NOVANEWS
 The operator of the institute of Post-Communist Studies said “the terrorists were encouraged by our mistakes (Western Countries) and misunderstandings.”
Dr. Jiri Valenta said in an interview with Tasnim News agency that “my wife, Leni, and I, in a major study, are re-evaluating the impact of other U.S. military interventionism in the Middle East. We view both Democratic and Republican presidents as responsible for misguided policies in Iraq, Libya and Syria that encouraged the rise of ISIL.”
Following is the text of the interview:
– As you know France in early days of this month experienced terrorist attacks carried out by extremists, why some currents use the incident to pursue Islamophobia?
First, most people understand that there are moderate, peace loving Muslims and they are in the majority. Surely one of the heroes of the day was a Muslim worker in the Paris Kosher supermarket that ushered shoppers into a freezer so that they could not be killed. “Je suis Muslim.” No one is trying to foment “Islamophobia,” as you call it. The anger is directed not towards all Muslims, but only towards the terrorists. They are the people who believe that only they have the right to inhabit this planet and that everybody else deserves to be shot, beheaded, crucified, raped, enslaved or mutilated. Like our president (Obama), you refer to them as “extremists,” but the proper term in use is “terrorists.”
How can you expect us not to despise and fear groups like al-Qaeda, ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant), and Boko Haram that financially support and encourage acts of terror by sleeper cells in Europe and perhaps America? We do question why moderate and peace-loving Muslims are not speaking out more loudly against the radicals and organizing large demonstrations against them. One must assume they are frightened of them.
– In past years western countries made it easy for extremists to join terrorist groups in the Middle East and supplied these groups with arms and money. Does such behavior in support of extremist groups, effect on improving their activities in west?
If I understood you correctly this is a good question. Thirty years ago, traveling to the Khyber Pass and Peshawar in Pakistan, I was outspoken in my criticism of the Soviet intervention and occupation of Afghanistan. My country also helped the Mujahedeen with arms and supplies. My articles were published in Turkish and Arabic. I had very good ties with the moderate Mujahedeen’s who saw Soviet imperialism as the main threat. I even invited one leader to lecture at the University of Miami. His visit was supported by the Jewish community, concerned then about Soviet expansionism.
Things changed – and the Mujahedeens turned against us as we learned in the September 11, 2001 attack on our homeland.
Naturally, the subsequent U.S. Intervention and victory against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was justifiable punishment and self-defense. But now, my wife, Leni, and I, in a major study, are re-evaluating the impact of other U.S. military interventionism in the Middle East. We view both Democratic and Republican presidents as responsible for misguided policies in Iraq, Libya and Syria that encouraged the rise of ISIL.
Without going into details, our analysts and leaders believed these countries were ready for “Arab Spring” (Islamic Awakening) democratic transformation. Mea Culpa! I plead guilty too, as in the Washington Times; I was perhaps the first to use the term “de-Bathization” for Iraq. But Iraq was more complex than we anticipated. Creating this country, Churchill put together Shias, Sunnis and Kurds figuring perhaps that they could live and work together like the Christians and Protestants who once were at each other´s throats. But it was naïve to think we could imbue the Iraqis with our values and political culture. Thus it would have been better to overthrow Saddam Hussein with a small force and then withdraw at the earliest convenience. We should have helped to replace him with an enlightened and strong military figure presiding over a junta consisting of senior representatives of all three ethnic groups. Such a leader could have possibly established law and order. De-Nazification and nation-building were good policies to pursue in a European country like Germany, with some Western values. It was unworkable in Iraq.
The terrorists were encouraged by our mistakes and misunderstandings. Brent Scowcroft, President George H Bush’s former National Security Advisor, warned us not to engage in nation building and he was right. ISIL is a partly a product of this misguided policy. Then, Obama went to another extreme. He pulled out of Iraq without leaving any small force that would train native troops and help maintain stability.
Gaddafi in Libya supported terrorists and ordered the bombing of a Pan Am flight. Nevertheless, he gave up his nuclear program fearing a U.S. military invasion. On balance, we should have not led from behind. But in front of the coalition that intervened. Here too, w should have tried to install an enlightened military leader who would not tolerate the terrorists´ militia now running the country.
– The entire world condemned Paris attacks, but as you know the Charlie Hebdo attack was because of the magazine’s insulting cartoons; however the French satirical weekly published them again. How do you evaluate this event?
I am not in favor of religious provocation of any kind. I do not believe in insulting heads of foreign states or religious figures. One should use civility and not hurt national pride. However, there is no way for us to look at the massacres of the Charlie Hebdo editorial board and the Kosher supermarket shoppers as anything but deplorable and shocking murders. They were counterproductive and hurt the Muslim cause in the world. Charlie Hebdo was a small, satirical journal with 20,000 copies weekly. It was not a threat.
-After Paris attacks some officials said these events are not Islam so what is your Idea about the Real Islam and extremism?
I was fortunate to learn about the positive side of Islam from two of my colleagues at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Professor, Kamal Said of Baghdad and one of the best experts on Afghanistan, Professor Ralph Magnus. I studied the holy Quran with Said and I recognized that you can find the message of peace and tranquility in it. The Quran can be interpreted in different ways and so can the principle contact of “Jihad.” It has different meanings – Holy war, but also spiritual renewal.
|
