| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front | ||
| A Historian’s Take on Islam | ||
| 2004-02-04 | ||
| EFL Bernard Lewis often tells audiences about an encounter he once had in Jordan. The Princeton University historian, author of more than 20 books on Islam and the Middle East, says he was chatting with Arab friends in Amman when one of them trotted out an argument familiar in that part of the world. "We have time, we can wait," he quotes the Jordanian as saying. "We got rid of the Crusaders. We got rid of the Turks. We’ll get rid of the Jews." Hearing this claim "one too many times," Mr. Lewis says, he politely shot back, "Excuse me, but you’ve got your history wrong. The Turks got rid of the Crusaders. The British got rid of the Turks. The Jews got rid of the British. I wonder who is coming here next." The vignette, recounted in the 87-year-old scholar’s native British accent, always garners laughs. Yet he tells it to underscore a serious point. Most Islamic countries have failed miserably at modernizing their societies, he contends, beckoning outsiders -- this time, Americans -- to intervene. Call it the Lewis Doctrine. Though never debated in Congress or sanctified by presidential decree, Mr. Lewis’s diagnosis of the Muslim world’s malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed democracy in the Mideast, have helped define the boldest shift in U.S. foreign policy in 50 years. The occupation of Iraq is putting the doctrine to the test. For much of the second half of the last century, America viewed the Mideast and the rest of the world through a prism shaped by George Kennan, author of the doctrine of "containment." In a celebrated 1947 article in Foreign Affairs focused on the Soviet Union, Mr. Kennan gave structure to U.S. policy in the Cold War. It placed the need to contain Soviet ambitions above all else. Terrorism has replaced Moscow as the global foe. And now America, having outlasted the Soviets to become the sole superpower, no longer seeks to contain but to confront, defeat and transform. How successful it is at remolding Iraq and the rest of the Mideast could have a huge impact on what sort of superpower America will be for decades to come: bold and assertive -- or inward, defensive and cut off. As mentor and informal adviser to some top U.S. officials, Mr. Lewis has helped coax the White House to shed decades of thinking about Arab regimes and the use of military power. Gone is the notion that U.S. policy in the oil-rich region should promote stability above all, even if it means taking tyrants as friends. Also gone is the corollary notion that fostering democratic values in these lands risks destabilizing them. Instead, the Lewis Doctrine says fostering Mideast democracy is not only wise but imperative.
A faction led by political strategist Karl Rove believed soul-searching over "why Muslims hate us" was misplaced, Mr. Frum says. Mr. Rove summoned Mr. Lewis to address some White House staffers, military aides and staff members of the National Security Council. The historian recited the modern failures of Arab and Muslim societies and argued that anti-Americanism stemmed from their own inadequacies, not America’s. Mr. Lewis also met privately with Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Mr. Frum says he soon noticed Mr. Bush carrying a marked-up article by Mr. Lewis among his briefing papers. Says Mr. Frum: "Bernard comes with a very powerful explanation for why 9/11 happened. Once you understand it, the policy presents itself afterward." His exposition and the policies it helped set in motion heralded a decisive break with the doctrine that prevailed during the Cold War. Containment, Mr. Kennan said, had "nothing to do with outward histrionics: with threats or blustering or superfluous gestures of outward ’toughness.’ " It rested on the somber calculation that even the most aggressive enemy wouldn’t risk its own demise by provoking war with a powerful U.S. The Lewis Doctrine posits no such rational foe. It envisions not a clash of interests or even ideology, but of cultures. In the Mideast, the font of the terrorism threat, America has but two choices, "both disagreeable," Mr. Lewis has written: "Get tough or get out." His celebration, rather than shunning, of toughness is shared by several other influential U.S. Mideast experts, including Fouad Ajami and Richard Perle. A central Lewis theme is that Muslims have had a chip on their shoulders since 1683, when the Ottomans failed for the second time to sack Christian Vienna. "Islam has been on the defensive" ever since, Mr. Lewis wrote in a 1990 essay called "The Roots of Muslim Rage," where he described a "clash of civilizations," a concept later popularized by Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington. For 300 years, Mr. Lewis says, Muslims have watched in horror and humiliation as the Christian civilizations of Europe and North America have overshadowed them militarily, economically and culturally. "The question people are asking is why they hate us. That’s the wrong question," said Mr. Lewis on C-SPAN shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. "In a sense, they’ve been hating us for centuries, and it’s very natural that they should. You have this millennial rivalry between two world religions, and now, from their point of view, the wrong one seems to be winning." He continued: "More generally ... you can’t be rich, strong, successful and loved, particularly by those who are not rich, not strong and not successful. So the hatred is something almost axiomatic. The question which we should be asking is why do they neither fear nor respect us?"
The Lewis Doctrine, in effect, had become U.S. policy. "Bernard Lewis has been the single most important intellectual influence countering the conventional wisdom on managing the conflict between radical Islam and the West," says Mr. Perle, who remains a close adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "The idea that a big part of the problem is failed societies on the Arab side is very important. That is not the point of view of the diplomatic establishment." | ||
| Posted by:tipper |
| #6 If Bernard Lewis has any faults it is his tendency to sanitize some aspects of Islamic history (he downplays the ugliest aspects of Islamic slavery and downplays the occasional vicious anti Armenian and anti Jewish riots and massacres). He also does not believe the early history of Islam (the assasinations and the tribal massacres ordered by Mohammad) is to blame for the waves of Islamic suicide bombers (and their worshipers and apologists). He blames the wahabis and tends to be pro Shite (because until Khomeini the Shite clerics were against being part of the govt.). He does say that ultimately, the only lasting solution to the problems of Islamic corruption, violence, government incompetance, sectarian intolerence, etc. is an Islamic solution (hence the Muslims are Muslims slogan). |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-2-4 4:48:23 PM |
| #5 any political, historical, and scholarly account of Muslims must begin and end with the fact that Muslims are Muslims. The reign in Spain fell mainly on the Janes! I think old man he's got it! He's got it! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-2-4 3:33:14 PM |
| #4 actually Lewis does NOT say that Islam never changes. For example he documents the evolving meaning of "jihad". He also says that the muslim "problem" is NOT something essential to the Koran or the Islamic texts, as the know nothings claim, but that it is quite spefically tied to the events of the 17thc (NOT THE 7TH CENTURY) and their aftermath. I can see how the folks at counterpunch who think Islams problems all stem from the US and Israel might not like him. And that his optimism that the US CAN push democratic reform in the regime (which is counter both to the Huntington view AND to the US can do nothing good view) are not shared by them. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-2-4 3:00:10 PM |
| #3 ive read Lewis's "what went wrong" and "history of the middle east". My read was that he leaned more to the "democratize 'em" then to the "make them fear us", though i see how he could see the latter (esp post 9/11) as the necessary pre-condition for the former. Depends on the policy choice. In deciding to go into Iraq, these two goals coincided. In terms of HOW we handle Iraq now that we're there, im not sure they coincide. Also not clear how they play out for the rest of the islamic world. I realize BL is a historian, not a policy maker, and cant be asked for "what to do about country X next month" but at least some more would be helpful. Some seem to be reading him as much like Samuel Huntington, and from what ive read hes profoundly different. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-2-4 2:55:51 PM |
| #2 Barnard Lewis: Scholarship or Sophistry?. The mainstream reviewers describe Bernard Lewis as "the doyen of Middle Eastern studies," the "father" of Islamic studies, "[a]rguably the West's most distinguished scholar on the Middle East," and "[a] Sage for the Age." The core of Lewis's ideology about Islam is that it never changes, and his whole mission is to inform conservative segments of the Jewish reading public, and anyone else who cares to listen, that any political, historical, and scholarly account of Muslims must begin and end with the fact that Muslims are Muslims. Barnard Lewis the Fraud. Read more about this dodgy fella at http://www.counterpunch.org/alam06282003.html |
| Posted by: Faisal 2004-2-4 2:51:46 PM |
| #1 Tipper, thanks for bringing Bernard Lewis to our attention. I wanted to know more, and through Google, found an interesting two part article, The Roots of Muslim Rage written by Lewis in September 1990. It's long, I'm still working my way through it. If anyone is at all interested in "the conflict between radical Islam and the West", this article will be well worth your time. Bring your coffee thermos, take off your shoes, leave your prejudices behind, and enlighten yourself. |
| Posted by: Gasse Katze 2004-2-4 12:15:19 PM |