Customer Reviews

America and Political Islam: Clash of Cultures or Clash of Interests?

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Overall Reaction:
Simply put, this is the most lucid work on the political Middle East and "the way it is, how it got there, and what to do about it" that I have seen. I understood everything Mr. Gerges had to say and could not help but be persuaded by his understated style and crystalline presentation. Written with respect for his reader (he never speaks patronizingly) he so clearly elucidates his points with well presented examples that the book becomes not only a compelling written account of his thought, but an excellent reference work. One does not need to absorb the whole book in order to arrive at valuable insight, although a thorough reading is recommended. In addition to the many keen observations he makes, he gives suggestions, clear, concrete suggestions, as to what to do with the problems outlined. I find this refreshing. Many books I have read recently project a good deal of frustration (although probably deserved) while others focus on what has gone wrong or been done wrong. Mr. Gerges collects his points of reference, tells us their histories and creates a map as to where things can be taken and put into order. Mr. Gerges presents his compelling reasoning along with a great deal of information (both in the text and in his extensive footnoting) all captured in a clear, calm approach.

How I will use this book in my further studies:
It is useful as a reference book as specific issues can easily be extracted for argument. I intend on both referring to this work in my writing with politicians and to keep up on Mr. Gerges's work to see what new insights he provides.

The book's main points:
We (the polled majority of the US at least since the Iranian Revolution in 1981) still hold the Arab Muslim in a negative stereotype as violent and Islam as a "hostile culture". He demonstrates that the US has never had a consistent policy, show of policy, thought process or self-knowledge of the Middle East. The west keeps reacting as if it were dealing with a (possibly) trained lion, in awe of its beauty, happy it has not jumped on us yet, and holding a gun at the ready in case it does. The west has never welcomed the Mid-East as a full member of modern society, it seems. As to our prejudices, he rightly points out the undeserved knee jerk reaction after the Oklahoma City bombing where numerous attacks on "Mid Easterners" were reported immediately after that bombing.
US Officials deny there is tie between media presentation, news and US Policy. I think there is ample evidence available that pretty well challenges that assumption especially when you look at the cumulative effect of media-news as well as media-entertainment on popular assumptions. Gary Sick's given quote: "We are all prisoners of our own cultural assumptions " is particularly to the point here, but it begs the question, "If we are prisoners, who is holding the key that will free us from mis-information?"
The book was written before the current situations, but his assessment of how we formerly backed the leaders we are now bombing when they were fighting the Soviet Union, and many other such observations, is still enlightening and relevant.
The Middle East, oddly, seems to be the Swamp of Politics. Wherever we step, there are bogs and tangled roots and mire and muck. If so, it is a swamp we have helped create. We have seemingly never dealt honestly with the Mid East and so we keep finding ourselves caught up in a matted tangle of former policies and legacies. We have been ambiguous at best and harmful (kindly put) to the development of good ongoing relations between the west and Middle East. It is as if we do not expect them to notice that we do not like or trust them very much, except for their oil. One of our ambassadors even said, "Islam is a conquering religion threatening the American way of life " although that Ambassador did stress that most US policy makers did not share his view.
The west views the Middle East as backward. The west cannot seem to get its head around the reality of a clerically dominated regime. We do handle the idea of the Pope, though. Maybe this is because the army of His Eminence is small.
Mr. Gerges points out the continual duplicity of governments: What they create, what they portray and what they are willing to do to keep the truth of one from another is the unfortunate, resource-consuming, status quo. It seems that one of the most pervasive issues the western world must learn to deal with is its confusion over how a people can live with a different cultural base of reference then the western model.

His brilliant step-by-step analysis of the unique histories of many of the Middle Eastern nations and their potentials (for benefice and for ill) is particularly well laid out. The Middle East is a region, but also a collection of countries. He gives us good access points into the machinery of the way things are so we can at least have the option and chance to do what we can for the best interest of all involved.

It is my conclusion that the oft-used political phrase of "clash of cultures" is not accurate. However, because of this book, I see it as much more of a clash of wills and belief in the right of one way to exist over, as opposed to along side of, others. Differing cultures can co-exist, but the will to be dominant, to have one's "ways" proved correct is what cannot be sustained. This book by Fawaz A. Gerges is at least an offered tool to help correct and improve the situation.

GregRobin Smith
RedHorse & Ridire Reviews
robin@knightstour.org
Please write me if you wish the whole review (including page # references)

Although published in 1999 toward the end of the Clinton presidency, America and Political Islam sheds a lot of light on the attack on the twin towers in 2001. Focussing on U.S. foreign policy toward various aspects of the Islamic resurgence and how it has changed both through time and in different places puts recent events into a broader context that is sorely missing from many analyses. The book's investigation begins with the Iranian Revolution and covers four presidencies: Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton.

It tackles head on the climate after the end of the Cold War, noting that an over-easy replacement of the "red menace" of Communism with the "green menace" of Islam explains surprisingly much. It also tackles the tendency to conflate the "Iran problem" with the "Islam problem" which has often led to inappropriate responses to current situations.

The largest contribution the book makes is in sketching out how much U.S. foreign policy is constrained by Congress and public opinion. Our presidential administrations would probably have made much more nuanced, relevant, and accomodationist responses to various situations related to Islam if they had not been cornered by powerful congressmen with simplistic black and white views of the world. A secondary contribution is pointing out the very many places where the U.S. in dealing with Islam says one thing but does something different.

This book analyzes how America reacts to Islamic political parties. It is an interesting book, but not without some slight shortcomings.

- The title is misleading. This is not a book about political Islam at all. Only a book about how the US interacts with Islamic political parties and movements. The difference? Going in the other direction, the motivation of Muslims in interacting with the US are not covered much at all.

- There isn't much critical analysis of what Islam might have done to provoke US hostility. For example, only one paragraph mentions in that, yes, female US voters may very well resent the perceived treatment of women.

- Very little coverage of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Granted, Pakistan and Afghanistan became subjects of interest after 9/11, but the US tacit acceptance of Saudi Arabia's seriously messed up government should have been included. Neither is there much coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflicts and its impact on US policy.

- This is a very dry, academic book. Not much in there is going to be really news to the informed layman, but it does review the facts and interpret them. On the other hand, if you aren't familiar with Middle East affairs already, this book will not hold your hand much.

- The author often theorizes that, if only Muslims achieved material wealth, the religious intolerance displayed by some would magically disappear and they would all become tolerant. That is certainly possible, but unproven. The US is quite wealthy, yet the hardcore Christian ideology displayed by some of its citizens makes non-American Westerners quite uneasy. Religious tolerance and wealth go well together, but do not have to co-exist.

OK, for the good points:

- Dispassionately analyzes both the official statements of the US government and the actual acts by the government. Basically, the US, pre-2001, is caught between 2 urges. First a certain sympathy for disenfranchised Middle Easterners and a desire to avoid needlessly antagonizing Muslims. Second, an instinctive distrust of popular movement that might topple its allies. The closer the ally, the more the US will back repressive governments. This being illustrated by the case study of Egypt (which is a close ally w.o oil) vs. Algeria (a remote concern, even with its oil reserves).

- As it is written before 9/11, it gives a sense of what was going before our current troubles and the book is much more neutral than what has followed.

- A good reminder that prudent US administrations might be more accommodating towards non-violent Islamic parties, even at the cost of taking a harder line towards its allies. Basically, unconditionally propping up unpopular governments can blow up in your face - witness Iran. And the world really does need successful, tolerant Muslim countries with governments who care about their citizens.

- Turkey is used as a reminder that moderate Islam is not an oxymoron. Turkey is not without its human rights flaws, but Muslim parties have not initiated past Turkish repressions.

- Iran is also taken as a test study and the lack of useful US engagement with that country is much deplored. Yet, the author fails to note that the Iran was in flagrant violation of civilized behavior between nation states over centuries when it came to not respecting diplomatic immunity. Normally, the first step towards normalization is opening embassies. So how does one deal with a country with Iran's recent history? For all that, US policy seems unproductive, well on par with its relations with Cuba.

Even though written in '99, this is great background analysis for the lay person on Islam versus "The West" even today. Especially enlightening on the constant efforts of Turks to keep Turkey the only secular Muslim state. Also, the potential powder kegs of Egypt and Saudi Arabia unless their dictatorial governments allow some participation by Islamic Moderate Activists. The author is much more optimistic than I am about the possibility of a MIDDLE EASTERN version of democracy rather than the version being forced upon the area by ALL the American administrations with naive missionary zeal! The obsession with petrodollar politics is endangering the lives of many more thousands of people.

Absolutely objective. Wonderfully insightful. Footmarked to the hilt.

This is the most useful, objective, engaging source I've found on the topic.