November 8, 2001-Vol33n10: Differing understanding fuels conflict

Differing understanding fuels conflict
Four faculty members offer perspectives on issues surrounding Sept. 11 terrorist attacks

By PATRICIA DONOVAN
Contributing Editor

If anything was clear from a discussion of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 held Thursday in the UB Law School, it was that nothing is clear at all—not Americans' understanding of the Islamic world and vice versa, nor the likely outcome of this dispute.

In fact, each of the four faculty panelists noted in various arguments that it is the vast differences in our understanding of one another that provoked and fuels the battle in Afghanistan and has engendered extreme anxiety in allies on both sides.

About 150 persons gathered in 112 O'Brian Hall to hear the faculty members address aspects of the American conflict with the forces of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. The discussion, which at times was contentious, ranged from observations about the attitude of most Muslims in the United States and abroad toward post-Sept. 11 events to a historical assessment of the role of Islamic fundamentalists in south central Asia.

It addressed cognitive dissonance between perceptions of these events and the categories traditionally used to describe them, and the outcomes expected by both the Western alliance and the terrorist group al-Qaeda and related anti-American Muslim fundamentalists.

The panel was made up of Michael Frisch, professor of history and a senior research scholar; Erick Duschene, assistant professor of political science; Othman Shibly, assistant professor of periodontics and endodontics, a native of Syria and a member of the local Muslim community, and Khalid Qazi, clinical associate professor of medicine, a native of Kashmir and president of the local chapter of the American Muslim Council.

Shibly noted that there is confusion among Americans as to the precise nature of the Islamic response to the attacks by al-Qaeda, which has led some to assume that this behavior was—and is somehow sanctioned by—the larger Islamic community, which it is not.

"It is important to remember that Islam does not speak with one voice with regard to such things," he said, noting that there is no equivalent in Islam to the Roman Catholic pope or the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury. He pointed out, however, that a number of Grand Muftis from several nations have condemned the al-Qaeda attacks, and have declared that the perpetrators are "not true Muslims."

Duchesne, a citizen of Canada, offered a summary of the current status of this new "war" in which, he said, "nothing seems to be going right for the U.S. and its allies." On one hand, he noted, the Taliban has proven more resilient than expected. Even efforts to develop a broad-based, post-Taliban government were struck a blow when Taliban forces captured and executed a chief opposition leader.

On the other hand, Duchesne said that the Pakistani government has thus far managed to hold firm against pro-Taliban groups in its own nation, despite strong protests. But, he said, a worried mood prevails in Russia and across Europe, in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, among the U.S. citizenry, and among the "talking heads" in the media who warn against an exacerbation of the conflict.

Duchesne said, however, that the U.S. has maintained from the beginning that this was not going to be a short conflict, nor one that is easy to win.

"This is no time for the U.S. to turn to isolationism, even as the prospect of a short conflict in Afghanistan recedes," he said.

"We are at a critical turn in our war against terrorism," he said, "and U.S. narrowness of vision and promotion of immediate self-interest is not useful for its defeat. The government must persuade us that even if it takes a long time, defeat of terrorism is worth fighting for."

Qazi explained the role of Pakistan in this crisis and reviewed 25 years of Afghani history, beginning with the seizure of power by the Afghanistan Communist Party in 1978 that he said formed the roots of "this bloody dispute that has since become an aspect of daily life in Afghanistan."

Noting the shortness of our collective historic memory, he pointed out that Ronald Reagan once called the Mujahadeen "the moral equivalent of the founding fathers of America."

Their rout of the Russian forces contributed to the fall of the U.S.S.R., Qazi said, and Americans need to understand that Muslims everywhere believe that they played a significant role in the demise of the "evil empire."

Noting the "cold shoulder" turned by the U.S. toward Afghanistan and its longtime ally, Pakistan, following the defeat of Soviet forces, Qazi said that the large number of U.S. sanctions against Pakistan "resulted in the fall of the fortunes of that nation—the second-largest Muslim nation in the world—even as the U.S. again pursues the country as an ally.

"So, you see that there is resentment in some quarters," Qazi said.

The U.S. armed them, welcomed them with open arms and supported their regime, he said, until they imposed their peculiarly rigid form of Islam on the Afghani population and began to harbor and support Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda. The Taliban turned its own people against it and in supporting bin Laden's previous violent attacks on U.S. citizens, isolated itself from most of the Islamic world.

Frisch noted that "we all tumbled over the edge together on Sept. 11 and it is very helpful to put these events in perspective." He went on to discuss the fact that our confusion and disbelief is a result of "cognitive dissonance" that we can resolve by revising the categories we use to describe what happened, or revising our perceptions of what happened to fit into the existing "war" category.

He said we have too readily adopted the metaphor of war, "with our flags, patriotism and chants of ÔUSA! USA!' as if we can put this new situation into those categories familiar from our past.

"The left, on the other hand, has tried to fit what happened into other categories," he said, "representing it as a logical result of American foreign policy and the hegemony of the oil companies.

"But none of these categories consoles us because none speak to the terrible sense of vulnerability provoked by the events of Sept. 11 and afterwards," he said. "Nor do the categories previously used in the Islamic world fit anymore. First, there was denial that this was an act by Muslims, then the finger of blame was pointed at the Jews, then came an attempt to frame this in terms of U.S. policy."

Frisch said the U.S. response, however understandable, has been catastrophic.

"It is the delusion of the terrorists that they are in a cosmic war with the United States," he said. "We are feeding that delusion. Our current policy has sent us, however agonizingly, down the war slope, against not the specific narrow groups responsible, but against peoples and nations."

Somehow, he said, we must "draw a circle around behaviors that all nations must proscribe. This has taught us that we are in the world, not in an ivory tower.

"We cannot simply hold that 'you are either with us or against us;' we need to rejoin the world in a battle against terrorism," Frisch said. "We need to find ways to engage conflict without murdering one another. We need a new vocabulary and a new conceptual framework to get us out of this way of thinking."

The panelists then addressed the question of what the terrorists want and what they accomplished.

Shibly pointed out that Muslims abroad have a very jaundiced understanding of Americans and that when his children told other children in the Middle East how beautiful America is, they were mocked and told they'd been brainwashed.

"As a young man in Lebanon and Syria, we all loved America and all its culture," Shibly said, "but we thought America was an arrogant country. So when I came here, I was shocked at all the help and the friendliness of the American people. I wish the rest of the world understood our values here—the values Americans hold."

Shibly said that Americans, too, need to understand the people of the Middle East, who do not comprehend our point of view or our military response to the attacks of Sept. 11.

"Even though they may disapprove of the Taliban and bin Ladin, they are seeing civilians—women and children—killed in their homes every day. That's what they see on television," Shibly said. "'Stop bombing our homes!'—that's what they say. Their perspective is very different from ours in America and they react out of that perspective. We should know this and understand the consequences that result."