on a Christian crusade which is held by some Muslims in Iraq. Also, I found Khan argument about the need for U.S. presence at the present time, due to the possibility of a divided Iraq, interesting. He argues that the presence is also justified to provide security from aggressive groups. This was fascinating due to the numerous calls of many for the immediate removal of American troops. He later explains that since America’s involvement, the Jihad fighters have grown more dangerous, through experience, and if the U.S. withdrew its forces, there will be greater hostility in Iraqi. The final point I found particularly interesting is the discussion on how Iraqis should share the responsibility for rebuilding their country. That the divisions in Iraq due to religious, ethnic, and tribal hostility plus the county’s insecurities are inhibiting Iraq from rebuilding schools, infrastructure, buildings, etc. It is the U.S.’s and the Iraqi’s responsibility to address this rebuilding, an idea I firmly agree with.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Prof. Khan, I have a question for you. In your interview, you wonder why Hughes ignored young Muslim men, and instead choose to speak to women and/or young children. While I agree that the angriest people are the young men and thus are probably the people who need to speak out the most, do you think they would be willing to speak to an American woman? My understanding, which very well may be incorrect, is that they most likely wouldn’t have. Though I’m not sure myself whether this would be because she is a woman or simply because she is American. If I am correct in assuming they wouldn’t have wanted to talk to her right away, is there a way that she could have raised her reputation among young Muslim men? And how could she have done that?
Adria Andersen 10/18
Adria, the very idea that yourng men in Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia would not talk to a woman and an American woman at that is reflection of very strong misunderstanding of the region. thousands of American women travel, live and work in the region and have pretty normal interactions. Many American women are married to Arab men in the region.
Karen Hughes main argument, I am a Mom, I work and guess what, I drive my own car! would not impress men. they would probably want to know why the US has caused the deaths of over 150,000 Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They would have focussed on US policy in the region and not on other issues.
She has also met Muslims in the US twice and has met both young and not so young men.
I found this interview to be very interesting, Professor Khan made some very clear points that I never thought of before. To start off, I have always been against the war in Iraq as I still am. I do agree though that it would be a horrible act if we took out all of our troops now. I didn’t know about the concern of Iraq being divided into three separate nations if the United States chose to pull out now, but this subject does interest me. A civil war in this region will produce more jihadism and create even a bigger threat to the United States. Professor Khan also made an interesting point about Muslimizing the occupation in Iraq. To remain there without being seen is a good idea… but can it be done? Will the United States be more resented for pursuing troops from Muslim countries to fight a battle they started?
I hadnt heard the thought that we should bring in other Muslim countries into Iraq until this interview. Many people talk, and have talked, about a coalition of many countries, but noone specifically ever talks about bringing in the countries in the region, at least not the commentators that I suscribe to. Prof. Kahn's assertion that this should happen was a good one. As was the follow up that it would never happen. We have lost the trust, if we ever had it, of Muslim countries and of most of the world. Kahn's idea that we should "recast foriegn policy" was also a good point. Another that I think isnt likely to happen, but a good point nonetheless. This administration is too hard-headed and inward looking to see that the people in key roles arent doing thier jobs, and when they are doing the job they arent doing them well. Kahn also stated that there needs to be more Arabs and Muslims in the American bureaucracy, which is likely to happen when we have a change in leadership, which cant happen soon enough.
Personally, I did not support the invasion of Iraq from the beginning accusations that WMDs were being produced in the country. However, I agree with Dr. Khan that now that the US has invaded, it has an outright obligation to provide security and promote nation building in a country that could easily fall into civil war if US presence disappeared. I also agree that the Bush administration’s goal to reduce terrorism and create a more secure world has produced only more terrorist sentiment and experienced jihad fighters. I agree that part of the solution must be to create a transition from a US dominated military presence to a “Muslimized’ one. I also want to touch on the caller’s remarks towards the end of the interview. Her accusations, I think, represent the narrow views of many people caught up in a “US versus the Islamic world” mentality. There seems to be a fear that American Muslims are covertly working towards Islamic fundamentalist goals. And yes, it has created a very hostile and accusatory environment for all Muslims in America. It is interesting that many Americans are immediately looking for ways to contradict moderate American Muslims, who can help to provide an invaluable view on the “war on terrorism” and US occupation of Iraq. This phenomenon, which Dr. Khan referred to as “islamophobia”, I think, is a response by people who are ignorant of many of the issues surrounding the current situation. It is just so unproductive to negate all American Muslim views due to an “islamophobia” (which I believe is largely fueled by the current administration’s portrayal of Islam).
Stephen Stolte 10/20/05
It was interesting to hear your opinion on the war in Iraq and the general perceptions of Muslims regarding America. I agreed with many of your points including your thoughts on America’s public relations AND policy problems in the Middle East, its claim of ‘spreading democracy’ as an excuse to stay in Iraq, and its lack of diplomacy starting before the invasion and continuing until the present day. Many may misconstrue these views as simply anti-Bush. However, you made two excellent points that people from both political parties should advocate. The first of these was to use Muslim countries to provide security in Iraq, specifically Sunni countries like Egypt or Saudi Arabia in Sunni areas, and Iran provide security in Shiite areas. Muslim soldiers would be less menacing to the natives, and less likely to be targeted for attacks by fellow Muslim insurgents. This would help America minimize its visibility in Iraq and allow it to focus more on state-building. A second point that was well taken was your suggestion that the U.S. should use American Muslims to build bridges and open lines of communication to the Middle East. Employing American Muslims as diplomats or top advisors to the Bush Administration would send a positive message to Muslims around the world.
10/23
This post has been removed by the author.
I really enjoyed listening to the interview of Professor Khan and agreed with many of the strategies and techniques presented. However I feel that some of the solutions presented to the problem of the war in Iraq would work beautifully but the United States is too arrogant of a nation to implement those solutions. Professor Khan stated that if President Bush had not been reelected the next president should have publicly stated that the war on Iraq was a mistake and the US would make amends to fix the situation. Although this is a logical solution to diminish the negative view the Arab world has of the U.S, the United States is too arrogant of a nation to admit that the war in Iraq was a mistake. The U.S would just lose more respect and credibility from other countries. In addition I also feel that the U.S will never ask the help of Muslim troops from different countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia because it will present a picture of a weak U.S who got into a war and was not able to complete the job. Due to pride issues and the way other countries would view the U.S, I don’t think they would ever apologize for the war or elicit the help of Muslim countries.
I agree that the U.S is illegally occupying Iraq but the question arises, if there were no weapons of mass destructions what the real reason that U.S invaded Iraq. After September 11th we had to respond to the attack which is why we attached Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. So why are we invading Iraq? There is probably some ulterior motive for the invasion. Maybe it is because the U.S wants a military base in Iraq so it can monitor countries in the area such as Iran which are developing nuclear weapons. Whatever the real reason for the war, I don’t think it has been told to the American people and I definitely don’t think it is to create a democracy in Iraq. The death of thousands of American soldiers is not worth a democracy in a foreign country. In addition I don’t even believe that democracy is the solution for Iraq. Even though Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, he was able to govern the country and keep all the different Muslim factions (Sunni and Shiite Muslims) in relative peace. When you have different factions that all have different goals, are very much opposed to one another and extremely passionate about their cause, it is unrealistic to expect these people to live together in a democracy. The basic concept for a democracy is respect and tolerance for different people and religions. This is at least somewhat present in the United States which is why democracy is successful in this country. This is definitely not the case in other countries especially Iraq and no one has proved that democracy is the best way to govern a country. I feel that promotion of a democracy in Iraq is a worthless cause.
Ultimately I feel that the U.S will not leave Iraq until they get some kind of benefit from the war. Why would the U.S waste so much time, money and effort not to mention lives and not get some benefit from the war? Although I don’t know what that benefit could be I feel that the U.S will have a strong presence until they get it
Arvind Sabesan
10/24/2005
I really don't know what to think anymore regarding the war in Iraq. I still support it and all, but I have begun to realize over the past couple of years that maybe it wasn't the right way to deal with things; but I honestly don't know what would have been. Any ideas?
This post has been removed by the author.
As is the general consensus, the war in Iraq was essentially unjustified. However, it would be highly irresponsible for us to back out now. While we are occupying the area, it is essential that we declare that the U.S. has no interest in setting up permenant military bases or controlling the Iraqi oil supply, which most people believe is the main reason why we entered the war in the first place. It is also important that we request the services of the UN in hopes that they will be responsible for monitoring the process of military disengagement and then organize a peaceful reconstruction effort. There should be an effective peace envoy that will encourage conversation among the groups of Iraqis that are essentially opposed to any occupation in order to reach a political settlement. This should include the representation of oppositional forces and parties, as well as promote the protection of basic human rights for all as core principles of governance. Lastly, there should be a promotion of economic and energy development which will help the nation become less dependent.
I agree with all the people who stated that we need to follow through in Iraq. Not necessarily placing our
I agree with everyone who stated that we need to follow through with the war in Iraq. After waging war based on the presence of WMD's and not finding any, the U.S. would seriously lose face to back out of the region now. We can not just leave a country war torn. Placing muslim-americans into decision making positions is an interesting idea of how to solve problems of U.S. foreign policy in the middle east. Yet we should not place people in positions they are not ready for, this is one of the problems of the Bush administration as we have seen with FEMA's handling of the issues involving Hurricane Katrina, before and after. At the very least though, muslim-americans or anthropologists familiar with the culture should be consulted while we are involved in the middle east. The U.S. has helped many countries but I think we need to learn from the past. The U.S. government was not forced on us from any other country that helped liberate us, and this eventually lead to what many people believe is the best government in the world when it is essentially the best government for us and sometimes for other countries. We can help smaller nations along the way but we can't forget that it is sometimes best for them to figure it out for themselves.
Sean Guidera, posted 10/25
I think that including more American Muslims in American foreign policy and diplomacy, as Dr. Khan suggested, is an intelligent and logical course of action for the American government to take. I think this would help improve the view of Americans in the Mideast and Muslim world. Placing more American Muslims in government positions would help curb the belief that America is waging a war against Islam. But, it is partly because of narrow minded people like the caller from Florida that American Muslims do not have a greater role in America’s government. Such people are hostile toward American Muslims and may see them as a threat to this country. However, American Muslims could be this country’s greatest asset for better diplomacy in the Muslim world. Out of curiosity, I searched the internet to see which American Muslims had a prominent role in the U.S. government. In my search, I actually came across an article written by Dr. Khan called “American Muslims Push for Role in Policy Planning.” The article talked about a newly formed group called the American Muslim Group on Policy Planning (AMGPP) which will give “policy input to government officials through regular dialogue, conferences, meetings and briefings” among other things. I think the U.S. government would be wise to utilize the AMGPP to their full potential. It is wonderful that such a group exists.
Steph Scholl 10/25/05
This post has been removed by the author.
I wanted to comment something On Sarabeth's posting. I wanted to say that the US DID NOT GO IN TO HELP THE PEOPLE rid of SADDAM. THey went in because SADDAM supposedly had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, TIES WITH AL-QAIDA and was about to ATTACk US. It is true that we cannot get out of IRAQ right now and leave it for the insurgents. But one must also accept the fact that it was an illegitimate war and we should have been there in the first place (or at least without any UN resolution). I have a question for DR.KHAN as well.
Is it important for every developing countries to adopt DEMOCRACY in order to develpt, or is there another alternative that can be followed?
Mustafa Zia OCTOBEr 26
This post has been removed by the author.
The United States invaded Iraq under the idea that they possessed weapons of mass distruction. However, when these weapons were not found and the United Nations did not give permission to invade Iraq, President Bush still decided to go in anyway. When these weapons were not found, people started to justify the war because of Saddam being a ruthless dictator. Even though the United States is very strong military power and a supporter in democracies, it does not justify invading another country. I do agree that Democracy is the most superior form of government, however some countries because of religious beliefs do that think that way. Since we did invade Iraq, we need to make sure that we leave it, when it is stable. The people are better off now, however I do not think it is the US's responsibility to go and be the protector of the world, especially when we have to lose soldiers lives for it.
Megan O'Toole 15/11/05
Post a Comment
<< Home