DON'T MENTION ISLAM
For more than three weeks America stayed her hand. She did not lash out. Nothing was done in haste. A coalition was assembled. A global consensus was forged, from Russia to Japan, from China to Saudi Arabia. Tony Blair's vapour trail wove a cat's cradle around the planet, while aircraft carriers moved slowly into the Gulf. There was a general impression of massive deliberation. The eagle crouched. The spring coiled tighter. The Western alliance hummed with suppressed kinetic energy. In these circumstances, everyone rather admired American strategy, and approved of her restraint.
Now, however, the first missiles have exploded in a poor, benighted country, and some of the gentler spirits among us may find ourselves quailing. There may be readers who fully support the right of America to avenge the murder of 7,000 people, and yet who feel suddenly leery about the way the war is going. Once again the Pentagon produces its pictures, designed to show the success of bombing from a great height. If you were a pessimist, you might think that these 'before' and 'after' shots merely depicted the same moonscape, only with a slightly different configuration of craters. Those who remember the Kosovo bombing will know that in three months of pounding, the Pentagon managed to take out only a handful of Serb tanks. Civilians have been killed, as we always knew they would be. It seems especially cruel, somehow, that the UN officials killed by the Pentagon — so blown up that only one leg remained between four people — should have been engaged in mine clearance, Parliament has been recalled three times, and at no stage have our MPs been informed of our war aims. If we believe in replacing the Taleban with a 'broad-based' coalition, whence do we propose to find these broad-minded folk? From the badmashes of the Northern Alliance?
And if we keep bombing, we fear that we will encourage the Muslim fanatics to bomb us back. At home, everyone is worried about whether the office cold might be the early stages of anthrax. Most alarming of all, it is not clear that we are win ning the war of propaganda. We may think bin Laden is. self-evidently, an evil maniac. But it is a depressing possibility that his Middle Eastern audience do not see him that way. Where we see the repetitive ravings of a nutter, they may see a calm, principled man whose case is built on some logic — even if that logic is wildly misapplied. Bin Laden has been highly skilful in building up a false symmetry: his murderous attacks were, alas, animated by a certain interpretation of Islam. It would therefore seem to follow — and he can certainly claim — that any response by the West is an attack on the Muslim world. He has declared jihad; the West ill-advisedly responded with a 'crusade'. The truth is that there are elements of the Koran which do legitimate hostility towards us infidels, The Koran does give scriptural cover for judicial brutality and the ill-treatment of women. In the headiness of its poetry and rhetoric, it is easy to see how the Koran can help induce a divine rage and suicidal madness. All this is true, but impossible now for Blair or Bush to admit, because it plays bin Laden's game. Of course a variant of Islam is at the heart of the problem — or at least a paranoid sense that Islamic values are under threat from Western values. But to spell this out, to blame Islam — even in its most fanatical interpretations — is to invite all Muslims to feel defensive of their religion and culture. We are already seeing the consequences in Pakistan, and across the Arab world. Even in this country, Muslim leaders are refusing to speak out in support of the bombing. When $1 million cruise missiles maim children in Kabul, it is felt by Arabs to be not so much an attack on the Taleban, but a general retaliation against them all; for their undoubted resentment of' American cultural and commercial dominance. That is exactly what bin Laden wants. 'These events have divided the world into two camps, the camp of the faithful, and the camp of the infidels,' he said in one of his spooky taped broadcasts. He has scripted a conflict called 'Islam smites the West'; and in fighting back. the West appears to be smiting Islam, and turning bin Laden into the hero of a culture under siege. Which is why Blair, the spokesman of the West, is going to such heroic lengths to try to separate the words 'Islamic' and 'terrorist'. It is nonsense, but one can see why he does it, and he is right to try. This `war' can only be won if it is clear that we are simply trying to roll up odious terrorist networks, which are largely based in Afghanistan. It may yet be won, in the limited sense that the Taleban may be overthrown, and bin Laden's organisation may be incapacitated. It is worth trying. No credible alternative has been suggested. While we are at it, it is necessary to pretend that the suicidal mania of Osama bin Laden's men has nothing to do with Islam.
Previous page
