The U.S., the Middle East And the Turkish Islamic Union

The 9/11 attacks that targeted innocent people were denounced by Muslims, like the rest of the world.

The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon marked a turning point and the beginning of a new world order. Some experts predicted that this attack would lead to greater conflict and violence, while a majority of voices pointed out that America's response and future policies must be measured and just.

In the aftermath of the attacks, America began a large-scale offensive against terrorism. Most countries and international organizations supported this effort, which, in essence, is a military operation directed against terrorism and all organs that support it. At present, despite some partial successes, this war has not met its objectives or achieved a conclusive victory.

One of the primary reasons for this failure is that the American strategy is based mainly on military operations to the exclusion of any educational or cultural measures. Military measures, such as removing regimes that support terrorism, cannot defeat terrorism, for terrorism is a socio-psychological and ideological problem. Such a military-only strategy creates tragedies in which countless innocent people lose their lives, as well as the radicalism that, in turn, becomes yet another factor feeding terrorism. Only an intellectual war can effectively diffuse the terrorists' propaganda and eradicate terrorism. Military operations should be used only when appropriate.

For this reason, the war on terrorism must be conducted within the rules of international law and by the use of peaceful but effective measures. Every activity that ignores the law and human rights, especially when it is causing civilian deaths, will cast a shadow over this war, even if it began as a just cause. It is important for the American leadership to remember such facts when determining its strategy, for it is the ideology of terrorism that must be destroyed. The so-called "Islamic terrorism" thought to be behind 9/11 feeds off radical groups that seek to use Islam as a so-called justification for their quest for violence.

When the ideological structure of or education undergone by these groups are examined, one immediately sees that they possess a Darwinist mindset. There is therefore no significance to the way these groups claim to act supposedly in the name of Islam, because they actually have Darwinist mindsets. What is needed before all else is a powerful intellectual campaign against Darwinism and for people to be taught true religious moral values and the love, affection and compassion that lie at the heart of the Qur'an.

It is mainly the Muslims themselves who should replace these mistaken views with the correct understanding of Islamic principles and prevent those who misunderstand Islam from acting upon their rage. Thus, American policy should support a solution from within the Islamic world. As we have stated all along, forming the Turkish Islamic Union is the only realistic solution.

It is in America's best interest to adopt this approach, not to mention within the best interest of the Islamic world and the world in general. Those who think otherwise should reconsider, as they might well be dragging the world into a bloodbath. The American leadership also must be careful not to be distracted by such misrepresentations that lead them to identify Islam as a hostile religion and culture. The people behind such distortions are strategists and ideologues who wish to see a bloody war between the West and the Islamic world. They are doing their best to present American anti-terrorism policies as a war on Islam. Some commonsense announcements by the American leadership, which rejects the idea of a war between the West and Islam, have had positive effects; however, they need to be seen by the global community as affecting American policies.

How Can America Help Achieve Global Peace?

Paul Wolfowitz, the former American Deputy Secretary of Defense, was one of the theoreticians of the "Bush Doctrine" developed after 9/11.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration announced a new national security and foreign policy strategy. One week after the terrorist attacks, President Bush revealed the framework of this strategy in his speech to the nation. Known as the "Bush Doctrine," it proclaimed, in effect, that America would engage in preemptive strikes in order to defend itself. While such attacks may sometimes be justifiable, in actuality it meant the beginning of a new era. This strategy was hammered out under the prevailing psychology in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, drawing heavily on President Bush's patriotic feelings. Some hawkish circles in the country promptly suggested that this new strategy should target almost all of the Middle East and that the nation must be prepared to stomach a 20-year war in the region. Less provocative circles pointed out such an approach's inherent flaws and asserted that it risked escalating terrorism. Before examining the potential risks, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of "preemptive attack."

America, the world's only superpower, quite naturally should have political interest, as well as a strategy, in different parts of the world. Besides, American military intervention has had some positive results. For instance, in the 1990s, American diplomatic and military intervention targeting Serbia, which first attacked first Bosnia-Herzegovina then Kosovo, played an important role in stopping Serbian aggression. The important question here is whether or not such American policies are compatible with international law, and whether they are just and conciliatory, in compliance with human rights, and fairly protect the rights of each group.

In international relations, precautionary defensive measures by individual countries are usually received with a degree of compassion. Of course, every country wants to defend its existence and future, and therefore develops strategies for this purpose. However, this defensive approach should not allow unjustifiable intervention into other nations' affairs. The most successful and safest strategy for a country to adopt is one that seeks to preserve peace and happiness. Peaceful strategies lead people to prosperity and security, and every attempt to disrupt the peace and prevailing order is very dangerous.

American intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosova played a major role in restraining Serbian violence.

Within the American leadership, those who advocate preemptive attacks are proposing a very risky strategy that far exceeds any country's legitimate rights of self-defense. According to this flawed mentality, which is trying to prepare the ground for all kinds of attacks, the assertion that "they might become a threat in future" is the perfect excuse. However, turning to military means alone to resolve disputes cannot succeed, as history has shown over and over again.

According to this flawed logic, international relations depend not upon law, but upon power. These people would like to see America show off its power and clearly demonstrate to its opponents that the nation is still going strong. The hawks believe, mistakenly, that America can maintain its superior military might only through war, and that therefore it must always be the one to strike first. However, not all members of the American administration share this dangerous attitude. From time to time, the hawks gain the upper hand in American politics. However, many bureaucrats as well as advisors advocate a measured and peaceful policy.

All countries, especially America, must strive for peace and protect and support it at all cost. Circles that push the ideas that "might is right" or "the use of force will solve the problems in direct proportion to its use" are, in reality, driving their country into a dead-end situation. One aspect of this is the risk of escalating terrorism. Many strategists point out that America has begun to lose its economic as well as political power. American military might may well have its advantages, but the ongoing threat of war, as well as the continuous state of alarm and readiness for war trumpeted by the hawks, will deal a serious blow to its economy.

The twentieth century was full of wars that killed millions of people and caused heavy material losses. In this new century, humanity must seek peaceful solutions to all such problems.

Furthermore, if this country is always at war somewhere in the world, people will no longer perceive it as the guardian of human rights, democracy, and freedom. As a consequence of its hawkish policies, America will become a nation feared by, instead of respected by, the world community. Even if some military objectives are achieved, America will suffer economically and damage its international image. So, it would only be a very limited success for the country. In reality, the American government also does not want to end up in such a situation, and so it must be cautious and measured when taking the hawks' flawed views into account and do its best to follow rational policies.

Moreover, these circles should consider the example they are setting for other nations and calculate the potential costs of other countries behaving in the same way to protect their interests. It is fairly obvious what kind of disorder and conflict the world would experience were such nuclear-armed countries as Russia, China, India, or Israel to adopt the strategy of preemptive attack. Even just the possibility of such a scenario represents a great threat.

Clearly, America has the right to protect its national interests and defend itself against potential threats. The international community respects this, especially after the 9/11 tragedy. This right, however, can be used to benefit America and the world at large if its use complies with international law. The most important mechanisms for preventing this strategy from descending to the level of a personal war are international law and the broad consensus of the international community reached within its framework. If these mechanisms are ignored, the proponents of this strategy will lead America into a crisis and will represent a threat to world peace.

The fact that war is not a solution has been expressed many times by American citizens and civil society, such as the American National Council of Churches. Many religious leaders have stated that pious Americans are in favor of peace. United for Peace and Justice is an NGO that uses the Internet to call for peace. Veterans against the Iraq war is another NGO that carries out an anti-war campaign.

America must reconsider its strategy in the light of all the above concerns. The way to world peace and stability cannot be aggression and violence, but common sense, fairness, and caution. The primary strategy for its war against terrorism must be to support cultural activities. In order to defeat every ideology that considers violence to be a solution, human relationships a source of personal gain, and aggression legitimate, the conditions that give rise to terrorism must be fought. The widespread acceptance of religious morality, which demands conscience, love, and compassion instead of evil incited by anti-religious ideologies, will provide lasting solutions to terrorism and many other social ills.

Appropriate cultural programs can be implemented by American cooperation with non-governmental organizations, many of which are currently working on such issues. This is an encouraging sign, no doubt, but lasting solutions require state backing and a widening of these efforts' scope.

Besides, the American government must not forget that Christianity's central tenets oppose war and hostility. Allah forbids people to incite disorder or endanger peace and security. If America respects religious beliefs, it must become a role model for all people by seeking to bring peace and security, not fear and apprehension. Those members of the Bush administration who often perceive the need to mention their Christian faith must not forget that the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) commands them to be ambassadors of peace: "Blessed are the peacemakers."(Mathew 5:9).

American religious leaders have called upon the American administration in this regard. In a letter (50 signatories) to President Bush in the days before the American invasion of Iraq, the National Council of Churches (NCC) gives important messages:

We write out of concern that those same precious gifts [of Allah] may be damaged by actions being contemplated by our nation.

We, leaders of American churches and church-related organizations, are alarmed by recent statements by yourself and others in the Administration about pre-emptive military action against Iraq for the expressed purpose of toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein. Understanding that Mr. Hussein poses a threat to his neighbors and to his own people, we nevertheless believe it is wrong, as well as detrimental to U.S. interests, to take such action.

We oppose on moral grounds the United States taking further military action against Iraq now… Military action against the government of Saddam Hussein and its aftermath could result in a large number of civilians being killed or wounded, as well as increasing the suffering of multitudes of innocent people.

... As Christian religious leaders responsible for millions of U.S. citizens we expect our government to reflect the morals and values we hold dear—pursuing peace, not war; working with the community of nations, not overthrowing governments by force; respecting international law and treaties while holding in high regard all human life.²⁵

Not so! All who submit themselves completely to Allah and are good-doers will find their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow. (Surat al-Baqara: 112) Each person faces a particular direction so race each other to the good. Wherever you are, Allah will bring you all together. Truly Allah has power over all things. (Surat al-Baqara: 148)