Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 17, 2004; 12:00 PM
In 30 years covering the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy, Post reporter Robin Wright has covered a lot of violence and anger, but, she says in an article in Sunday's Outlook section, it's never been like this.
In her article, "Turning Points," Wright says that the consequences of the war in Iraq -- as seen by people in the region -- are grave. The stakes aren't just Donald Rumsfeld's career, the future of a fragile oil-rich country or even America's credibility. Instead, she says, the stakes are how the final phase of the Modern Era will play out. Based on what she's hearing from people in the Middle East, Wright says the situation in Iraq has become a turning point in the Modern Age---and not necessarily a turn for the better.
Wright was online Monday, May 17 at Noon ET, to discuss her article.
Wright covers U.S. foreign policy for The Post. She has reported on the Middle East for the past 30 years.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. ________________________________________________
New Brunswick, N.J.:
Robin -
Your article was extremely enlightening and fraught with honesty. I dont think most Americans know enough about Muslims and the Middle East. I find such a large number of people so incredibly uneducated and ignorant, and a large part of that I suspect is because they don't want to educate themselves. The constant rhetoric of our President has enveloped our country in a "Cowboys vs. Indians" mentality. So many Americans think that everyone over there is a "terrorist." How can we educate people? I know that fundamentally we are kind and compassionate people.
Robin Wright: Thanks for your good question. One of the tragedies of the period we're living through is the gap in understanding other cultures -- a problem on both sides of the divide. I've always believed education was at the heart of avoiding or lessening a clash of civilizations.
_______________________
Freemansburg, Pa.:
Ms. Wright, if Iraq War II is, indeed, a "turning point," toward what is it turning? What follows the modern era -- the rise of the Third World, the reshaping of Europe, the remaking of NATO -- what?
Robin Wright: What follows the Modern Era is the Global era, a period of integration. We're beginning to see that happen as nation-states integrate into regional economic and political blocs, from the European Union to NAFTA. It's an exciting and innovative time that probably will involve changes to some of the traditional institutions, from the mission of NATO to the countries that have a veto at the United Nations.
_______________________
London, U.K.:
Dear Mr Wright,
Do you think that if the U.S. government proposes now a federal Iraq based on three states for Kurds, Sunni and Shia to govern themselves will ease the tension? Revisit the creation of Iraq in 1921 By the British against the will of its people, etc. Another point, Don't you think that the unmanned border of Iraq contributes to increase in terrorist activities, and why the coalition never secured the Iraqi border?
Thank you.
Robin Wright: At this stage, I think the vast majority of Iraqis really do think of themselves first as Iraqis and then by their ethnic or religious identity. It's particularly interesting since Iraq is a relatively new nation created by Europeans after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire less than a century ago. So I don't think that the break-up of Iraq is a viable alternative. It might also trigger greater instability in the region.
_______________________
Avenue, Md.:
Ms. Wright:
Robin Wright: Unfortunately, "jihad" has taken on a meaning far from its origins and the misunderstanding about what it means has contributed to fears in the West about the Islamic world.
_______________________
Nederland, Colo.:
You remind us that Muslim extremists "have gone after us most often because we were seen as the prop for corrupt and immoral regimes, or we deployed troops on their land to achieve suspect objectives." Has our partial withdrawal from Saudi Arabia reduced that issue at all? Besides supporting undemocratic regimes in Egypt and Pakistan, where else are we? Did we support the Algerian regime in blocking its election when Islamic groups were about to win? Thank you.
Robin Wright: The United States has a long history of supporting undemocratic regimes in the Middle East for a variety of reasons, ranging from oil needs (Saudi Arabia and Gulf countires) to support for the Arab-Israeli peace process (Egypt). The US also includes countries like Tunisia, which has an undemocratic government, and Algeria among its allies in the war on terrorism. Libya is our newest partners in dialogue, now that Qaddafi has renounced terrorism and handed over all his weapons of mass destruction, but his is among the most undemocratic in the region.
_______________________
College Park, Md.:
Ms. Wright, in your assessment, didn't the U.S. media fail its role of being a watchdog of democracy and questioning the decisions of an elected government? Had the U.S. media not forgetten its duty and asked questions before the launch of the war in Iraq we would not be were we are today. Do you agree with this assertion?
Robin Wright: An interesting question and I'm tempted to say the media was not as aggressive in challenging US policy after 9/11. But remember the broader mood throughout this country after the terrorist attacks, which had some impact on the media too. I know many officials today, however, who claim the media is far too harsh on US policy and doesn't look at both sides of the picture, most notably in Iraq.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Some polls show that about 85 percent of Iraqis think the U.S. should leave, and Secretary of State Powell has said if asked to leave, we would. How does an Iraqi politician win in a fair democratic election without pledging to ask the U.S. to leave?
Robin Wright: That's a great and prescient question -- and I've wondered whether even some of our allies in Iraq could end up taking that kind of position for his or her own political gain.
_______________________
Underhill Center, Vt.:
Miss Wright,
Robin Wright: The great challenge for the US in the Middle East, as it struggles with political and economic transformations, will be allowing countries to make their own decisions and elect governments that we may not like.
_______________________
Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
Ms. Wright,
More please!
Robin Wright: Thanks. My mother will love this comment!
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
I would agree that most Muslims don't advocate violence, but at the same time were there not opinion polls that show that Osama bin Laden was thought of in a positive light? So I think its more than just a fringe element in Muslim society that thinks terrorism while not acceptable is nevertheless sympathized with.
Robin Wright: You've correctly identified the real issue: Does support or empathy for extremist tactics or ideologies move from the fringe to real and more enduring support. Hamas is an example. It's gone from a fringe movement to such local political strength that it will be a real political player - perhaps even the dominant political player - in Gaza if Israel turns Gaza. But Hamas also has a side that builds schools, supports clinics and welfare and trying to help run Gaza could force it to deal with the realities of power. Bin Laden is obviously far more dangerous for several reasons. Bottom line: Among militant groups there is a significant spectrum with diverse and disparate goals and we probably shouldn't lump them together.
_______________________
Baltimore, MD:
I keep hearing that most Muslims condemn the behavior of the terrorists that use Islam as their guide. However, as Colin Powell made reference to recently, there seems to be a resistance on the part of the Arab world to publicly and sincerely condemn acts of terror against westerners. Why isn't there more concern on the part of the moderate Iraqis regarding the allegation that holy sites are purportedly being use to store weapons and house insurgents who launch attacks from these holy sites. In essence is their silence, really just tacit encouragement?
Robin Wright: The silent majority in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world is an important issue. Fear is probably the leading reason they are not more active - in condemning extremists or taking action themselves. The majority in Najaf probably do not support Moqtada Sadr but to take action against his heavily armed group of thugs is dangerous. For many Iraqis, daily survival, not politics, is still the main preoccupation.
_______________________
Fresno, Calif.:
Robin - Do you think we would have a far better chance of effecting stability and perhaps even democracy in Iraq had we first made a concerted and persistent effort to defeat al Qaeda (to the extent that was possible) in Afghanistan before entering Iraq?
Robin Wright: You've asked the question that many historians will ask -- and one I've often wondered about. We probably would have been better off finishing what we started in Afghanistan before taking on new challenges - especially one of the proportions of Iraq.
_______________________
Rockville, Md.:
Dear Ms. Wright:
Are the stated goals of the U.S. effort in Iraq actually achievable? It seems that this effort has been based on a fundamental misperception that we could defeat fundamentalist guerillas with conventional methods, and that Jeffersonian democratic principles are somehow innate in all, and will always flourish once oppressive forces are eliminated. I think the cultural differences between the Arab world and ourselves were completely ignored by the administration, and that such self-imposed ingrorance is at the root of the failures to date, and the seemingly intractable position we now appear to be in. Your thoughts?
Robin Wright: Alas I don't have time to answer all parts of your question but on the first part: It's clear now that the administration has had to lower its goals in Iraq. The United States hoped it could create a model of democracy that would inspire the whole region but in the end we will probably leave behind a fragile and struggling government that will take a long time to become a real democracy.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Ms. Wright:
Robin Wright: Thanks for all your great questions and I'm honored by your interest in this subject. Let's do it again!
_______________________
The vast majority of Muslims condemn extremism and want only greater empowerment. For them, finding a way to achieve it is the key. The church, the temple, the synagogue and the mosque have often been the last refuge for dissent when other means are not available. Benjamin Franklin put it very well: "Rebellion to tyrants," he said, "is obedience to God." As Americans, with separation of church and state, we've gone beyond the point of invoking religion to achieve political goals. But many Muslims are only reaching that point.
During a trip to Iraq's northern Kurdistan in 2002 I was struck by the Kurds' recognition that their future is in Iraq and that breaking up into a separate state would be very difficult economically and politically.
And yes, Iraq's borders are highly vulnerable to infiltration -- and mischief by outsiders.
A wonderful, thoughful article. Would you say that the sense of "struggle" or jihad comes from deep within the culture of Islam and is not just a result of fringe groups like al Qaeda? And if so, what kind of accomodation would be likely between the contending civilizations? Thanks.
Jihad is the struggle to be a good person who fulfills the basic tenets or "pillars" of Islam -- including charity and prayer -- that a good Muslim is supposed to undertake daily. In its most extreme form, jihad means defending the tenets of the faith and the faithful. The bottom line: Jihad is supposed to be defensive even when used in military form, not offensive.
But many extremists, unfortunately, do believe their acts of violence are defensive -- for example in defending the faith from the presence of foreign forces in their countries or region.
I was actually in Algeria in 1992 when the military aborted the second phase of a democratic election that was clearly going to be won by a moderate Islamic party. At the time, the first Bush administration only reacted by expressing "regret" over the end of Algeria's democratic experiment, one of the boldest in the Middle East. I've always viewed it as a lost opportunity to create a model for blending Islam and democracy.
Remember, however, that there are actually three transitions: June 30 when the US hands over sovereignty. Then early next year after elections or a body to write a new constiution and rule. Then yet another election in late 2005 for a permanent government. The deeper Iraq gets into its election season, the more likely the presence of US troops is likely to be as a "local" issue.
Is there any chance that Iraq can solve its problems without outside interference, as ever since the fall of the Ottoman empire and foreign interference, things have never gone well in that area. I do not mean to say that the area should be like the west, I just want to know if they could be ALLOWED to solve their own problems, and come up with their own idea of what they want?
Because there has been so much repression of traditional political movements -- democratic, nationalist, etc. -- the Islamic parties may prove to be popular forces in any new election. Because the West generally has such a fear today of anything labeled Islamic, we may be reluctant to accept, recognize or help governments with Islamic parties.
But look at Turkey, where an Islamic party is now in power and it is fully committed to fulfilling all the obligations of reform involved in membership in the European Union.
Religion is often a function of a transition and once Islamic parties come to power, they have to deal with the realities of modern states--or face opposition. Look at Iran today.
Whenever your name is attached to a television appearance or newspaper article, I anxiously look forward to seeing what you have to say. Thank you for keeping in mind the overall historical picture in your reports, and presenting it to readers and listeners in such clear, penetrating and honest terms. Our views of the world and the changes taking place are much richer as a result of your work and analysis.
Thank you for the thought provoking article. In light of the increased violence, including today's suicide bombing, and the prison abuse in Iraq, what is necessary to fill the power vacuum that you described in your article? Senators McCain and Lieberman argued in yesterday's Post that significantly more troops are necessary. What must be done to achieve the "global era" you described?