LET US BE MOORS:ISLAM, RACE AND CONNECTED HISTORIES

Let Us Be Moors: Islam, Race and "Connected Histories"

Hisham Aidi

(Hisham Aidi, a research fellow at Columbia University's Middle East Institute, works on the university's Muslim Communities in New York Project, sponsored by the Ford Foundation.)

"Seamos moros!" wrote the Cuban poet and nationalist José Martíí in 1893, in support of the Berber uprising against Spanish rule in northern Morocco. "Let us be Moors...the revolt in the Rif...is not an isolated incident, but an outbreak of the change and realignment that have entered the world. Let us be Moors...we [Cubans] who will probably die by the hand of Spain." [1] Writing at a time when the scramble for Africa and Asia was at full throttle, Martí was accenting connections between those great power forays and Spanish depredations in Cuba, even as the rebellion of 1895 germinated on his island.

Throughout the past century, particularly during the Cold War, Latin American leaders from Cuba's Fidel Castro to Argentina's Juan Peron would express support for Arab political causes, and call for Arab-Latin solidarity in the face of imperial domination, often highlighting cultural links to the Arab world through Moorish Spain. Castro, in particular, made a philo-Arab pan-Africanism central to his regime's ideology and policy initiatives. In his famous 1959 speech on race, the jefe maximo underlined Cuba's African and Moorish origins. "We all have lighter or darker skin. Lighter skin implies descent from Spaniards who themselves were colonized by the Moors that came from Africa. Those who are more or less dark-skinned came directly from Africa. Moreover, nobody can consider himself as being of pure, much less superior, race." [2]

With the launching of the "war on terror," and particularly with the invasion of Iraq, political leaders and activists in Latin America have been warning of a new imperial age and again declaring solidarity with the Arab world. Some refer rather quixotically to a Moorish past. Linking the war on Iraq to Plan Colombia and to the Bush administration's alleged support for a coup against him, the erratic Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has repeatedly urged his countrymen to "return to their Arab roots," and attempted to mobilize the country's mestizo and black majority against white supremacy. "They call me the monkey or black," Chavez says of his domestic and international opponents. "They can't stand that someone like me was elected." [3]

In less contentious terms, Brazil's left-leaning President Lula da Silva will visit the Middle East in early December 2003 to seek "more objective" relations with the Arab world, to call for an "independent, democratic Palestinian state" and to launch a common market with the Arab world as an alternative to the North American market (particularly with many in Arab countries boycotting American products). [4] Brazil's largest trade union federation strongly denounced post-September 11 US intervention in Colombia, Venezuela and the Middle East, praising the protest movements that have appeared against US and Israeli "militarism" and calling on Brazilian workers to join in the struggle "against Sharon's Nazi-Zionist aggression against the Palestinian people" and in support of the intifada. [5]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DESIGNATES "MOORS" AS EXTREMIST,HOMELAND SECURITY THREATS

WASHINGTON – Republicans on Wednesday said a Homeland Security Department intelligence assessment unfairly characterizes military veterans as right-wing extremists. House Republican leader John Boehner described the report as offensive and called on the agency to apologize to veterans.

The agency's intelligence assessment, sent to law enforcement officials last week, warns that right-wing extremists could use the bad state of the U.S. economy and the election of the country's first black president to recruit members.

The assessment also said that returning military veterans who have difficulties assimilating back into their home communities could be susceptible to extremist recruiters or might engage in lone acts of violence.

"To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable," said Boehner, R-Ohio.

The commander of the veterans group the American Legion, David Rehbein, wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressing concern with the assessment, which made its way into the mainstream press after conservative bloggers got wind of the analysis.

Rehbein called the assessment incomplete and said it lacked statistical evidence. He said the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by military veteran Timothy McVeigh was one instance of a veteran becoming a domestic terrorist.

"To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam," Rehbein said in the April 13 letter.

Napolitano defended the assessment and others issued by the agency.

"Let me be very clear — we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States," Napolitano said in a statement. "We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence."

Napolitano said the department respects and honors veterans and that she intends to meet with Rehbein next week after she returns from a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border and meetings in Mexico City.

The agency describes these assessments as part of a series published "to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States."

In February, the department issued a report to law enforcement that said left-wing extremist groups were likely to use cyber attacks more often in the next 10 years to further their cause.

In September, the agency highlighted how right-wing extremists over the past five years have used the immigration debate as a recruiting tool.

Between September 2008 and Feb. 5, the agency issued at least four reports, obtained by The Associated Press, on individual extremist groups such as the Moors, Vinlanders Social Club, Volksfront and Hammerskin Nation.

But the references to military veterans in the recent report angered conservatives.

"The department is engaging in political and ideological profiling of people who fought to keep our country safe from terrorism, uphold our nation's immigration laws, and protect our constitutional right to keep and bear arms," said Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla.,

Texas Rep. Lamar Smith accused the department of painting "law-abiding Americans, including war veterans, as 'extremists.'"

Indiana Rep. Steve Buyer, the ranking Republican on the House Veterans' Affairs committee, said it was "inconceivable" that the administration would consider military veterans a potential terrorist threat.

___

www.aarashid.com presents SexMatheMagics.

ANOTHER EPISODE IN THE SERIES OF DVD'S FROM THE TEMPLE OF DAATH -A.A RASHID "THE QABALAH GOD" EL PHILTHMOOR "THE RED PILL" THIS IS ONE APTLY TITILED " SEXMATHEMAGIK" AVAIBLE ONLY @ WWW.AARASHID.COM

FORGET STAR WARS.ITS BACK TO COLONIAL WARFARE

Forget Star Wars. It’s Back To Colonial Warfare

by Eric Margolis

There are a lot of unhappy campers at the Pentagon right now. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates chose last week to present a controversial new budget that will affect the course of US foreign and military policy for decades to come.

Furious debate has raged in the Pentagon over the future and mission of US military forces ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Pentagon has been deeply divided over whether the US military should be configured to fight conventional wars against Russia and China, or be transformed into an agile force to combat Third World guerillas.

Both the Bush and Obama White Houses have been pushing the Pentagon to opt for the latter by beefing up forces and deploying new equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan. But many generals and admirals have been bitterly resisting cuts in US conventional forces.

Last week, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates finally put an end to this debate. Gate’s newly announced defense budget makes clear that America’s military future lies in what the Pentagon calls, "expeditionary warfare" or "counterinsurgency operations." These, it is clear, will take place mostly in the Muslim world.

The British, less given to euphemisms than Americans, used to call their distant operations against unruly natives, "colonial warfare" or "little wars."

However, in 1914, the British Empire’s army, trained to fight colonial wars against lightly-armed Zulu, Dervishes and Afghans, met the modern Imperial German Army and suffered a bloodbath. Neither Britain’s generals nor soldiers were ready for the horrors of modern warfare.

While Gates was waving his big stick and warning all misbehaving Muslims, President Barack Obama was playing the good cop on his visit to Turkey, offering the "hand of friendship" to the very same Muslim world to which Secretary Gates was planning to dispatch more US troops and Predator killer drones. This sharp irony was completely lost on the US media.

Though the US deficit just reached a staggering US $1 trillion for the first half of 2008, military spending will still rise 4%. The Afghan and Iraq wars will alone cost $200 billion this year.

So much for Obama’s promised government austerity. Plowshares will be beaten into swords. Congressmen and lobbyists will scream to high heaven when some major weapons programs are terminated, but overall, the US military industrial complex is hardly suffering.

Supporting the Afghan and Iraq wars is now the Pentagon’s priority. Fifty more deadly Predator and Reaper drones will be acquired. They are the Pentagon’s favorite tool for "taking out" foes in Pakistan and Afghanistan, along, of course, with civilian "collateral damage." The British writer George Orwell called using such euphemisms, "making murder respectable."

More special forces and advanced ground and air sensors to target "terrorists" and "insurgents" (i.e., those resisting the American Raj) will be deployed. Over 500 more versatile F-35 strike aircraft will be purchased. Production of the magnificent stealth F-22s, costing $140 million a piece, will shortly end at 187 units. This has dismayed the Israelis, who were planning to order the F-22. Political pressure may yet keep the F-22 production line open to fill the Israeli order.

The Army loses heavy combat vehicles, artillery, and anti-missile systems. The US Navy loses one of its eleven carriers and some planned high-tech destroyers. Coastal combat vessels for shallow water Gulf and Third World operations will be added. Thirteen billion dollars of gold-plated presidential helicopters worthy of an airborne mogul emperor were sensibly postponed.

These realignments of defense spending clearly show the Obama administration intends to pursue a long war strategy in Afghanistan, Iraq, perhaps Somalia, and in other future Third World hot spots located near major oil deposits. President Bush’s so-called "war on terror" cost taxpayers $808 billion. Obama has renamed it "overseas contingency operations," but otherwise he seems to be following Bush’s lead.

What caused so much heated debate in the Pentagon – and the heads of some senior generals like former Air Force chief of staff Michael Moseley – is the concern that reconfiguring the US military to fight "counterinsurgency" wars in the Muslim world will undermine national defense and America’s ability to wage future wars against other great powers like China, Russia or even India and Europe.

Keeping one US soldier in Afghanistan costs $330,000 annually. The US military has been engaged in various conflicts abroad for 17 years: much of its equipment is seriously run down. The average age of US Air Force fighters is 24 years old. The USAF KC-135 tankers that allow long-range power projection average 47 years old.

The Iraq and Afghan wars have worn out the US Air Force and Navy: equipment replacement from operations in Iraq is alone estimated at over $60 billion.

Meanwhile, Russia is planning for small wars around its frayed borders, but it is still retaining substantial military muscle. China and India are steadily modernizing their armed forces.

The US Navy’s carriers, America’s key to strategic power projection, are now seriously threatened by three new weapons. China’s improved, 2,000 km range DF-21 missile than can be guided onto carriers by radar, satellite and drones; Russia’s 300 kph "Shkvall" rocket-powered torpedo that travels in a self-generated air capsule; and the Russo-Indians supersonic BrahMos 300 km range anti-ship missile. They may make US carriers’ sitting ducks.

It takes decades to order and deploy new weapons systems. The Obama administration has now locked the US military on a course that cannot be quickly changed if new strategic threats emerge.