muslim have rechecked american troops on soil and because in practical terms, 90 days had ever done so since 1979. that was not a model that other arab leaders who should follow. saddam therefore believe muslim states would rechecked direct american aid and the stationing of troops on their soil. in retrospect, perhaps the worst strategic miscalculation. but it is hardly an irrational one. american influence in the polls with offshore rather than on site. this is not the 38th parallel in korea. this is not places for american troops were stationed directly in harms way as tripwires of american resolve. on the contrary, american policymakers for decades had long hoped to influence the gulf and keep its oil flowing with this little direct involvement as possible so long as the soviets didn't interfere in the region themselves, president carter declared someone is iranian student stop at the gulf. president reagan declared a few years later american planners who by and large contests. ultimately it did not matter what happens to want happened so long as the oil continue to float and this is the bush administration's first line as well, and creating a year before saddam's invasion and latter part of 1989 and national security directive 26, which laid out the full scope and rationale of american involvement in the region. this document, which you can get at the archive if you'd like, does not use the word freedom. it does not use the word democracy. it does not match in particular leaders or talk about machine types are radical islam and certainly doesn't mention wmds. he says instead, access to persian gulf oil is vital to national security interests. members of hostages in iran destroy barracks in beirut, that's reason enough to be wary of anything more. this context matters for understanding productive to do more in response to the iraqi invasion. for it did not threaten that long-range disruption of oil. moreover, the middle east is not a particularly appealing place for those in american politics was short and medium and long-term history. take for example james baker who had at this point vice presidents for decades, but more importantly among closest friends for decades. he was secretary of state and upon hearing the news contemplating it getting back to washington. he closed the door and told him, quote, i know you're aware of the fact that this has all the ingredients that is brought down. the last five presidents. a hostage crisis, body bags and a full-fledged economic recession caused by oil, and quote. indeed, we need recall that bush's decision to move american troops to the polls with her they embraced across the board in 1990 pagis does the same time the congressional opposition to the war was far from being partisan. it was rather conduct it out of the true sense of concern. as senate majority leader, george mitchell argued the risk of active american intervention were gray. he said, quote, these include an unknown number of casualties into the billions of dollars spent of oil supply and oil price increases of a war possibly went to israel, turkey or other allies, the long-term occupation increasing instability in the gulf region, long-lasting enmity and possible return to american isolationism, and quote. .. his most recent book is "the thistle and the drone: how america's war on terror became a global war on tribal islam." is america's global war on terrorism, isn't a clash of civilization? >> i would say it is more complex. i find these concepts, the clash of civilization and other concepts related to this rather simplistic. and by now, 10 years, more than 10 years after 9/11, we should be aware of the conflicts of what's happening on the ground abroad where america is involved in the various wars. i figh find in this particular y that many of these conflicts are rooted in the clash already taken place before 9/11 between central governments and the tribes and communities on their parade greece, on the borders, on the interspecies between states. so, therefore, an understanding of local culture, local history, it's impossible to impose the simplistic notion. i know that we here in the united states think of this as a clash of civilization, but i read -- summon and iran are human, they would just look aghast at the concept that there's a clash of civilization. 90% of survey in iran's surveyed had no idea what 9/11 was, or who osama bin laden was. so, therefore, have to be very careful of how we are analyzing. i maintain there's a crisis already existing in both parts of the world where the united states is now drifted and got involved in local conflicts. >> ambassador, to locals in afghanistan, different tribes, duty city is as attacking their personal tribe or do they see their own afghanistan government? >> peter, you've now raised a very important question. erased a third actor. you have the united states, you have the tribes, you now raised the idea of the central government. cenei have a triangle of conflict, and that is the conflicts in the discussion that is often overlooked. now, when you include the central government then you know the central government has its own relationship with its own per referee. very often it's a troubled one. go right through the middle east, north africa, central asia and defined this. if the central government is tolerant and open and inclusive, and gives its citizens the rights they deserve, freedom, education, the health, job of there's no problem. but if it depresses and suppresses and brutalizes its own population, you have problems. whether it's iraq under saddam hussein, whether syria were using the brutalization at its own people, you see the same thing. had coffee with the eastern tribes -- had coffee with the eastern tribes. we have looked at 40 cases. it makes it a global study of what is going on in the world. spin if you take pakistan as a case study and walkers to the different tribes and situation in your home country. >> pakistan is a central piece of the study. why? because waziristan which is in the tribal areas is one of the most targeted places on earth for the drone program. waziristan is also one of the most highly tribal societies on the face of the earth, and it's traditionally never been completely conquered or subdued or incorporated into any government. it's part of pakistan and yet it maintains, the tribes and maintain their own independence with great pride in their own culture and in their own traditions. what they're funding from talking of the ordinary tribes, not the bad guys come with the ordinary tribesmen find, think about it, put yourselves in issues of the tribesmen, get under the skin and walk about. one day is being blown up by helicopters and artillery, the next day by these crazy suicide bombers. the third day by tribal rivals. the fourth day by drone strikes. and in late desperatidesperati on he sends his family out to waziristan. living in cities a destitute. this page everyday is like 9/11 for us. so again go back to man in the village come and particularly the impact of women and children. it's whatever the debate about drones. remember there's a model which is often missing in the debate. the impact on women and children is devastating, and this has been documented in studies like the recent study by stanford and new york universities. >> dr. ahmed, you mentioned drones at a lot of your book, your newest book, "the thistle and the drone," talks about the drone situation. the big debate right now in washington. what's the view of drones in these tribal areas in afghanistan, pakistan? >> again, peter, you would debate. there's a debate in the united states is just starting and it will pick up, but a debate implies to opposing points of view. the debate in america is very one sided, so you only hear one side. i would like to hear yemenis, somalis, pakistan's, kurds from east turkey who are also victims to the drone strikes, what are they saying and how are they responding to the drones? we don't hear their voices. win in this book we do to their voices. and what they are saying is that life for us it sure helped. what have we done to deserve this? they live every day. this is like a genocide. how are we to blame for some crazy guys who did something on 9/11? these are very impoverished areas, let her see rates, facilities are barely, they are nonexistent. i wouldn't say they're barely existent. they are nonexistent. on top of that you have this violence that's inflicted on the. to you can imagine the situation. from that you have the breakdown of traditionaof the traditional. this is very important to understand. tribal society rests on three pillars. tribal leadership based in congeniality, religious leadership, and central government authority. all three pillars stand demolished in waziristan. the people have targeted them are the suicide bombers. they have killed something like 400 elders over waziristan. peter, that is decapitating an entire society, literally like bashing it is a headless society. in that society, along comes the drone. which expect the next generation to be doing? and give drones, suicide bombers blowing themselves up in schools, and mosques, bus stops. it's completely a breakdown of society, and it's affecting a big nation. pakistan is a nation of 185 million people. its nuclear and it's very troubled about the idea of the drone. apart from talk of sovereignty and violating national order, et cetera. more damage that is upset, truly educated the people. >> ambassador ahmed come to talk about president obama having a love of drones. >> these are the reports that are published about president obama's relationship with the drones. there was a rolling stones article which was quoted, and this is after is coming in -- is a scholarly man, a compassion and i would have thought that he would handle it slightly differently. but the drone use has gone up exponentially in fact, and their impact on the societies that i'm covered in this book has been devastating. so some way we need to connect the dots. some way we need to say, the book pressing the button somewhere in the midwest or far west in the united states, and across the world, entire families and communities and women and children, people going to a funeral, people going to a wedding party are being blown up. and then shall we say collateral damage, they are also being killed. we need to connect these two very different worlds and said ultimate is this what we, the united states of america, is this what we stand for? is this what we are exporting to the world? >> how do we connect those dots? >> i think the debate has to begin and it has to be multidimensional. it has to be more than just about security and the public out of. it is bad. it for important, those are crucial elements. but united states also stands for morale the, ethics, the vision of the founding fathers them a certain kind society, civilization. civil liberties washington's only book has the title disabilities. so these are crucial facets and features of the american vision. and i believe that our challenge. i think that debate will come. >> does the u.s. come in your view, have legitimate security concerns? >> it does. because the united states was hit on 9/11. there's no doubt about it. completely out of the blue one fine morning as it were. it has every right to be concerned. it has taken every kind of precaution, rightly. and has maintained that high level of security. ambassadors have been killed recently we saw this extraordinary accomplished diplomat killed in benghazi and, therefore, we need to be concerned about it. at the same time the united states is more than just one aspect of its concerns about hostility. it represents something much bigger. and on the global stage, peter, to me at least, the united states symbolizes something that i think very few countries symbolize, and that is a vision of the world vision of society itself, just different to other societies. that is essentially compromised when you have these killings which do not accept the normal processes of law, and end up by very often getting many, many more people than the so-called bad guys. >> ambassador at bar ahmed, a professor of islamic studies at american university, also a non-resident senior fellow at the brookings institution, a visiting professor at the u.s. naval academy. formerly served as pakistan's high commissioner to the uk and ireland, the author of several books. professor, are you a member of the tribe from your home country in pakistan? >> peter, that's a very interesting question. i have asked the question myself as an anthropologist. and it's critical to lay out there for the reader so everyone knows their place. my mother, yes, is, so i have her blood. my father belongs to a sacred try. is ancestry goes back to the holy prophet. and the two i always found a very interesting in my make up the so one the one hand there's the warrior, there's the man of action. and on the other hand, the person who would want peace and create goodwill and bring people together and compassion, more thoughtful and even more mystical. and sometimes these two are in conflict in me, and i see this in me. so i found that when i was doing this study i was able to get under the skin of the tribal people because that is also part of my heritage. but i could also reach beyond that and transcend that to reach out and find ways of bringing people together. because it isn't just one point of the triangle i talked about. it's also bringing in the central government and the united states and the tribal peoples and their elders so that somehow, together, dialogue begins and a solution is found. >> what's the role of pakistan as kind of a manufactured geographically country? should it be split up? does it need to remain a nation of -- >> you know, if you go to any nation, whether it's pakistan or iraq, many of these nations are, as you said, just put together after the second world war. these are really modern states. they have an ancient history but some goes back thousands of years. but they have in modern history as a modern state. recent history. once they are made it very difficult to unmake them unless there's an intro crisis as took place in pakistan in 1971. pakistan has to be very careful, peter. because there are internal tensions and some of these are exacerbated by drone strikes your right now the tribal areas are inflamed. pakistan has lost something like 55 -- 35 to 40,000 people. the army is involved. every day in the paper you read soldiers are killed by suicide bombers. they in turn fight their own people and there's a conflict, muslimsghting muslims, killing muslims. it is creating a lot of tension in society. the government is not necessary popular. it's not seen as particularly competent pixels all kinds of internal tension. there was tension with india on the border. we have to always remember that this is a part of the world, peter, which combines one and a half billion people. that's one for the community, both pakistan and india are nuclear. so i think the united states been a key ally of pakistan right now, pakistan is a major ally. the interest of the united states is to make sure that the features, the institutions, the foundations of democracy are strong, that good, clean leadership emerges and that the people of pakistan involved in the processes of law of decision-making of democracy. >> at what point, professor, in your view, did u.s. policy in afghanistan, troops in afghanistan go awry? >> i think, peter, initially the tension -- intention was good to iraq, i think it's a great desire to promote democr
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11
