Tariq Ali v. Daniel Pipes

Jana Wendt: Tariq Ali and Daniel Pipes, welcome to you both. Tariq Ali, what do you believe is thehistorical significance of what happened on September 11?

Tariq Ali:  Well, the historical significance is that it's the first time since 1812 that the Americanmainland has been subjected to violence by persons from outside. I don't think it was an act of war, but itcertainly was a very serious act of terror and its significance lies in, for me, not so much in the actualeffects it had...because, economically and militarily, it was even less than a pinprick. I mean, you can'tchallenge the might of the United States by actions of this sort. The psychological impact, of course, wentmuch, much deeper but, in reality, what has happened is that the United States Administration has decidedquite openly and blatantly to use the events of September 11 to remap the world according to their own needsand that, I think, is where the significance of September 11 will lie when historians discuss it in 10, 20, 30years time.

Jana Wendt: Well, Daniel Pipes, what do you think of that assessment? Has it completely changed the waythat the United States is conducting itself in the world?

Daniel Pipes: No, Jana, very far from a complete change. To me, the significance of September 11 is thatthe war that militant Islam had declared on the US back in 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeini came to power andsaid, "Death to America," the war that then took some 800 lives in the course of the many, manyattacks on Americans, the war which was not really noticed, finally on September 11, 2001, became noticed.There could have been many more deaths in a small sort of way without it being noted, but the largeness ofthis event, the traumatic nature of the day, that caused Americans for the first time to sit up and takenotice, that they had an enemy that had declared war and who was going to do all that it could to harm andpotentially even destroy the United States.

Tariq Ali: Well, I don't accept this for a moment. Basically, what Daniel Pipes is referring to is thevictory of the clerics in Iran after a big mass upheaval which toppled a pretty much universally hateddespotic ruler in that country, who was seen as having been put on his throne by the United States after aprevious attempt to overthrow him by secular politicians had failed in the '50s. So it wasn't militant Islamparticularly. It was the voice of the Iranians and because - I give you an example. At the same time assupposedly militant Islam had declared war on the United States, the United States was, in fact, collaboratingwith sections of militant Islam to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, including the groups which currentlycarried out the attacks on the United States were allies then.

Daniel Pipes: You're just corroborating my point that Americans before 9/11 were not aware that militantIslam had declared war on them and were therefore happy to collaborate with some elements while being attackedby others. That would be much less likely today.

Jana Wendt: OK, I want to ask you both why you believe that those attacks on September 11 did take placewhen they took place? Tariq Ali?

Tariq Ali: Well, I think that the organisation which carried out these attacks had made no secret of thefact for some years previously that it was targeting US institutions. This was the al-Qa'ida group, and theybasically argued they were people who had fought with the US during the Cold War but, after the end of theCold War, and particularly after the Gulf War, when Saudi Arabia had American troops present on its soil inlarge numbers, they turned against the United States, partially because they were dumped by it and had to keeptheir little group going, and partially because they thought that this would win them support throughout theIslamic world, for these were people left loose and they had to carry on, so they changed their style offunctioning, they changed their ideology and they moved on. Though I would like to stress that it is not avery large group. It is a group, according to all reports, maximum of 2,000 to 3,000 people globally, and sothe key thing is to try and cut off the support these organisations sometimes get and stop the flow ofrecruits to them and that requires political not military solutions, in my opinion.

Daniel Pipes: No, there was not a shift in ideology. The shift - there was a consistency. First, it was theSoviets they fought and then it was the United States. "One down, one to go," was the prevailingview in Afghanistan. Secondly, we did not fight with al-Qa'ida. There was no al-Qa'ida, back when the UnitedStates was in Afghanistan. The events of last September were in response to the fact that the United Stateshad reacted so feebly to the prior attacks I mentioned - 800 who had been killed in the process of thoseattacks. Really, there was no response. 241 marines were killed in Beirut, for example, in 1983. No response,nothing, just the United States left. 17 soldiers killed in Somalia. The United States left. Well, the leadersof al-Qa'ida saw this weakness and said, "Well, let's be even tougher. Let's hit them in their homelandand then they'll really capitulate." They misread, obviously, the American public, but I believe the goalwas to hit hard the political and business leadership, to create a condition of civil unrest and to createconditions in the United States which would lead to the collapse of the United States, just as their victoryover the Soviet Union in some fashion contributed to their victory...to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Jana Wendt: Just very quickly, Daniel Pipes, Tariq Ali says this is a small group of people, that actioncan be taken against them. You present it as an enormous threat. Why do you see it as such a huge threat?

Daniel Pipes: Well, the actual number of operatives who are out there, ready to engage in violence, may besmall, in the thousands, yes. But their support group is much larger and we saw a year ago the enormouspopularity of this kind of strike against the West. Easily half the Muslim world thought this was a greatthing. So, yes, the operatives are few but their support is quite large and their popular base is massive.

Jana Wendt: Tariq Ali, support from over half the Muslim world, according to Daniel Pipes. Is that right?

Tariq Ali: There was some jubilation, not because of this group, but because they felt that this great, bigempire, which rules the world and which goes round doing what it wants in every continent had been hit. Butthis wasn't confined to the world of Islam. This was very, very strong in Latin America. I mean, in parts ofLatin America, there were public celebrations of this event. The reaction in parts of China were also verysimilar. But that, I don't think, has much to do with militant Islam at all. And just on one more thing totake up, which Daniel said, I mean, I think some of the leaders of this group might have this lunatic dreamthat they can topple or overthrow the United States or its allies, but the more serious ideologues within themhave no such crazy illusions or ideas. Basically, they think that this is the way they can weaken their owngovernments in power in the Middle East and countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, governments close to theUS, and topple them. I think that's the main aim because, after all, they are not that dumb. They know thatthey didn't bring down the Soviet Union in Afghanistan on their own.

Daniel Pipes: Can I just counter those two points quickly? There was no public jubilation in China andLatin America. Public jubilation was exclusively in the Muslim world. Let's get that straight. Secondly, thekey thing about al-Qa'ida...

Tariq Ali: That is not true.

Daniel Pipes: is that they had decided not to go after their own governments - Pakistan, Egypt and soforth. They've given up on that route and they've decided to go after what they consider to be the protectorand sponsor, namely the United States. So, what you're calling the lunatic fringe is actually the very heartand soul of al-Qa'ida. Read up on it, you'll see. They're not interested in Pakistan. They're interested inthe United States.

Jana Wendt: We appear to be heading at the moment towards a confrontation with Iraq. Daniel Pipes, is thisthe right step in this war?

Daniel Pipes: Well, it is the right step, but it's a different war. I think the main war, the war thatbegan a year ago today, is the war on militant Islam, the one that we've been talking about until now - it sohappens that Saddam Hussein lives in the same part of the world and is a nominal Muslim and so there is atendency to see him as connected to this, but he's not. The problem of Saddam Hussein is a simple one. Here isan absolutely ruthless megalomaniac dictator, who is trying by all means possible to get his hands on nuclearweapons. He is close to achieving that. We must stop it. It's easy to do, easy to defeat him militarily, easyto get rid of him. There is no ideology. He has no cadre. There's no-one devoted to the thoughts of SaddamHussein. He'll be gone and one can begin with a new Iraq and this will have enormously beneficial effects onall sorts of Middle Eastern and international issues. So it's urgent. Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons isthe single most terrifying prospect in the world today. It needs to be done soon.

Tariq Ali: I totally disagree. This ruthless megalomaniac was once a close ally of the United States,backed by them and Britain when they unleashed him to fight the war against the clerics in Iran. That's whenhe acquired chemical weapons and some of his scientists came and were trained in the Porton Down laboratoriesin Britain. The notion that this regime, which has been weakened by continuous sanctions, by weeklyAnglo-American bombing raids, is capable of threatening any Western country is, of course, a joke. What itdoes pose a potential threat to...

Daniel Pipes: What if you're wrong?

Tariq Ali: is the hegemony of Israel. That's the real - that's what this war is about. My prediction isit's, of course, perfectly possible and likely that the power of the United States is such that they canchange the regime in Iraq. The thought that they will be able to have a democratically elected regime whichwould put a Shi-ite majority in power in Iraq, will be accepted either by the United States or its allies inthe region to me is inconceivable, so you will have more instability and you will have the whole Arab worldsaying, "You are siding and backing Ariel Sharon with what he is doing to the Palestinians. You won'tstop him. He's got nuclear weapons.

He's got chemical weapons, but you're after yet another Arab government itself." That's for the peopleof that region to sort out, these governments, not for the United States.

Jana Wendt: Daniel Pipes, do you think an attack on Iraq will take place?

Daniel Pipes: Oh, I do think it will. The gearing-up for war is very clear. Mr. Ali is correct that this isnot exactly popular in the Arab world or Europe or elsewhere. Isn't it lucky that it's the United States, Mr.Ali, that's making the decisions and not you?

Tariq Ali: No, it's not lucky. Well, no, I think it's deeply unfortunate for the world that it is theUnited States which is making the decisions, 'cause what this will do, actually, is promote terror and notdeal with its political causes.

Daniel Pipes: Let's revisit it.

Jana Wendt: Let's revisit it, but at another time. Tariq Ali in London, thank you very much. Daniel Pipesin Philadelphia, thank you to you too.