How U.S. foreign policy may have led to Ft. Hood incident

States don’t just exist - they actively exist. It is as difficult for a state to gain sovereignty and existence as it is to sustain them. And how states sustain both tells us a lot about their sense of national security. National security with regards to terrorism breaks down into two types: domestic and international. The former being terrorism perpetrated by American citizens on U.S. soil and the latter being foreign threats faced by the U.S. either on its own soil or abroad.

With all the focus on international terrorism since 2001, it may seem as though American sovereignty and existence are contingent upon the elimination of imminent, foreign threats. But according to FBI reports between 2002 and 2005, twenty-three of the twenty-four recorded terrorist incidents against the United States were domestic. Minus one white supremacist firebombing of a synagogue, the other twenty-three domestic attacks were carried out by extremist environmental and animal rights group.

The sole international terrorist incident involved an Egyptian national killing two at Los Angeles Airport.

Before the pro-war advocates tell you there was only one such international incident because of Bush’s decision to wage wars against Islamic fundamentalism, also know that between 1980 and 2000, 250 of the 335 suspected terrorist acts against the United States were domestic. It appears that the same animal-loving, tree-hugging, white-supremacist type individuals of today have been targeting the wellbeing of the United States longer than Osama himself. And as a result, American national security may be ruling out the probability that it faces a great danger from members of its own state than it does from pro-bin Laden fanatics hiding in the caves of north-western Pakistan.

With two abysmal wars waging onwards in Iraq and Afghanistan, many are asking the same sorts of questions. Namely, is America really that much safer than it was just before the 9/11 attacks? Is it as unsafe now as it was prior to 2001?

Since 2001, national security measures of the United States have focused on preventing imminent threats from abroad. These measures have narrowed their focus on Islamic groups and individuals – making the assumption that because 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims, the biggest threat to US national security must continue to come from the Islamic world. Additional assumptions must also exclude the probability that increased terrorist activity from Islamic communities were reactionary to pre-emptive American action. After all, if such wasn’t excluded, one could argue that the United States was engaging in terrorism and facing the opposition out of defense.

There is no doubt that the Untied States has provoked a great deal of social and ethno-religious unrest throughout the Islamic world in recent years. Also given the unique and heterogeneous nature of the American citizenry, these measures have adversely affected many Muslim-American communities. Is it possible for such a state as the U.S. to pursue national security interests, aimed at guarding the wellbeing of the state and its people, such that their very nature ends up marginalizing American citizens it seeks to protect?

Aside from the Americans who raid fur factories and bomb industrial ones (in the name of foxes and Mother Earth) it should become apparent that improper national security measures will also lead to reactionary situations. This is where the international and domestic terrorist threats merge into one major concern. I find this to be the prominent issue surrounding the recent Ft. Hood massacre in Texas. Unlike Lierbman’s anxiousness to investigate where Hasan’s assessment went wrong, I wonder where the U.S. went wrong on a very different level.

By preemptively engaging in two massive wars against Islamic states and developing rather discriminatory legislation aimed at marginalizing individuals of Arab and Muslim descent (see: The Patriot Act), the U.S. created a situation in which its own unregulated paranoia is prompting development of imminent threats against it. In a sense, it is contributing to its own difficulty in maintaining its sovereignty and survival.

Had Hasan not been subject to the discrimination and marginalization that he was, would he have snapped? Had the US not pursued a unilateral mission against the Islamic world, would our troops be as keen on weeding out their fellow Muslim soldiers?

It appears that the majority of attacks have always been domestic, but now we’re importing reasons for our own citizens to pursue them even more.

Media focus on piracy seen as hypocritical

Soon after Somali pirates boarded an American ship with top security clearance, and seized the captain, a disturbing pattern of incitement and a lack of objectivity kidnapped the American media.

American Media is rightfully expressing concern over the hostage. His well being and his families pain has been correctly respected and understood.

But turning these pirates into terrorists, ignoring the Somalian experience and point of views and instead bringing up maps during the nightly news to look for places to bomb in Somalia betrays journalism.

Reuters News actually did the right thing and called the Pirates. The pirates said they couldn’t talk long because,”we are surrounded by war ships.” And before the pirates hung up they said quickly, “Please pray for us.”

The CNN corespondent reported the Somali quote with a chuckle. “Imagine that,” she asked. It was clear that CNN was not going to humanize or be curious about the Somalian people involved.

There are close to 9,000 hits on Google news for Somalian pirates and very few, if any, explore the Somalian quote above.

‘Next CNN’ host Roland Martin asked why we were even negotiating with the terrorists. And slowly the news media blurred the lines of an actual event and the boogie-man.

In a matter of hours Somalia went from an unknown to terrorists unworthy of human emotions or prayer.

A guest on CNN said the pirates are fueled by greed and no one challenged him. No one argued any responsibility lying anywhere but Somalian pirates.

Next every caller agreed we should bomb the pirates and Somalia.

Renew America reported that the incident was happening in the Middle East (it is actually Africa) and that “it serves as a reminder that, besides 9/11, Islam has had one other shaping influence on the history of the United States: we have a navy, thanks to the sea-going Islamic thugs of Thomas Jefferson’s day, the Barbary Pirates.”

Surprisingly, the New York Times also connected the Somali Pirates to the Barbary Wars of the 1800’s.

I remember in journalism school I learned about objective journalism. It would include reporting that these pirates have nothing to do with the Barbary Wars and nothing to do with terrorism.

Objective Journalism would report that some Somali’s claim they started pirating as a counter weight to corporate pollution in their waters.

Objective journalism would explore that many Somalis pirate to counter international ships that they see as illegal business competitors invading their waters.

“We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits,” said one Pirate in the New York Times last year after taking over a Ukrainian vessel. “We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard.”

Objective journalism would contemplate if non-Somalian boats in Somalian waters are seen as pirates, too.

–

Watch a video about piracy from a Somalian artist here.
Read more commentary from CNN here.
Most recent news here.

–

Credit: Abrahim Appel, 30, a freelance journalist residing in Fullerton, California. He recently acquired his B.A in Afro-Ethnic and American Indian Studies from Cal State Fullerton. He works as a live-in caregiver and is researching masters and PhD programs in Arab-Diaspora Studies or International Relations with an emphasis on ethnic relations while considering a career with the Peace Corps.

Muslim Americans Profiled as Surveillance Crosses Sacred Line

The news of Ahmadullah Sais Niazi’s arrest began with a raid on his Tustin, Calif. home on Feb. 20. Papers called the resident an associate of Al Qaeda. They even gave his address out.

The story came with fantastic headlines. ABC news proclaimed, “The Feds Pop Alleged Al Qaeda Associate.” Neighbors were pictured in the LA Times staring at the house as if it was haunted by the ghosts of 9-11.

It turned out, Afghanistan-born Niazi, 34, simply didn’t report on his immigration papers that his sister was married to Amin al-Haq, an alleged security coordinator for Osama Bin Laden.

But the FBI relied substantially on an informant to paint Niazi as more than just a liar on legal paperwork. The informant, 46-year-old Craig Monteilh, had penetrated Orange County mosques for over a year before being cut loose in 2007.

Niazi is charged with perjury, naturalization fraud, misuse of a passport obtained by fraud and making a false statement to a federal agency, according to the LA Times.

Today, as civil rights groups line up against the FBI, these issues represent what may become the first glimpses at the deep fault lines of distrust between the Muslim-American community and the government agency. A distrust that must be soothed if we as Americans can truly live as a cohesive and safe society.

This is most likely leading up to courtroom quakes that may redefine freedom of speech within religious communities and immigrant communities. They may decide if Muslim-Americans can be partners in fighting terror or only suspects.

According to the Council of American Islamic Relations, Niazi is being punished for not becoming an informant himself. In 2007, Niazi reported Monteilh to authorities because he spoke of violent acts against the government. They met at the Islamic Center of Irvine. The ICI retained a restraining order against Monteilh with the help of Niazi, CAIR said.

Also, after Niazi reported Monteilh in 2007, an FBI agent threatened Niazi that if he did not become an informant himself, they would make his life a “living hell,” according to CAIR.

Essentially, we are at the moment of finding out how “American” a Muslim-American really is.

Are Muslims going to be arrested for wiring money overseas to relatives in need? Are Muslims going to be arrested if their sisters marry someone 15,000 miles away whom the government deems too close to terror?

The raid in Niazi’s home did not turn up anything linking him to extremism. His potential guilt is less important than the FBI’s surveillance strategies.

Perhaps the Jewish Journal’s God Blog sums up the concerns:

“The question is whether law enforcement should be allowed to invade sacred space in the name of public safety. And if so, are my prayer requests going to make it into a report somewhere?”

–

Credit:Credit: Abrahim Appel, 30, a freelance journalist residing in Fullerton, California. He recently acquired his B.A in Afro-Ethnic and American Indian Studies from Cal State Fullerton. He works as a live-in caregiver and is researching masters and PhD programs in Arab-Diaspora Studies or International Relations with an emphasis on ethnic relations while considering a career with the Peace Corps.

(De)politicizing the Speech…

It seems that no logical person was actually sad to see the George W. Bush administration leave the White House one month ago.

To further demonstrate this mood (if you’re skeptical), recent polls have revealed that two-thirds of Americans actually favor an in-depth investigation into the administration’s sketchy “war on terror” tactics.

The opinions vary from “yes, lets prosecute” to “no, lets move on to more important stuff.”

But among these mixed emotions, it seems only one thing has remained consistent – the constant mangling of the words terror, terrorism and jihad in everything from political speeches to heated conversations. (The word jihad wasn’t in the poll but it deserves attention)

The full-fledged distortion of these terms began after the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001. Soon, they became colloquial words – thrown around casually but with obvious misunderstanding.

Terrorism

The proper definition seems to include the following points:

Organized violence + political motive(s) + purpose of inflicting fear + targeting innocent civilians = Actions of a terrorist organization.

But what role does word choice play in political jargon? Scholar Saree Makdisi explains it well in Palestine Inside Out.

“Simple word choices both express and – more importantly – generate political effects. Language and politics are inseparable (…) and it is virtually impossible to understand what is happening without paying particular attention to the ways in which language is used.”

Back to Bush. His administration defined terrorism in the context of the post-9/11 world.

“Terrorist-sponsoring states and terrorist organizations were told in broad terms [by the Bush team] that if they did not support the war on terror and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, they would risk being cast as ‘with the terrorists’,” said Nancy Snow, professor of public diplomacy at Syracuse University in New York.

This created a problem for many Muslims, who realized how these labels were being applied disproportionately to ‘bad’ Muslims, she said.

Accordingly, many overseas (and in America) felt singled out after 9/11.

“When one looks at ‘terror’ deaths, Muslims have born the brunt of the casualties,” said Snow, who has studied propaganda, political communication and terrorism. “It’s a tough charge to paint them broadly as terrorist sympathizers but that’s what led to the rise in anti-American sentiment among overseas Muslims.”

This dilemma is just as complicated as the old adage, “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” Hamas, for instance, fits the bill for such a complex saying.

With a political and military wing, Hamas has both provided needed social services to Gazans and carried out violent attacks on Israeli targets. Some Palestinians believe Hamas is fighting for their freedom while others don’t agree. It wouldn’t be false to presume the Israeli Army is viewed similarly.

It is important to note here that in the U.S. Legal Code, a “terrorist group” is defined as a foreign, non-state entity attacking state authority. Textbooks definitions do not include state-sponsored violence as part of the broader definition, said Snow.

“If you utilize violence with a political motive for the purpose of inflicting fear against civilian targets, then you are a terrorist – whether or not you’re fighting for freedom,” said Julie Chernov-Hwang, professor of political science at Cal State Fullerton. “Your actions are inevitably going to undermine the goal.”

So what happens when leaders in high positions start twisting such consequential words then dictate how and when they are used?

“It reminds us of “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” Snow said. “And [the] language from President George W. Bush that the Iraqi people were being liberated from Saddam Hussein. Well, they were, but at what cost?”

A’ la Makdisi:

“…Whether violence directed against civilians is thought of as ‘terrorism’ or ‘collateral damage’: all these distinctions are both linguistic and political.”

Jihad

In its simplest form, jihad means: struggle. But there are the greater and lesser interpretations as well.

“The greater jihad is the jihad itself. The struggle to prove yourself (…) or to purge yourself of bad qualities,” said Chernov-Hwang, who has studied political Islam.

This could mean the struggle against personal temptations, for women’s rights, the environment or for wealth.

“Most Americans know about lesser jihad – the holy jihad,” she said. “Osama Bin Laden coined an idea of offensive war, where Muslims can take [action resulting from] their perceived aggression from centuries past.”

This ideology, known as Salafi-Jihad, encourages jihad understood in military terms – allowing for collateral damage in the form of women and children.

“Salafi-Jihadists describe their strategy and mission as a religious one. Their struggle is a jihad, which they themselves define in military terms, as opposed to the ‘internal war’ against human temptations. Their main tactic, they claim, is not suicide attacks, but martyrdom operations,” writes Assaf Moghadam, a research fellow at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point’s military academy.

But jihad is a concept that is being stretched and interpreted in many ways.

“There is a split between Salafi Jihad and the true meaning. Holy war is a false meaning. It means struggle – the struggle to be a better person,” Chernov-Hwang said.

So next time a political speech is in your neighborhood, pay close attention – attached to it are not just simple words but also underlying meanings, beliefs and personal agendas.

–
Credit: Urmi Rahman

Thanks for your help! Minority Dreams gives special thanks to supporters and those who helped with research including Crisscrossing Borders.

–This post is intended to clarify the original meanings behind the word jihad and terrorism through research and feedback from experts. Got something to say, add or rebut? Post them below…