U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–963 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–948

ISLAM AND THE WEST: SEARCHING FOR COMMON

GROUND

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 18, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

BARBARA BOXER, California

BILL NELSON, Florida

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois

KENNETH A. MYERS, Jr., Staff Director

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Democratic Staff Director

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Ahmed, Ambassador Akbar S., Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, School

of International Service, American University, Washington, DC .................... 26

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30

Hoffman, Dr. Bruce, corporate chair in Counterterrorism and

Counterinsurgency, the Rand Corporation, Washington, DC .......................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8

Khan, Dr. Muqtedar, assistant professor, Political Science and International

Relations, University of Delaware, Newark, DE ............................................... 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37

Kohut, Mr. Andrew, president, Pew Research Center, Washington, DC ............ 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20

Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening statement ........... 1

(III)

(1)

ISLAM AND THE WEST: SEARCHING FOR

COMMON GROUND

TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2006

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in room

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard G. Lugar

(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Lugar and Boxer.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR,

U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee

is called to order. The committee meets today to convene the second in a series of hearings on the issue of global terrorism and our

national and international efforts to combat it.

The issue regrettably remains very much in the headlines. Just

last week commuters in Bombay experienced the spontaneous and

tragic consequences of terrorism. As tensions flare and more lives

are lost in the volatile Middle East, terrorist acts continue to be a

tactic of those wishing to achieve political objectives.

In our first hearing we heard from both current and former senior Government officials on the state of the terrorist threat against

the United States, and we received recommendations for measuring

success and moving forward. We learned that while there have

been unequivocal successes in our war against terror, the root

causes of terrorism, particularly those driven by Islamic radicalism,

remain very much with us.

I noted during our last hearing that military operations alone

will not win the longer war on terrorism, and this view was validated by testimony at the hearing. Even with an al-Qaeda organization that is scattered and on the run, its leadership continues to

provide ideological guidance to followers worldwide. In other words,

despite our operational and tactical successes on several fronts, the

root causes of terrorism and the intense ideological motivation behind this phenomenon persist.

We have started this inquiry from the premise that the United

States antiterrorism strategy cannot be reduced to military terms

or to a fight against existing conspirators. It must include longerterm measures designed to prevent terrorist cells and movements

that would target Americans on our shores and abroad from forming in the first place. In today’s world, an antiterrorist strategy

cannot focus exclusively on ‘‘capture and kill’’ or on the derailment

2

of imminent terrorist acts. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon

that requires the application of technological, military, law enforcement, economic, diplomatic, and moral resources.

To evaluate the United States’ antiterrorism strategy, we have to

know what causes a person to embrace an ideology that would have

them resort to terrorism as a tactic. And once inclined toward such

ideology, what is it that would dissuade a person from committing

violence toward Americans in the first place?

Congressional oversight should ensure that we are getting the

maximum benefit out of our antiterrorism investments, that agencies are working cooperatively and effectively with one another,

and that we are implementing a comprehensive strategy focused on

achievable short- and long-term objectives. And, finally, we must

know how we can define our success in this effort and how we

would know when we have achieved it.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to perform an examination of

the historical roots of terrorism and how other nations have dealt

with the phenomenon. We will focus in particular on the roots of

Islamic-based terrorism, including the current image of the United

States in the Muslim world, how Westerners and Muslims view

each other, and the state of the struggle within contemporary

Islam between its more moderate and extreme factions. We will

also probe how the United States and its Western allies and counterparts can move toward a more productive, longer-term relationship with the Muslim world.

Our panel today consists of four individuals who have unique experience to inform us on this complex and important topic.

Dr. Bruce Hoffman is the corporate chair in counterterrorism and

counterinsurgency at the RAND Corporation. He is also director of

RAND’s Washington office. He has a long history of scholarly writing on all aspects of terrorism and counterinsurgency, and has

worked as a senior advisor to many government entities in both the

United States and Great Britain. He is the editor of ‘‘Studies in

Conflict and Terrorism,’’ the leading worldwide scholarly journal in

the field, and has written extensively on al-Qaeda’s tactics, strategies, and leadership.

Mr. Andrew Kohut is the president of the Pew Research Center.

He also acts as the director of the Pew Research Center for the

People and the Press, and the Pew Global Attitudes Project. He

was president of the Gallup organization from 1979 to 1989. Mr.

Kohut is widely sought after as a commentator on public opinion

and has received many awards in his profession. He is the author

of several books, the most recent of which is ‘‘America Against the

World—How We Are Different and Why We Are Disliked.’’

Ambassador Akbar Ahmed is a respected scholar on contemporary Islam. He is a former high commissioner of Pakistan to

Great Britain, and has advised many world leaders in Islam. He

holds a chair in Islamic Studies and is a professor of international

relations at American University. The Ambassador is also a distinguished anthropologist, writer, and filmmaker, and is the author of

many books on Muslim history and society. He has just returned

from an extensive trip throughout the Muslim world.

Dr. Muktedar Khan is a professor of political science and international relations at the University of Delaware, and a nonresident

3

fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East policy at the Brookings

Institution. He is known best for his insight relating to the role of

moderate Muslims in Islamic thought. His thoughtful post-September 11 essay to his fellow American Muslims has been widely

recognized and published. New York Newsday noted that Dr. Khan

is ‘‘one of a growing number of young moderate Muslim thinkers

who believe themselves engaged in a battle for the soul of Islam.’’

Gentlemen, we welcome you all. We appreciate your willingness

to share your thoughts with us today. We look forward to your testimony. Let me mention that your statements will be made a part

of the record in full, and I ask for permission that this occur. You

may as you choose present your full material, or summarize it. We

are here to hear you today, and then hopefully you will respond to

our questions.

I would like to recognize the presence of my distinguished colleague from California, Senator Barbara Boxer. Do you have a

word of welcome for the witnesses?

Senator BOXER. I do, and I won’t give an opening statement. I’m

very anxious to hear from them.

But I do welcome you. I think in light of events around the world

right now, we need understanding, we need ideas, and we look to

you for all of that and more. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer.

I’ll ask you to testify in this order: First of all, Dr. Hoffman, and

then Mr. Kohut, and then Mr. Ahmed, and finally Dr. Khan. Would

you please proceed, Dr. Hoffman.

STATEMENT OF DR. BRUCE HOFFMAN, CORPORATE CHAIR IN

COUNTERTERRORISM AND COUNTERINSURGENCY, THE

RAND CORPORATION, WASHINGTON, DC

Dr. HOFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very much

the opportunity to speak before the committee today on this very

important topic.

In your opening remarks you described al-Qaeda as an organization scattered and on the run. My testimony will argue that while

that might even recently have been the case, today al-Qaeda has

not only regrouped but is in fact on the march.

Let me begin my oral testimony with two brief quotations in the

recently cited report by the British parliamentary committee investigating the July 7, 2005 bombings in London:

‘‘We were working off a script which actually has been completely

discounted from what we know as reality.’’ That was by Andy

Hayman, the assistant commissioner of specialist operations at

Scotland Yard, in other words, Britain’s top counterterrorism cop.

Second, ‘‘I think the more we learned over this period of several

years, the more we began to realize the limits of what we knew.’’

This was by Tom Dowse, the chief of the United Kingdom Intelligence Assessments Staff.

These two admissions made by persons at the apex of the United

Kingdom’s counterterrorism effort encapsulate the central challenge facing the United States today in our own counterterrorism

effort. Given the threat’s dynamic and evolutionary character and

our adversaries’ seeming ability to adapt and adjust their tactics

and modi operandi to overcome or obviate even our most conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:03 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\ISLAM.TXT mich PsN: mich
4

sequential countermeasures, how can we best ensure that our own

assessments and analyses are anchored firmly to sound, empirical

judgment and not blinded by either conjecture, mirror-imaging, politically partisan prisms, or wishful thinking? And equally critically, how can we ensure that our counterterrorism policy is sufficiently comprehensive, well-crafted, and effectively directed?

Let me first begin with a brief description of al-Qaeda today, its

evolution, adaptation, and adjustment. Al-Qaeda’s obituary has

been written often since 9/11. Today it is frequently spoken of as

an organization in retreat, a broken and beaten movement, incapable of mounting further attacks on its own, and instead having

devolved operational authority either to its various affiliates or associates or to entirely organically produced, homegrown terrorist

entities. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Al-Qaeda, in fact, is on the march. It has regrouped and reorganized from the setbacks meted out by the United States and our

coalition partners and allies during the initial phases of the global

war on terrorism, and is marshalling its forces to continue the epic

struggle begun now 10 years ago this coming August. The al-Qaeda

of today combines, as it always has, both a bottom-up approach, encouraging independent thought and action from low- or lower-level

operatives, and a top-down one, with its remaining central command issuing orders and still coordinating a far-flung terrorist enterprise with both highly synchronized and autonomous moving

parts.

The most salient threat continues to come from al-Qaeda central

and from its affiliates and associated terrorist groups. However, an

additional and equally challenging threat is now posed by less discernible and more unpredictable entities drawn from the vast Muslim diaspora and community in Europe. This new category of terrorist adversary, moreover, also has proven more difficult for the

authorities in these countries to track, predict, and anticipate. It is

also difficult, if not impossible, to effectively profile this adversary.

Indeed, this was precisely the conclusion reached by the abovementioned parliamentary committee in their report on last year’s

London bombings. Although the members of these terrorist cells

may be marginalized individuals working in menial jobs, from the

lower socioeconomic strata of society, some with long criminal

records or histories of juvenile delinquency, others may well come

from solidly middle and upper middle class backgrounds, with university and perhaps even graduate degrees, and prior passions for

cars, sports, rock music, and other completely secular material interests.

These new recruits are the anonymous cogs in the worldwide alQaeda enterprise, and include both longstanding residents and new

immigrants found across Europe, but specifically in countries with

large Muslim populations, such as Britain, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Belgium.

Let me now briefly turn to what I argue are the perils of wishful

thinking: al-Qaeda and the 7/7 London bombings. The United Kingdom of course rightly prides itself on decades-long experience and

detailed knowledge of effectively countering a variety of terrorist

threats. Yet, despite Britain’s formidable counterterrorist capabilities and unrivaled expertise, its security, intelligence, and law enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:03 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\ISLAM.TXT mich PsN: mich
5

forcement agencies, as the quotes at the beginning of this testimony evidence, dismissed the likelihood of an imminent attack in

the United Kingdom and moreover believed that eventually, when

such an attack would occur, it would not involve suicide tactics.

The point of this discussion is most certainly not to criticize our

principle ally in the war on terrorism, but rather to highlight the

immense difficulties and vast uncertainties concerning countering

terrorism today, that have confounded even the enormously professional and experienced British intelligence and security services.

Moreover, the danger of similarly cloaking ourselves in a false

sense of security based on faulty assumptions or wishful thinking

is omnipresent in so fluid and dynamic a terrorism environment as

exists today.

Indeed, our appreciation and understanding of the current alQaeda threat underscores these perils. Both at the time of the

London bombings and since, a misconception has frequently been

perpetuated that this was entirely an organic or homegrown phenomena of self-radicalized, self-selected terrorists. Such arguments

often were cited in support of the argument that entirely homegrown threats had superseded those posed by al-Qaeda, that alQaeda itself was no longer a consequential, active terrorist force,

and accordingly that the threat had both changed and perhaps

even receded.

The evidence that has come to light since the London attacks a

year ago, however, points to the opposite conclusion: That al-Qaeda

is not only alive and kicking, but that it is still actively planning

and supporting, through the provision of training and perhaps even

directing terrorist attacks on a global canvas. Issues of classification and sensitive collection prevent a full description and account

of this evidence of active al-Qaeda involvement in the London attacks.

However, suffice it to say that what is publicly known and what

has been reported in numerous unclassified sources clearly points

to such involvement. Mohammed Siddique Khan, for instance, the

ringleader of the London gang, visited Pakistan on at least two occasions, and on his second visit was accompanied by another London bomber, Shazad Tanweer. It is believed that they visited Pakistani jihadi terrorist training camps, and indeed that they met

with al-Qaeda operatives.

Both men made ‘‘martyrdom’’ videos while they were in Pakistan

between November 2004 and February 2005 and, like all of Osama

bin Laden’s most important videotaped statements and appearances, the Khan and Tanweer statements were both professionally

produced and released by al-Qaeda’s perennially active communications department, Al Sahab for Media Production. Al Sahab means

‘‘the clouds.’’

Finally, in concluding my testimony, how do we move toward a

new U.S. counterterrorism policy, given the changing and dynamic

character of the terrorist threat today? This brief discussion of the

7/7 London bombings is intended to illustrate the dynamic, changing nature of a threat that cannot be defeated by military means

alone.

Yet our policy to date has arguably been predominantly weighted

toward the tactical ‘‘kill and capture’’ approach in metric, assuming

6

that a traditional center of gravity exists, whether the target is alQaeda or the insurgency in Iraq, and that this target simply needs

to be destroyed so that global terrorism or the Iraqi insurgency will

end. However, both our adversaries today and the threats that they

pose are much more elusive and complicated and, as the previous

discussion of the London attacks clearly depicts, less neatly amenable to kinetic solutions.

Accordingly, a new strategy and a new approach is vital. Its success will be predicated upon a strategy that effectively combines

the tactical elements of systematically destroying and weakening

enemy capabilities—the ‘‘kill/capture’’ approach—alongside the

equally critical, broader strategic imperative of breaking the cycle

of terrorist recruitment and replenishment that have respectively

sustained both al-Qaeda’s continued campaign and the ongoing conflict in Iraq.

A successful strategy will thus be one that also thinks and plans

ahead, with a view toward addressing the threats likely to be posed

by the terrorist and insurgent generation, not only beyond the current one but beyond the one after the current one. At the foundation of such a dynamic and adaptive strategy must be the ineluctably maxim that effectively and successfully countering terrorism

as well as insurgency, is not exclusively a military endeavor, but

involves fundamental parallel political, social, economic, and ideological activities.

Accordingly, rather than viewing the fundamental organizing

principle of American national defense strategy in this unconventional realm as a global war on terrorism, it may be more useful

to reconceptualize it in terms of a global counterinsurgency. Such

an approach would, a priori, knit together the equally critical political, economic, diplomatic, and developmental sides inherent to the

successful prosecution of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency,

and contribute to the existing dominant military side of the equation.

Greater attention to this integration of American capabilities

would provide incontrovertible recognition of the importance of

endowing a global counterinsurgency with an overriding and comprehensive multidimensional policy. Ideally, this policy would embrace several elements, including a clear strategy, a defined structure for implementing it, and a vision of intergovernmental agency

cooperation and a unified effort to guide it. A more focused and

strengthened interagency process would also facilitate the coordination of key themes and messages, and the development and execution of long-term ‘‘hearts and minds’’ programs.

The U.S. Government, in sum, will need to adjust and adapt its

strategy, resources, and tactics to formidable opponents that, as we

have seen, are widely dispersed and decentralized, and whose

many destructive parts are autonomous, mobile, and themselves

highly adaptive. In this respect, even the best strategy will be proven inadequate if military and civilian agency leaders are not prepared to engage successfully within ambiguous environments and

to reorient their organizational culture to deal with irregular

threats.

A successful global counterinsurgency transcends the need for

better tactical intelligence or new organizations. It is fundamenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:03 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\ISLAM.TXT mich PsN: mich
7

tally about transforming the attitudes and mindsets of leaders so

that they have the capacity to take decisive yet thoughtful action

against terrorists and insurgents in uncertain or unclear situations, based on a common vision, policy, and strategy.

In sum, new times, new threats, and new challenges make a new

strategy, approach, and new organizational and institutional behaviors necessary. The effectiveness of a U.S. strategy will be

based on our capacity to think like a networked enemy, in anticipation of how they may act in a variety of situations, aided by different resources.

This goal requires that the American national security structure,

in turn, organize itself for maximum efficiency, information-sharing, and the ability to function quickly and effectively under new

operational definitions. With this understanding in mind, we need

to craft an approach that specifically takes into account the following key factors to effectively wage a global counterinsurgency:

• One, separating the enemy from the populace that provides its

support and sustenance. This, in turn, entails three basic missions: denial of enemy sanctuary; elimination of enemy freedom of movement; denial of enemy resources and support.

• Second, identification and neutralization of the enemy.

• Third, creation of a secure environment, progressing from local

to regional to global.

• Fourth, ongoing and effective neutralization of enemy propaganda and information operations through the planning and

execution of a comprehensive and integrated information operations and holistic civil affairs campaign of our own.

• Finally, interagency efforts to build effective and responsible

civil governance mechanisms that eliminate the fundamental

causes of terrorism and insurgency.

In conclusion, al-Qaeda may be compared to the archetypal shark

in the water that must keep moving forward, no matter how slowly

or incrementally, or die. In al-Qaeda’s context, this means adapting

and adjusting to our countermeasures while simultaneously searching to identify new targets and new vulnerabilities. In this respect,

al-Qaeda’s capacity to continue to prosecute this struggle is a direct

reflection of both the movement’s resiliency and the continued resonance of its ideology.

Al-Qaeda’s operational durability thus has enormous significance

for United States counterterrorism strategy and policy. Because alQaeda has this malleable resiliency, it cannot be defeated or destroyed in a single military engagement or even a series of engagements, much less ones exclusively dependent on the application of

conventional forces and firepower. To a significant degree, our ability to carry out such missions effectively will depend on the ability

of American strategy and policy to adjust and adapt to changes we

see in the nature and character of our adversaries. Thank you very

much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoffman follows:]

8

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. BRUCE HOFFMAN, CORPORATE CHAIR IN

COUNTERTERRORISM AND COUNTERINSURGENCY, RAND CORPORATION, WASHINGTON, DC

‘‘We were working off a script which actually has been completely discounted from

what we know as reality.’’—Andy Hayman, Assistant Commissioner of Specialist Operations, Scotland Yard

‘‘I think the more we learned over this period of several years, the more we began

to realize the limits of what we knew . . .’’—Tom Dowse, Chief of the Assessments

Staff

These two admissions, made by persons at the apex of the United Kingdom’s

counterterrorism effort, encapsulate the central challenge today facing the United

States in our own counterterrorism effort. Given the threat’s dynamic and evolutionary character and our adversaries’ seeming ability to adapt and adjust their tactics

and modi operandi to overcome or obviate even our most consequential countermeasures, how can we best ensure that our own assessments and analyses are anchored firmly to sound, empirical judgment and not blinded by either conjecture,

mirror-imaging, politically partisan prisms or wishful thinking? And, equally critically, how can we ensure that our counterterrorism policy is sufficiently comprehensive, well crafted and effectively directed?

AL-QAEDA TODAY: EVOLUTION, ADAPTATION, AND ADJUSTMENT

Al-Qaeda’s obituary has been written often since 9/11. ‘‘Al-Qa’ida’s Top Primed To

Collapse, U.S. Says,’’ trumpeted a Washington Post headline 2 weeks after Khalid

Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, was arrested in March

2003. ‘‘I believe the tide has turned in terms of al-Qa’ida,’’ Congressmen Porter J.

Goss, then-chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee

and himself a former CIA case officer who became its director a year later, was

quoted. ‘‘We’ve got them nailed,’’ an unidentified intelligence expert was quoted, who

still more expansively declared, ‘‘we’re close to dismantling them.’’ These upbeat assessments continued the following month with the nearly bloodless capture of Baghdad and the failure of al-Qaeda to make good on threats of renewed attacks in retaliation for invasion. Citing administration sources, an article in the Washington

Times on 24 April 2003 reported the prevailing view in official Washington that alQaeda’s ‘‘failure to carry out a successful strike during the United States-led military campaign to topple Saddam Hussein has raised questions about their ability

to carry out major new attacks.’’ Despite major terrorist attacks in Jakarta and

Istanbul during the latter half of that same year and the escalating insurgency in

Iraq, this optimism carried into 2004. ‘‘The al-Qaida of the 9/11 period is under catastrophic stress,’’ Ambassador Cofer Black, at the time the U.S. State Department’s

Counterterrorism Coordinator, declared. ‘‘They are being hunted down, their days

are numbered.’’ Then came the Madrid bombings 6 weeks later and the deaths of

191 persons. The most accurate assessment, perhaps, was therefore the one offered

by al-Qaeda itself. ‘‘The Americans,’’ Thabet bin Qais, a spokesperson for the movement said in May 2003, ‘‘only have predications and old intelligence left. It will take

them a long time to understand the new form of al-Qaida.’’ Admittedly, while the

first part of bin Qais’s assertion is not correct, there is more than a grain of truth

to the second part. More than 3 years later we are indeed still struggling to understand the changing character and nature of al-Qaeda and the shifting dimensions

of the terrorist threat as it has evolved since 9/11.

Today, al-Qaeda is also frequently spoken of as if it is in retreat: A broken and

beaten organization, incapable of mounting further attacks on its own and instead

having devolved operational authority either to its various affiliates and associates

or to entirely organically-produced, homegrown, terrorist entities. Nothing could be

further from the truth. Al-Qaeda in fact is on the march. It has regrouped and reorganized from the setbacks meted out to it by the United States and our coalition

partners and allies during the initial phases of the global war on terrorism (GWOT)

and is marshalling its forces to continue the epic struggle begun now some 10 years

ago. Al-Qaeda is now functioning exactly as its founder and leader, Osama bin

Laden envisioned it. On the one hand, true to the meaning of the Arabic word for

the ‘‘base of operation’’ or ‘‘foundation’’ meaning the base or foundation from which

worldwide Islamic revolution can be waged (or, as other translations have it, the

‘‘precept’’ or ‘‘method’’) and thus simultaneously inspiring, motivating, and animating radicalized Muslims to join the movement’s fight. While, on the other, continuing to exercise its core operational and command and control capabilities—directing the implementing terrorist attacks.

9

The al-Qaeda of today combines, as it always has, both a ‘‘bottom up’’ approach—

encouraging independent thought and action from low- (or lower-) level operatives—

and a ‘‘top down’’ one—issuing orders and still coordinating a far-flung terrorist enterprise with both highly synchronized and autonomous moving parts. Mixing and

matching organizational and operational styles whether dictated by particular missions or imposed by circumstances, the al-Qaeda movement, accordingly, can perhaps most usefully be conceptualized as comprising four distinct, though not mutually exclusive, dimensions. In descending order of sophistication, they are:

• Al-Qaeda Central. This category comprises the remnants of the pre-9/11 alQaeda organization. Although its core leadership includes some of the familiar,

established commanders of the past, there are a number of new players who

have advanced through the ranks as a result of the death or capture of key alQaeda senior-level managers such as Abu Atef, KSM, and Hambali, and more

recently, Abu Faraj al-Libi and Abu Hamza Rabia. It is believed that this hardcore remains centered in or around the Afghanistan and Pakistan borders and

continues to exert actual coordination, if not some direct command and control

capability, in terms of commissioning attacks, directing surveillance and collating reconnaissance, planning operations, and approving their execution.

This category comes closest to the al-Qaeda operational template or model evident

in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings and 9/11 attacks. Such high value, ‘‘spectacular’’ attacks are entrusted only to al-Qaeda’s professional cadre: The most dedicated, committed, and absolutely reliable element of the movement. Previous patterns suggest that these ‘‘professional’’ terrorists are deployed in predetermined and

carefully selected teams. They will also have been provided with very specific targeting instructions. In some cases, such as the East Africa bombings, they may establish contact with, and enlist the assistance of, local sympathizers and supporters.

This will be solely for logistical and other attack-support purposes or to enlist these

locals to actually execute the attack(s). The operation, however, will be planned and

directed by the ‘‘professional’’ element with the locals clearly subordinate and playing strictly a supporting role (albeit a critical one).

• Al-Qaeda Affiliates and Associates. This category embraces formally established

insurgent or terrorist groups that over the years have benefited from bin

Laden’s largesse and/or spiritual guidance and/or have received training, arms,

money, and other assistance from al-Qaeda. Among the recipients of this assistance have been terrorist groups and insurgent forces in Uzbekistan and Indonesia, Morocco and the Philippines, Bosnia and Kashmir, among other places.

By supporting these groups, bin Laden’s intentions were threefold. First, he

sought to co-opt these movements’ mostly local agendas and channel their efforts toward the cause of global jihad. Second, he hoped to create a jihadi ‘‘critical mass’’ from these geographically scattered, disparate movements that would

one day coalesce into a single, unstoppable force. And, third, he wanted to foster

a dependent relationship whereby as a quid pro quo for prior al-Qaeda support,

these movements would either undertake attacks at al-Qaeda’s behest or provide essential local, logistical, and other support to facilitate strikes by the alQaeda ‘‘professional’’ cadre noted above.

This category includes groups such as: al-Ittihad al-Islami (AIAI), the late Abu

Musab Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia (formerly Jamaat al Tawhid wa’l Jihad),

Asbat al-Ansar, Ansar al Islam, Islamic Army of Aden, Islamic Movement of

Uzbekistan (IMU), Jemaah Islamiya (JI), Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG),

Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC),

and the various Kashmiri Islamic groups based in Pakistan—e.g., Harakat ul

Mujahidin (HuM), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Laskar-e-Tayyiba (LeT), and Laskar i

Jhangvi (LiJ). Both the number and geographical diversity of these entities is proof

of al-Qaeda’s continued influence and vitality.

• Al-Qaeda Locals. These are dispersed cells of al-Qaeda adherents who have or

have had some direct connection with al-Qaeda—no matter how tenuous or evanescent. They appear to fall into two subcategories.

One category comprises persons who have had some prior terrorism experience—

having been blooded in battle as part of some previous jihadi campaign in Algeria,

the Balkans, Chechnya, and perhaps more recently in Iraq, and may have trained

in some al-Qaeda facility whether in Afghanistan or Yemen or the Sudan before 9/

11. Specific examples of this adversary include Ahmed Ressam, who was arrested

in December 1999 at Port Angeles, Washington State, shortly after he had entered

the United States from Canada. Ressam, for instance, had a prior background in

terrorism, having belonged to Algeria’s Armed Islamic Group (GIA). After being reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:03 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\ISLAM.TXT mich PsN: mich
10

cruited to al-Qaeda, he was provided with a modicum of basic terrorist training in

Afghanistan. In contrast to the professional cadre detailed above, however, Ressam

was given very nonspecific, virtually open-ended targeting instructions before being

dispatched to North America. Also, unlike the well-funded professional cadre,

Ressam was given only $12,000 in ‘‘seed money’’ and instructed to raise the rest of

his operational funds from petty thievery. He was also told by KSM to recruit members for his terrorist cell from among the expatriate Muslim communities in Canada

and the United States. The al-Qaeda operative, Andrew Rowe, a British national

and Muslim convert, convicted for his involvement in the 2003 al-Qaeda plot to attack London’s Heathrow Airport is another example of this category.

The other category, as is described in the detailed discussion of the 7/7 London

attacks below, conforms to the profile of the four British Muslims responsible for

the 2005 bombings of mass transit targets in London. In contrast to Ressam and

Rowe, none of the four London bombers had previously fought in any of the contemporary, iconic Muslim conflicts (e.g., Algeria, Chechnya, Kashmir, Bosnia, Afghanistan, etc.) nor is there conclusive evidence of their having received any training in

an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan, Yemen, or the Sudan prior to 9/11. Rather, at

least the two ringleaders of the London cell were recruited locally, brought to Pakistan for training and then returned to their homeland with both an attack plan and

the knowledge to implement. They recruited others locally as needed, into the cell

and undertook a relatively simple, but nonetheless sophisticated and highly consequential attack.

In both the above categories, however, the terrorists will have some link with alQaeda. Their current relationship, and communication, with a central al-Qaeda command and control apparatus may be either active or dormant and similarly their

targeting choices may either be specifically directed or else entirely left to the cell

to decide. The distinguishing characteristic of this category, however, is that there

is some previous direct connection of some kind with al-Qaeda.

• Al-Qaeda Network. These are home-grown Islamic radicals—from North Africa,

the Middle East, and South and Southeast Asia—as well as local converts to

Islam mostly living in Europe, Africa, and perhaps Latin America and North

America as well, who have no direct connection with al-Qaeda (or any other

identifiable terrorist group), but nonetheless are prepared to carry out attacks

in solidarity with or support of al-Qaeda’s radical jihadi agenda. Like the ‘‘alQaeda locals’’ they too are motivated by a shared sense of enmity and grievance

felt toward the United States and West, in general, and their host-nations in

particular. In this specific instance, however, the relationship with al-Qaeda is

more inspirational than actual, abetted by profound rage over the United

States’ invasion and occupation of Iraq and the oppression of Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, and elsewhere. Critically, these persons are neither

directly members of a known, organized terrorist group nor necessarily even a

very cohesive entity unto themselves.

Examples of this category, which comprises small collections of like-minded locals

who gravitate toward one to plan and mount terrorist attacks completely independent of any direction provided by al-Qaeda, include the so-called Hofstad Group

in the Netherlands, a member of whom (Mohammed Bouyeri) murdered the Dutch

filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh, in Amsterdam in November 2004.

The most salient threat posed by the above categories, however, continues to come

from al-Qaeda Central and from its affiliates and associates. However, an additional

and equally challenging threat is now posed by less discernible and more unpredictable entities drawn from the vast Muslim Diaspora in Europe. As far back as 2001,

the Netherlands’ intelligence and security service had detected increased terrorist

recruitment efforts among Muslim youth living in the Netherlands whom it was previously assumed had been completely assimilated into Dutch society and culture.

Thus, representatives of Muslim extremist organizations—including, presumably, alQaeda had already succeeded in embedding themselves in, and drawing new sources

of support from, receptive elements within established Diaspora communities. In

this way, new recruits could be drawn into the movement who likely had not previously come under the scrutiny of local or national law enforcement agencies.

This new category of terrorist adversary, moreover, also has proven more difficult

for the authorities in these countries to track, predict, and anticipate. The director

of GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), Britain’s equivalent of our

NSA (National Security Agency) admitted this in testimony before a Parliamentary

committee investigating the 7/7 attacks. ‘‘We had said before July [2005],’’ Sir David

Pepper noted, there are probably groups out there that we do not know anything

about, and because we do not know anything about them we do not know how many

there are. What happened in July [the 2005 London bombings] was a demonstration

11

that there were [material redacted for security reasons] conspiracies going on about

which we essentially knew nothing, and that rather sharpens the perception of how

big, if I can use [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld’s term, the unknown unknown was.

This adversary, comprising hitherto unknown cells, is difficult, if not impossible,

to effectively profile. Indeed, this was precisely the conclusion reached by the abovementioned Parliamentary committee in their report on the London bombings. Although the members of these terrorist cells may be marginalized individuals working in menial jobs from the lower socioeconomic strata of society, some with long

criminal records or histories of juvenile delinquency; others may well come from solidly middle and upper-middle class backgrounds with university and perhaps even

graduate degrees and prior passions for cars, sports, rock music, and other completely secular, material interests. For example, in the case of radicalized British

Muslims, since 9/11 we have seen terrorists of South Asian and North African descent as well as those hailing both from the Middle East and Caribbean. They have

included life-long devout Muslims as well as recent converts. Persons from the margins of society who made a living as thieves or from drug dealing and students at

the London School of Economics, one of the U.K.’s premiere universities. This was

not a sentence. What they will have in common is a combination of a deep commitment to their faith—often recently rediscovered; admiration of bin Laden for the cathartic blow struck against America on 9/11; hatred of the United States and the

West; and, a profoundly shared sense of alienation from their host countries. ‘‘There

appear to be a number of common features to this grooming,’’ the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee of the U.K. House of Commons concluded.

In the early stages, group conversation may be around being a good Muslim and

staying away from drugs and crime, with no hint of an extremist agenda. Gradually

individuals may be exposed to propaganda about perceived injustices to Muslims

across the world with international conflict involving Muslims interpreted as examples of widespread war against Islam; leaders of the Muslim world perceived as corrupt and non-Islamic; with some domestic policies added as ‘‘evidence’’ of a persecuted Islam; and conspiracy theories abounding. They will then move on to what

the extremists claim is religious justification for violent jihad in the Quran and the

Hadith . . . and—if suicide attacks are the intention—the importance of martyrdom

in demonstrating commitment to Islam and the rewards in Paradise for martyrs;

before directly inviting an individual to engage in terrorism. There is little evidence

of over compulsion. The extremists appear rather to rely on the development of individual commitment and group bonding and solidarity [my emphasis].

These new recruits are the anonymous cogs in the world-wide al-Qaeda enterprise

and include both longstanding residents and new immigrants found across in Europe, but specifically in countries with large expatriate Muslim populations such as

Britain, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Belgium.

THE PERILS OF WISHFUL THINKING: AL-QAEDA AND THE 7/7 LONDON BOMBINGS

The United Kingdom, of course, rightly prides itself on decades-long experience

and detailed knowledge of effectively countering a variety of terrorist threats. Over

the past dozen years the U.K. homeland itself has been subject to attack from a diversity of adversaries including: the Provisional Irish Republican Army, renegade

Palestinian factions, and both before and since 9/11 by al-Qaeda as well. Yet, despite Britain’s formidable counterterrorist capabilities and unrivaled expertise, only

a month before the 7 July 2005 London bombings, the Joint Terrorism Assessment

Center (JTAC), the British counterpart of our own NCTC (National Counterterrorism Center) concluded that, ‘‘at present there is not a group with both the current intent and the capability to attack in the U.K.’’ and consequently downgraded

the overall threat level for the U.K.

More astonishing perhaps was the dismissal of the prospect of suicide terrorist attacks occurring in the United Kingdom, despite the emerging global pattern of terrorism in this respect and the involvement of several British nationals in both attempted and successful suicide attacks elsewhere. Seventy-eight percent of all the

suicide terrorist incidents perpetrated between 1968 and 2004, for instance, have occurred in the years following 9/11. And, the dominant force behind this trend is religion—specifically groups and individuals identifying themselves as Islamic. Indeed,

of the 35 terrorist organizations currently employing suicide tactics, 86 percent (31

of 35) are Islamic. These movements, moreover, have been responsible for 81 percent

of all suicide attacks since 9/11. Indeed, to date, suicide attacks have taken place

in at least two dozen countries—including the United Kingdom, Israel, Sri Lanka,

Russia, Lebanon, Turkey, Italy, Indonesia, Pakistan, Colombia, Argentina, Kenya,

Tanzania, Croatia, Morocco, Singapore, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and

12

Iraq. By comparison, at the dawn of the modern era of religious terrorism some 20

years ago, this was a phenomenon confined exclusively to two countries: Lebanon

and Kuwait, and employed by less than a half dozen groups. Yet, only 4 months

before the 7/7 bombings, the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), Britain’s most senior intelligence assessment and evaluation body (one roughly similar to the American intelligence community’s NIC, or National Intelligence Center), judged that

‘‘such attacks would not become the norm within Europe.’’ This judgment, coupled

with the testimony of Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the Director-General of the

Security Service (MI–5), prompted the aforementioned Parliamentary committee to

conclude that ‘‘The fact that there were suicide attacks in the U.K. on 7 July was

clearly unexpected. The Director General of the Security Service said it was a surprise that the first big attack in the U.K. for 10 years was a suicide attack.’’

The point of this discussion is most certainly not to criticize our principal ally in

the war on terrorism but rather to highlight the immense difficulties and vast uncertainties concerning countering terrorism today that have confounded even the

enormously professional and experienced British intelligence and security services.

Moreover, the danger of similarly cloaking ourselves in a false sense of security

based on faulty assumptions or wishful thinking is omnipresent in so fluid and dynamic a terrorism environment as exists today. Indeed, our appreciation and understanding of the current al-Qaeda threat further underscores these perils. Both at the

time of the London bombing attacks and since a misconception has frequently been

perpetuated that this was entirely an organic or homegrown phenomenon of selfradicalized, self-selected terrorists. Such arguments often were cited in support of

the argument that entirely homegrown threats had superseded those posed of alQaeda; that al-Qaeda itself was no longer a consequential, active terrorist force; and

accordingly that the threat had both changed and perhaps even receded. The evidence that has come to light since the London attacks a year ago, however, points

to the opposite conclusion: That al-Qaeda is not only alive and kicking, but that it

is still actively planning, supporting through the provision of training, and perhaps

even directing terrorist attacks on a global canvas.

Issues of classification and sensitive collection prevent a full description and account of this evidence of active al-Qaeda involvement in the London attacks. However, suffice it to say that what is publicly known and has been reported in unclassified sources, clearly points to such involvement. For instance, the aforementioned

report by the Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, noted among its

other conclusions, that:

• ‘‘Investigations since July have shown that the group [the four London bombers]

was in contact with others involved in extremism in the U.K. . . .’’

• ‘‘Siddique Khan [the group’s ringleader] is now known to have visited Pakistan

in 2003 and to have spent several months there with Shazad Tanweer [another

bomber] between November 2004 and February 2005. It has not yet been established who they met in Pakistan, but it is assessed as likely that they had some

contact with al-Qaida figures.’’

• ‘‘The extent to which the 7 July attacks were externally planned, directed, or

controlled by contacts in Pakistan or elsewhere remains unclear. The [British

intelligence and security] Agencies believe that some form of operational training is likely to have taken place while Khan and Tanweer were in Pakistan.

Contacts in the run-up to the attacks suggest they may have had advice or direction from individuals there.’’

More compelling, albeit for the moment necessarily circumstantial, evidence may

be found in the ‘‘martyrdom’’ videos made by Khan and Tanweer sometime while

they were in Pakistan between November 2004 and February 2005. Like all Osama

bin Laden’s most important video taped statements and appearances, the Khan and

Tanweer statements were both professionally produced and released by al-Qaeda’s

perennially-active communications department, ‘‘Al Sahab [the Clouds] for Media

Production.’’

The first of the two videos of Khan was broadcast on the Qatar-based Arabic-language news station, al Jazeera, on 1 September 2005. It is worth exploring the content of Khan’s statement in some detail since it accurately encapsulates the essence

of European Muslim radicalism today. Kahn’s statement is especially noteworthy for

the following reasons:

• He professes his preeminent allegiance to and identification with his religion

and the umma—the worldwide Muslim community. Hence, unlike most Western

conceptions of identity and allegiance that are rooted to the nation or state,

Khan’s is exclusively to a theology.

13

• Like all terrorists before him, Khan frames his choice of tactic and justifies his

actions in ineluctably defensive terms. He describes his struggle as an intrinsically defensive one and his act as a response to the repeated depredations and

unmitigated aggression of the West that have been directed against Muslims

worldwide.

• The sense of individual empowerment and catharsis evident in Khan’s words

and demeanor.

• The intense desire for vengeance and martyrdom, with the latter regarded by

him as ‘‘supreme evidence’’ of his religious commitment.

• Khan’s laudatory comments about bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman alZawahiri.

The relevant portions of Khan’s statement are as follows:

• I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our driving motivation doesn’t come from tangible commodities that this world has to

offer. Our religion is Islam—obedience to the one true God, Allah, and following

the footsteps of the final prophet and messenger Muhammad . . . This is how

our ethical stances are dictated.

• Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities

against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging

my Muslim brothers and sisters [my emphasis].

• Until we feel security, you will be our targets. And until you stop the bombing,

gassing, imprisonment, and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We

are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation . . . .

• I myself, I make du’a [calling] to Allah . . . to raise me amongst those whom

I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs, and today’s heroes like

our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab

al-Zarqawi, and all the other brothers and sisters that are fighting in . . . this

cause.

Al-Zawahiri in fact appears at the end of the same tape, praising Khan for having

brought the ‘‘blessed battle . . . to the enemy’s land.’’ In a subsequent video, aired

on al Jazeera on 19 September, al-Zawahiri also claimed responsibility for the attacks in the name of al-Qaeda. Only last week, a similar martyrdom tape made by

Khan’s traveling companion and fellow bomber, Shahzad Tanweer, was released by

al Sahab to mark the first anniversary of the London attacks. Titled, ‘‘The Final

Message of the Knights of the London Raid,’’ it showed Tanweer expressing similar

views to those of Khan. ‘‘To the non-Muslims of Britain,’’ he begins: You may wonder what you have done to deserve this. You are those who have voted in your government, who in turn have, and still continue to this day, continue to oppress our

mothers, children, brothers, and sisters from the east to the west, in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Chechnya. Your government has openly supported the genocide

of over 150,000 innocent Muslims in Falluja.

You have offered financial and military support to the United States and Israel,

in the massacre of our children in Palestine. You are directly responsible for the

problems in Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq to this day. You have openly declared

war on Islam, and are the forerunners in the crusade against the Muslims.

Al-Zawahiri then appears on screen to explain that, ‘‘What made Shehzad join the

camps of Qaeda Al-Jihad was the oppression carried out by the British in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. He would often talk about Palestine, about the British

support of the Jews, and about their clear injustice against the Muslims.’’ An unidentified narrator then continues: In order to remove this injustice, Shehzad [sic]

began training with all his might and devotion. Together with the martyr Siddiq

Khan, he received practical and intensive training in how to produce and use explosives, in the camps of Qaeda Al-Jihad. The recruits who join these camps do not

have to achieve high averages or to pass entrance exams. All they need is to be zealous for their religion and nation, and to love jihad and martyrdom for the sake of

Allah.

The video continues with Tanweer warning ‘‘all you British citizens to stop your

support to your lying British Government, and to the so-called ‘war on terror,’ and

ask yourselves why would thousands of men be willing to give their lives for the

cause of Muslims.’’ Al-Zawahiri also again appears to emphasize how both Khan and

Tanweer were ‘‘striving for martyrdom, and were hoping to carry out a martyrdom

operation. Both of them were very resolute in this.’’ Tanweer then calls upon his

fellow British Muslims to rise and fight the ‘‘disbelievers, for it is but an obligation

made on you by Allah.’’ A statement is then heard from U.S.-born, Muslim convert

14

Adam Gadahn (‘‘Azzam the American’’) before concluding with Tanweer threatening

that: What you have witnessed now is only the beginning of a series of attacks,

which, in shallah, will intensify and continue until you pull all your troops out of

Afghanistan and Iraq, until you stop all financial and military support to the United

States and Israel, and until you release all Muslim prisoners from Belmarsh, and

your other concentration camps. And know that if you fail to comply with this, then

know that this war will never stop, and that we are ready to give our lives, one

hundred times over, for the cause of Islam. You will never experience peace, until

our children in Palestine, our mothers and sisters in Kashmir, and our brothers in

Afghanistan and Iraq feel peace.

TOWARD A NEW U.S. COUNTERTERRORISM POLICY

‘‘Could we, could others, could the police have done better? Could we with greater

effort, greater imagination, have stopped it? We knew there were risks we were running. We were trying very hard and very fast to enhance our capacity, but even with

the wisdom of hindsight I think it is unlikely that we would have done so, with the

resources available to us at the time and the other demands placed upon us. I think

that position will remain in the foreseeable future. We will continue to stop most of

them, but we will not stop all of them.’’—Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, DirectorGeneral, U.K. Security Service (MI–5)

As this discussion of the 7/7 London bombings has shown, al-Qaeda and the

threat it poses cannot be defeated through military means alone. Yet, our policy to

date has arguably been predominantly weighted toward the tactical ‘‘kill or capture’’

approach and metric: Assuming that a traditional center of gravity exists whether

the target is al-Qaeda or the insurgency in Iraq and that this target simply needs

to be destroyed so that global terrorism or the Iraqi insurgency will end. However,

both our adversaries today and the threats that they pose, are much more elusive

and complicated and, as the previous discussion of the London attacks clearly depicts, less amenable to kinetic solutions. As one U.S. intelligence officer with vast

experience in this realm acerbically told to me nearly 2 years ago: ‘‘We don’t have

enough bullets to kill them all.’’ Accordingly, a new strategy and new approach is

vital. Its success will be predicated upon a strategy that effectively combines the

tactical elements of systematically destroying and weakening enemy capabilities

(the ‘‘kill or capture’’ approach) alongside the equally critical, broader strategic imperative of breaking the cycle of terrorist and insurgent recruitment and replenishment that have respectively sustained both al-Qaeda’s continued campaign and the

ongoing conflict in Iraq. A successful strategy will thus be one that also thinks and

plans ahead with a view toward addressing the threats likely to be posed by the

terrorist and insurgent generation beyond the current one.

At the foundation of such a dynamic and adaptive strategy must be the ineluctable axiom that effectively and successfully countering terrorism as well as insurgency is not exclusively a military endeavor but also involves fundamental parallel

political, social, economic, and ideological activities. This timeless principle of countering insurgency was first defined by Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templer in Malaya

more than 50 years ago. ‘‘The shooting side of the business is only 25 percent of

the trouble and the other 75 percent lies in getting the people of this country behind

us,’’ Templer famously wrote in November 1952, responding to a terrorist directive

from the previous year that focused on increasing appreciably the ‘‘cajolery’’ of the

population. Accordingly, rather than viewing the fundamental organizing principle

of American national defense strategy in this unconventional realm as a GWOT, it

may be more useful to reconceptualize it in terms of a global counterinsurgency

(GCOIN). Such an approach would a priori knit together the equally critical political, economic, diplomatic, and developmental sides inherent to the successful prosecution of counterinsurgency to the existing dominant military side of the equation.

Such a new approach would necessarily be built upon a more integrated, systems

approach to a complex problem that is at once operationally durable, evolutionary

and elusive in character. Greater attention to this integration of American capabilities would provide incontrovertible recognition of the importance of endowing a

GCOIN with an overriding and comprehensive, multi-dimensional policy. Ideally,

this policy would embrace several elements including a clear strategy, a defined

structure for implementing it, and a vision of intergovernment agency cooperation,

and the unified effort to guide it. It would have particular benefit with respect to

the gathering and exploitation of ‘‘actionable intelligence.’’ By updating and streamlining interagency counterterrorism and counterinsurgency systems and procedures

both strategically as well as operationally between the Department of Defense, the

Department of State, and the intelligence community, actionable intelligence could

likely be acquired, analyzed, and disseminated faster and operations mounted more

15

quickly. A more focused and strengthened interagency process would also facilitate

the coordination of key themes and messages and the development and execution

of long-term ‘‘hearts and minds’’ programs.

The U.S. Government, in sum, will need to adjust and adapt its strategy, resources, and tactics to formidable opponents that, as we have seen, are widely dispersed and decentralized and whose many destructive parts are autonomous, mobile, and themselves highly adaptive. In this respect, even the best strategy will be

proven inadequate if military and civilian agency leaders are not prepared to engage

successfully within ambiguous environments and reorient their organizational culture to deal with irregular threats. A successful GCOIN transcends the need for better tactical intelligence or new organizations. It is fundamentally about transforming the attitudes and mindsets of leaders so that they have the capacity to take

decisive, yet thoughtful action against terrorists and/or insurgents in uncertain or

unclear situations based on a common vision, policy, and strategy. In addition to

traditional ‘‘hard’’ military skills of ‘‘kill or capture’’ and destruction and attrition;

‘‘soft’’ skills such as information operations, negotiation, psychology, social and cultural anthropology, foreign area studies, complexity theory, and systems management will become increasingly important in the ambiguous and dynamic environment in which irregular adversaries circulate.

Arguably, by combating irregular adversaries in a more collaborative manner with

key relevant civilian agencies, military planners can better share critical information, track the various moving parts in terrorist/insurgency networks, and develop

a comprehensive picture of this enemy—including their supporters, nodes of support, organizational and operational systems, processes, and plans. With this information in hand, the United States would then be better prepared to systematically

disrupt or defeat all of the critical nodes that support the entire terrorist/insurgent

network, thus rendering them ineffective. Achieving this desideratum, however, will

necessitate the coordination, deconflicting, and synchronization of the variety of programs upon which the execution of American counterterrorist and/or counterinsurgency planning are dependent. An equally critical dimension of this process

will be aligning the training of host nation counterparts with GWOT/GCOIN operations: Building synergy; avoiding duplication of effort; ensuring that training leads

to operational effectiveness; and ensuring that the U.S. interagency team and approach is in complete harmony. In other words, aligning these training programs

(among the different government agencies) with GCOIN operations to build indigenous capabilities in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency will be absolutely fundamental to the success of such a strategy.

In sum, new times, new threats, and new challenges ineluctably make a new

strategy, approach, and new organizational and institutional behaviors necessary.

The threat posed by elusive and deadly irregular adversaries emphasizes the need

to anchor changes that will more effectively close the gap between detecting irregular adversarial activity and rapidly defeating it. The effectiveness of U.S. strategy

will be based on our capacity to think like a networked enemy, in anticipation of

how they may act in a variety of situations, aided by different resources. This goal

requires that the American national security structure in turn organize itself for

maximum efficiency, information sharing, and the ability to function quickly and effectively under new operational definitions. With this thorough understanding in

mind, we need to craft an approach that specifically takes into account the following

key factors to effectively wage a GCOIN:

1. Separating the enemy from the populace that provides support and sustenance.

This, in turn, entails three basic missions: (a) Denial of enemy sanctuary; (b) Elimination of enemy freedom of movement; and (c) Denial of enemy resources and support;

2. Identification and neutralization of the enemy;

3. Creation of a secure environment—progressing from local to regional to global;

4. Ongoing and effective neutralization of enemy propaganda through the planning and execution of a comprehensive and integrated information operations and

holistic civil affairs campaign in harmony with the first four tasks; and

5. Interagency efforts to build effective and responsible civil governance mechanisms that eliminate the fundamental causes of terrorism and insurgency.

In conclusion, al-Qaeda may be compared to the archetypal shark in the water

that must keep moving forward—no matter how slowly or incrementally—or die. In

al-Qaeda’s context, this means adapting and adjusting to our countermeasures while

simultaneously searching to identify new targets and vulnerabilities. In this respect,

al-Qaeda’s capacity to continue to prosecute this struggle is a direct reflection of

both the movement’s resiliency and the continued resonance of its ideology. Accordingly, if the threat we face is constantly changing and evolving, so must our policies

16

and responses be regularly reviewed, updated, and adjusted. In this struggle, we

cannot afford to rest on past laurels or be content with security that may have proven effective yesterday and today, but could likely prove inadequate tomorrow given

this process of terrorist change and evolution.

Al-Qaeda’s ‘‘operational durability’’ thus has enormous significance for U.S.

counterterrorism strategy and policy. Because it has this malleable resiliency, it

cannot be destroyed or defeated in a single tactical, military engagement or series

of engagements—much less ones exclusively dependent on the application of conventional forces and firepower. To a significant degree, our ability to carry out such

missions effectively will depend on the ability of American strategy to adjust and

adapt to changes we see in the nature and character of our adversaries.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Hoffman, for that remarkable paper and the insights you have presented to our hearing.

We call now on Mr. Andrew Kohut for his testimony.

STATEMENT OF MR. ANDREW KOHUT, PRESIDENT,

PEW RESEARCH CENTER, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. KOHUT. Thank you for the opportunity to help the committee

understand the attitudes of people in the Muslim world, toward the

West, toward the United States, toward the issues related to the

war on terrorism.

Since 2002, the Pew Global Attitudes Project which I direct has

interviewed more than 110,000 people in 50 countries, many of

them Arab countries or predominantly Muslim countries in Africa

and in Asia. I would like to do two things today: To update you on

views toward the United States and the attitudes toward terrorism

in the Muslim countries, but also tell you about a new survey that

we conducted this year which was a broader investigation about

how people in the Muslim world and Westerners view each other

on a personal and individual level, and I think it has great bearing

on the work of this committee.

First, the Global Attitudes Project has more generally documented the rise of anti-Americanism around the world since its inception in 2002. We have seen this to be especially the case in Muslim countries. Our most recent polls have found that the American

people and the United States are viewed unfavorably in virtually

all of the Muslim countries in which we have conducted surveys.

This is even the case in countries that are closely allied with the

United States. For example, in Turkey just 12 percent of the people

that we interviewed have a favorable view of the United States.

Back in 2000 that was as high as 52 percent. Similarly, in Jordan

15 percent hold a positive view of the United States; in Pakistan,

27 percent hold a positive view of the United States.

The numbers are not very good anywhere. Of all of the countries

that we have interviewed in 2 years that are predominantly Muslim, only in Morocco have we seen close to a majority saying anything positive about the United States. And, unlike in much of the

rest of the world, the complaints aren’t restricted just to the government, to the country at large, but also to the American people,

who are held in low regard in the Muslim world.

Anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is driven by the United

States’ policies: the war in Iraq, most recently; the war on terrorism, generally; United States’ support for Israel, probably most

fully; and the general perception that the United States conducts

its foreign policy unilaterally.

17

I’d like to just give you a quick overview of the important trends

that we’ve seen in the past 5 years. First of all, anti-Americanism

existed before the war in Iraq, in the Mideast and in Central Asia,

but with the war in Iraq it really intensified. But the biggest impact is that with the war in Iraq, anti-Americanism became a global phenomenon in the Muslim world. We saw anti-Americanism,

dislike of the country and the people, grow tremendously in Africa

and in Asia where previously that had not been the case, notably

in Indonesia, notably in Nigeria.

Second, the war on terrorism, while viewed with increasing suspicion among our European allies, has never been accepted in the

Muslim world. It’s seen as the United States picking on Muslim

countries, as protecting Israel, and attempting to control the world.

Third, there has been substantial support for terrorism and terrorists among Muslim publics. Sizeable minorities in many Muslim

countries have said that suicide bombings that target civilians in

defense of Islam are sometimes or often justifiable, and significant

numbers of people in many of these countries have expressed admiration and a positive view of Osama bin Laden.

While these trends have been mostly negative, we have seen

some positive signs, too. The image of the United States improved

markedly in Indonesia and somewhat even in Pakistan in response

to the aid that we gave to victims of natural disasters in those

countries.

We have seen support for terrorism decline somewhat in a number of countries, especially those who have had their own experience with it, in Morocco, Indonesia, Pakistan, and most recently in

Jordan. Support for suicide bombing or believing that suicide

bombing is justifiable decreased in the aftermath of attacks in

those countries.

But while there is less support for suicide bombing and a less favorable regard for bin Laden, support for terrorism has far from

disappeared in the Muslim world. In the survey that we conducted

this year, 28, 29 percent of Jordanians and Egyptians see suicide

bombing that targets civilians as justifiable.

Finally, our polling has found Muslims consistently saying that

Western-style democracy can work in their countries, and that’s a

good thing. And despite the fact that they can’t say, it’s very difficult for them to say good things about the United States, they do

tell us that they think that the United States supports democracy

in their country.

These are among the broad, general trends that we have found

in the Muslim world and in the Mideast, specifically. Now I want

to turn to what we have learned in our most recent survey about

how Muslim publics and Western publics view each other. That

was the focus of our research in the current polling.

In the Muslim world, we did surveys in Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and also in Nigeria, the Muslim part of Nigeria, which is about 50 percent of that country. In the West, we

polled the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and Spain, but

we also made a special effort to interview the Muslim minorities

in the four European countries: Britain, France, Germany, and

Spain.

18

Our overall conclusion in this survey was that a real divide does

exist between the people of both cultures. The one thing that the

Muslims and the Western respondents agreed on is that relations

aren’t good. That was the view of 70 percent of Germans, 55 percent of Americans, but it was matched by 64 percent of Turks and

58 percent of Egyptians who agree that the West and the Muslim

people are not getting along very well.

When we probed the image of each people among the other, we

saw very negative stereotyping. Westerners see Muslims as fanatical, violent, and not tolerant. Muslims see Westerners as selfish,

immoral, greedy, as well as violent and fanatical. There’s a lot of

finger-pointing clearly going on in the way Westerners and Muslims look at each other.

And last year’s controversy over the cartoons of Mohammed in

Europe really highlighted it. Muslims saw Western disrespect for

the Islamic religion. Westerners saw the Muslims as intolerant and

not respecting freedom of expression. There are also very competing views about women. Each culture says the other side is not

respectful of the way women are treated in their world.

Our second conclusion is that many Muslim publics have an aggrieved view of the West. Many blame U.S. and Western policies

for the lack of prosperity in the Muslim world. Muslims feel more

embittered toward the West and its people than vice versa. Muslim

publics attribute more negative qualities to Western people than

Westerners do to Muslims. They also rate Christians and especially

Jews far less favorably than Europeans and Americans evaluate

Muslim people.

Most Muslims—one of the most shocking findings of this survey,

at least to me, was that most Muslims remain unconvinced that a

group of Arab men carried out the 9/11 attacks. In Indonesia, 65

percent said, ‘‘No, it didn’t happen that way.’’ In Jordan, 53 percent

said it didn’t happen that way. Even in Turkey, 59 percent said it

didn’t happen that way. This is the same question that the Gallup

organization had asked in about January or February of 2002,

right after the attacks, and basically we found the same answers

that Gallup found: Most Muslim publics in denial about who carried out these attacks.

On the other hand, while there is this aggrieved view in the

Muslim world, Westerners are skeptical of Muslim values. Westerners, more often than Muslims, see a conflict between Islam and

modernity. Westerners are less optimistic about the prospects for

democracy in the Muslim world than are Muslims themselves, who,

as I said earlier, have consistently told us that they believe Western-style democracy will work there.

This may reflect, the views of Westerners may reflect that Americans and Western Europeans are very dismayed about the Hamas

election victory in Palestine, but certainly Muslim publics are not.

They see it as good for the Palestinian people. They see it as good

for the resolution of the conflict with Israel. Westerners also see

more support for al-Qaeda in the Muslim world than do Muslims.

This poll has a lot of negative findings. We did find some positive

things. First of all, there is not—following a bad year of riots and

the 7/7 bombings, we didn’t see an outright spike in hostility between Muslims and Westerners. The attitudes that I’m speaking

19

about are of a more long-lasting, enduring nature. Majorities in

France, Britain, and the United States retain generally favorable

views of Muslims.

And, as I said earlier, there has been another decline in support

for suicide bombing in a number of countries, but there still remains considerable support. Sizeable majorities in major Muslim

countries say suicide bombing can be justified. Even among Europe’s moderate Muslims, which I’ll tell you a little bit more about,

one in seven feels suicide bombings that target civilians can be justified under certain circumstances in defense of Islam.

I have to tell you, though, that the most troubling numbers are

the ones that we got out of Nigeria. In Nigeria, 61 percent of the

people that we interviewed, the Muslims that we interviewed, said

they had a favorable view of Osama bin Laden, and 56 percent say

most of the people that they know support radical groups like alQaeda.

We haven’t gone back into Africa in any great detail since 2002.

I did note the change in opinion. When we do go back, we can only

hope that what we found in Nigeria isn’t echoed among other Muslim publics.

With regard to the European Muslims, they hold a more temperate view of the West than do Muslims in the Mideast and Asia

and Africa. European Muslims have more positive views of Westerners than those in the countries back home. They are less likely

than other Europeans to see a conflict between modernity and

Islam. They think it can work.

Most European Muslims expressed favorable opinions of Christians, and more favorable opinions of Jews than do Muslims in

other countries. In France, in particular, there are relatively positive views among French Muslims of Jews.

Muslims in Europe do worry about their future, but their concern

is more economic than religious or cultural. Generally, European

Muslims show signs of favoring a moderate version of Islam.

One of the things I would like to emphasize, if you look at our

study carefully, there is no clear European point of view about

Muslims. There is not a clear European Muslim point of view. The

views of French, German, Spanish, and British Muslims are quite

distinct.

British Muslims are the most anxious about their future, they’re

the most concerned about extremism, but they have the largest minority expressing very antagonistic views toward Westerners.

French Muslims are the most integrated, eager to be part of the

French society, and most welcomed by the general public. German

Muslims are the most likely to consider Europeans hostile, and the

German public is least accepting of Muslim immigrants of the four

publics that we’ve questioned.

I would like to conclude that it’s no secret that the United States

has an image problem in the Muslim world. Iraq has intensified it

and broadened discontent with America and its people among Muslims in the Mideast, Africa, and Asia. There is little sign in our

surveys that this has meaningfully changed over the past 3 years.

In some predominantly Muslim countries, things have gotten better. In other countries, things have gotten a little worse. But the

bottom line remains the same: We are poorly regarded by most

20

1Full details of the surveys in this program can be found at www.pewglobal.org.

Muslim people, and significant numbers of them express at least

tacit support for terrorist tactics and the enemies of the United

States, although the trends have been going in the right direction

on these measures.

As the events of the past year in Europe have indicated, there

is a broad divide between Westerners and Muslims around the

world. Misunderstanding, value differences, economic-based resentment have led to suspicion and a mutually acknowledged divide or

clash of civilizations.

The good news is that Muslims in Europe are nonetheless far

more moderate and positive toward the West than Muslims living

in the Mideast, Africa, and Asia. Their attitudes and the attitudes

of the general population in the host countries suggest that exposure might indeed lead to improved understanding, mostly. Thank

you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kohut follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW KOHUT, PRESIDENT, PEW RESEARCH CENTER,

WASHINGTON, DC

Thank you for the opportunity to help the committee better understand the attitudes of people in the Muslim world toward the West, the United States in particular, and issues related to the war on terrorism.

Since its first public opinion survey in 2002, the Pew Global Attitudes project has

conducted seven surveys totaling 110,000 interviews in 50 nations, including many

Arab and majority Muslim countries.1 I would like to do two things today: First,

give you an update on the image of the United States and attitudes toward terrorism in Muslim countries and, second, tell you about the results of a broader investigation that we made in this year’s survey regarding how Muslims and Westerners regard each other.

FAVORABLE OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES

[Amounts in percent]

1999/

2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Egypt ............................................................................................. — — — — — 30

Jordan ........................................................................................... — 25 1 5 21 15

Morocco ......................................................................................... 77 — 27 27 49 —

Lebanon* ...................................................................................... — 30 15 — 22 —

Turkey ........................................................................................... 52 30 15 30 23 12

Pakistan ........................................................................................ 23 10 13 21 23 27

Indonesia ...................................................................................... — 61 15 — 38 30

Nigeria* ........................................................................................ — 72 38 — — 32

*Muslims only.

1999/2000 trends from Office of Research, U.S. Dept. of State.

First, since their inception, our surveys have documented the rise of anti-Americanism around the world, but especially in predominately Muslim countries. In our

most recent polls, the United States and the American people are regarded unfavorably by sizable majorities among seven of eight Muslim publics surveyed.

DISLIKE OF AMERICANS TOO—2005/2006

[Amounts in percent]

Favorable Unfavorable DK

Egypt ....................................................................................................................... 36 63 1=100

Jordan ...................................................................................................................... 38 61 1=100

Morocco ................................................................................................................... 62 30 7=99

21

DISLIKE OF AMERICANS TOO—2005/2006—Continued

[Amounts in percent]

Favorable Unfavorable DK

Lebanon* ................................................................................................................. 22 47 1=100

Turkey ...................................................................................................................... 17 69 14=100

Pakistan .................................................................................................................. 27 52 20=99

Indonesia ................................................................................................................. 36 60 5=101

Nigeria* ................................................................................................................... 23 75 3=101

*Muslims only.

Figures for Morocco and Lebanon are from 2005.

Most troubling is the extent of anti-Americanism in countries that are important

allies of the United States. In Turkey, just 12 percent hold a positive opinion of the

United States, down from as high as 52 percent in 2000. Similarly, only 15 percent

in Jordan and 27 percent in Pakistan rate the United States positively. Views of

the American people are only somewhat more favorable than opinions of the United

States generally in the Mideast and among Muslims in Asia and Africa.

SUPPORT FOR SUICIDE BOMBING*

[Amounts in percent]

Violence against civilian targets justified

Often/

Sometimes Rarely Never DK

Jordan ............................................................................................. 29 28 43 *=100

Spring 2005 .......................................................................... 57 31 11 1=100

Summer 2002 ....................................................................... 43 22 26 8=99

Egypt .............................................................................................. 28 25 45 3=101

Turkey ............................................................................................. 17 9 61 14=101

Spring 2005 .......................................................................... 14 6 66 13=99

March 2004 ........................................................................... 15 9 67 9=100

Summer 2002 ....................................................................... 13 7 64 14=98

Pakistan ......................................................................................... 14 8 69 8=99

Spring 2005 .......................................................................... 25 19 46 10=100

March 2004 ........................................................................... 41 8 35 16=100

Summer 2002 ....................................................................... 33 5 38 23=99

Indonesia ........................................................................................ 10 18 71 1=100

Spring 2005 .......................................................................... 15 18 66 1=100

Summer 2002 ....................................................................... 27 16 54 3=100

Nigeria ............................................................................................ 46 23 28 3=100

* Asked of Muslims only.

Anti-Americanism is largely driven by aversion to United States policies, such as

the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and United States support for Israel, in addition to the general perception that the United States fails to consider the interests

of other countries when it acts in the international arena. Here are some important

trends that we have seen over the past 5 years:

• Anti-Americanism worsened in the Mideast in response to the war in Iraq—but

it soared among Muslims in other parts of the world that previously did not

view the United States poorly—notably in Indonesia and Nigeria.

• The war on terrorism, while viewed with increasing suspicion among our European allies, has never been accepted as legitimate by Muslims. It has been seen

as the United States picking on Muslim countries, protecting Israel, and attempting to control the world.

• There has been substantial support for terrorism and terrorists among Muslim

publics. Sizable minorities in many Muslim countries have said that suicide

bombings that target civilians can often or sometimes be justified in defense of

Islam and appreciable numbers have expressed support for Osama bin Laden.

But while the trends have been mostly negative, we have seen some positive signs

too:

• The image of the United States improved markedly in Indonesia in 2004 and

slightly in Pakistan in 2005 in response to United States aid to victims of natural disasters in these countries.

22

• Support for terrorism has declined somewhat in a number of countries, especially those that have had their own experience with it. We have seen this in

Morocco, Indonesia, Pakistan, and, most recently and dramatically, Jordan, following last year’s attack in Amman.

It is important to note, however, that while we see less support for suicide bombing and less favorable regard for bin Laden, support for terrorism has far from disappeared in the Muslim world.

• Finally, our polling has found Muslims consistently saying that Western-style

democracy can work in their countries and, despite their dislike of the United

States, many believe that the United States supports increased democracy in

their countries.

These are among the most important findings among Muslims in our recent surveys, specifically about the United States and American policies. Our polling this

year looked at a broader question that is pertinent to the work of this committee—

how do Western and Muslim publics view each other?

In the Muslim world we polled in Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey. In the West, the survey included the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Spain. We interviewed the Muslim minorities in the four European countries, as well, to get some insight into the views of this rapidly growing segment

of the population.

Our overall conclusion is that a real divide exists between Western and Muslim

people, reflected by a year marked by riots over cartoon portrayals of Muhammad,

a major terrorist attack in London, and continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The rare point of consensus in the survey was that both Muslims and Westerners

are convinced that relations between the peoples are generally bad. In the West, 70

percent of Germans and 55 percent of Americans think so. This is matched by 64

percent of Turks and 58 percent of Egyptians who believe this, too. Large majorities

of Muslims blame Westerners for the problem. Many Europeans and Americans

point their fingers at the Muslims, but many in the West also accept some responsibility for the problem.

ARE MUSLIMS RESPECTFUL OF WOMEN?

[Amounts in percent]

Yes* No

Non-Muslims in:

Great Britain ................................................................................................................................................... 26 59

France .............................................................................................................................................................. 23 77

United States .................................................................................................................................................. 19 69

Germany .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 80

Spain ............................................................................................................................................................... 12 83

*Percentage who associate characteristic with Muslims/people in Western countries.

ARE WESTERNERS RESPECTFUL OF WOMEN?

[Amounts in percent]

Yes* No

Muslims in:

Spain ............................................................................................................................................................... 82 13

France .............................................................................................................................................................. 77 23

Germany .......................................................................................................................................................... 73 22

Great Britain ................................................................................................................................................... 49 44

Turkey .............................................................................................................................................................. 42 39

Egypt ............................................................................................................................................................... 40 52

Indonesia ......................................................................................................................................................... 38 50

Jordan .............................................................................................................................................................. 38 53

Pakistan .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 52

*Percentage who associate characteristic with Muslims/people in Western countries.

Each side has a mostly negative image of the other people. Westerners see Muslims as fanatical, violent, and not tolerant. Muslims see Westerners as selfish, immoral, and greedy, as well as violent and fanatical.

23

Last year’s controversy over cartoons of Muhammad highlights the divide between

Muslims and the West. Most people in Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Turkey blame

the controversy on Western nations’ disrespect for the Islamic religion. In contrast,

majorities of Americans and Western Europeans who have heard of the controversy

say Muslims’ intolerance to different points of view is more to blame.

The chasm between Muslims and the West is also seen in judgments about how

the other civilization treats women. Western publics, by lopsided margins, do not

think of Muslims as ‘‘respectful of women.’’ But half or more in four of the five Muslim publics surveyed say the same thing about people in the West.

A second conclusion of the poll is that Muslims have an aggrieved view of the

West. Many blame United States and Western policies for their lack of prosperity.

For example, this is the opinion of 66 percent of Jordanians and 59 percent of Egyptians who think that their country should be more prosperous than it is. Westerners

most often point to government corruption and Muslim fundamentalism as the

cause of the problem.

DID ARABS CARRY OUT 9/11 ATTACKS?*

[Amounts in percent]

Yes No

British Muslims ................................................................................................................................................... 17 56

French Muslims ................................................................................................................................................... 48 46

German Muslims ................................................................................................................................................ 35 44

Spanish Muslims ................................................................................................................................................. 33 35

Indonesia ............................................................................................................................................................. 16 65

Egypt .................................................................................................................................................................... 32 59

Turkey ................................................................................................................................................................... 16 59

Jordan .................................................................................................................................................................. 39 53

Pakistan ............................................................................................................................................................... 15 41

Nigerian Muslims ................................................................................................................................................. 42 47

*Asked of Muslims only.

A number of measures in these surveys show Muslims feeling more embittered

toward the West and its people than vice versa. They attribute more negative qualities to Western people than Westerners do to Muslims. They also rate Christians

and Jews less favorably than Europeans and Americans rate Muslims. One of the

startling findings of the survey is that most Muslims remain unconvinced that

Arabs carried out the September 11 attacks. In Indonesia, 65 percent, in Jordan 53

percent, and in Turkey 59 percent deny that the attacks were carried out by Arab

men. While Muslims feel aggrieved, Westerners are skeptical and wary of Muslim values. For example, Western Europeans and Americans see a conflict between Islam

and modernity more often than do Muslims themselves. Westerners also see somewhat more support for al-Qaeda in the Muslim world than do Muslims. The current

poll finds Europeans are less optimistic about prospects for democracy in Muslim

countries than Muslims are. This may reflect our finding that Americans and Western Europeans are dismayed over the Hamas election victory. Muslims in the Mideast, Asia, and Africa see this as a positive development for the Palestinian people.

In this regard, this year’s poll also finds increasing sympathy for Israel in Western Europe. Europeans do not match American public opinion—where the percentage sympathetic to Israelis is more than three times greater than that sympathetic

to Palestinians—but it is moving in that direction.

The good news in this poll is that even after a bad year, there was not a spike

in outright hostility toward Muslims among Westerners or vice versa. These negative perceptions are of a more long-standing nature. And, as noted above, this poll

shows a decline in support for terrorism in important Muslim countries. However,

having said that, sizable minorities in major Muslim countries say suicide bombing

can be justified. Even among Europe’s Muslims, one-in-seven feel suicide bombings

against civilian targets can be justified.

Osama bin Laden is viewed positively by one-in-three in Pakistan and Indonesia

and one-in-four in Egypt and Jordan. The most troublesome numbers are out of Nigeria, where 61 percent of Muslims in that religiously divided country express confidence in bin Laden. Muslims there are highly critical of Westerners and no fewer

than 56 percent say that most or many of their countrymen support extremist

groups like al-Qaeda—by far the highest in the poll.

In sharp contrast, the survey found that European Muslims hold more temperate

views of the West than do Muslims in the Mideast, Africa, and Asia. Muslims in

24

Great Britain, France, Germany, and Spain have more positive views of Westerners

than do Muslims in the Mideast and Asia. They largely hold positive views toward

Christians and have less negative views of Jews than do Muslims in the Mideast

and Asia. This is especially true in France.

The survey did find that Muslims in Europe worry about their future, but their

concern is more economic than religious or cultural. And while there are some signs

of tension between Europe’s majority populations and its Muslim minorities, Muslims there do not generally believe that most Europeans are hostile toward people

of their faith.

MUSLIMS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT THAN RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL ISSUES

[Amounts in percent]

Muslims in

Great

Britain France Germany Spain

Very worried about:

Unemployment ................................................................................................... 46 52 56 55

Islamic extremism ............................................................................................. 44 30 23 22

Decline of religion ............................................................................................. 45 21 18 18

Influence of pop culture .................................................................................... 44 17 18 17

Modern roles for women .................................................................................... 22 16 9 10

Despite some tension, there is little evidence of a widespread backlash against

Muslim immigrants among the general publics in Great Britain, France, Germany,

and Spain. Majorities continue to express concerns about rising Islamic identity and

extremism, but those worries have not intensified in most of the countries surveyed

over the past 12 turbulent months. Still, over a third of Muslims in France and onein-four in Spain say they have had a bad experience as a result of their religion

or ethnicity.

EXPERIENCES OF MUSLIMS IN EUROPE

[Amounts in percent]

Europeans

hostile to

Muslims?

Had a bad

personal

experience?

Yes* Yes

Muslims in:

Germany ...................................................................................................................................... 51 19

Great Britain ............................................................................................................................... 42 28

France .......................................................................................................................................... 39 37

Spain ........................................................................................................................................... 31 25

*Percent saying most or many Europeans are hostile toward Muslims.

Opinions held by Muslims in Europe—as well as opinions about Muslims among

Europe’s majority populations—vary significantly by country. No clear European

point of view emerges with regard to the Muslim experience, either among Muslims

or in the majority populations, on many issues. British Muslims are the most anxious about their future and most concerned about extremism.

French Muslims are the most integrated and are less likely than others to primarily identify as Muslims and more often see themselves as French first. They are

more likely to say they want to adopt European customs than are Muslims in other

European countries. German Muslims are the most likely to consider Europeans

hostile, although many fewer report a bad personal experience.

Generally, European Muslims show signs of favoring a moderate version of Islam.

With the exception of Spanish Muslims, they tend to see a struggle being waged between moderates and Islamic fundamentalists. Among those who see an ongoing

conflict, substantial majorities in all four countries say they generally side with the

moderates.

25

MOST SEEING STRUGGLE SIDE WITH MODERATES

[Amounts in percent]

See a

struggle*

And identify with—

Moderates Fundamentalists

Muslims in:

Great Britain ....................................................................................................... 58 38 15

France ................................................................................................................. 56 50 6

Germany .............................................................................................................. 49 36 7

Spain .................................................................................................................. 21 14 4

Nigeria ................................................................................................................ 36 18 17

*Think there is a struggle in (survey country) between moderate Muslims and Islamic fundamentalists.

Most French and British Muslims think women are better off in their countries

than in most Muslim countries. About half of German and Spanish Muslims agree,

and very few think women actually have it better in most Muslim countries. Moreover, most are not concerned about Muslim women in Europe taking on modern

roles in society (although substantial minorities worry about this).

Muslims in Europe are most sharply distinguished from the majority populations

on opinions about external issues—America, the war on terrorism, Iran, and the

Middle East. European Muslims give the United States lower favorability ratings

than do general publics in Europe and, in particular, they give the American people

lower ratings. The war on terror is extremely unpopular among minority Muslim

populations.

CONTRASTING OPINIONS IN EUROPE OF AMERICANS

[Amounts in percent]

Favorable

opinion

Among general population in:

Great Britain ........................................................................................................................................................ 69

Germany ............................................................................................................................................................... 66

France .................................................................................................................................................................. 65

Spain .................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Among Muslims in:

Great Britain ........................................................................................................................................................ 39

Germany ............................................................................................................................................................... 44

France .................................................................................................................................................................. 48

Spain .................................................................................................................................................................... 33

To conclude, it is no secret that the United States has an image problem in the

Muslim world. The war in Iraq intensified and broadened discontent with America

and its people among Muslims in the Mideast, Africa, and Asia. There is little sign

from our surveys that this has meaningfully changed over the past 3 years. In some

predominately Muslim countries there has been improvement, while in others a

worsening of attitudes.

But the bottom line remains the same. We are poorly regarded by most Muslims

and significant numbers of them express at least tacit support for terrorist tactics

and enemies of the United States, such as Osama bin Laden.

As events of the past year in Europe have indicated, there is a broad divide between Westerners and Muslims around the world. Our latest surveys have detailed

the nature of the complaints from both sides. Misunderstanding, value differences,

and economics-based resentment have led to suspicion and created a mutually acknowledged divide. The good news is that Muslims in Europe, despite their concerns

about their future are nonetheless far more moderate and positive toward the West

than are Muslims living in the Mideast, Africa, and Asia. Their attitudes and the

general populations in the host countries suggest that exposure may lead to improved understanding, mostly.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kohut.

We would like to hear now from Mr. Ahmed, if you would proceed.

26

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR AKBAR S. AHMED, IBN

KHALDUN CHAIR OF ISLAMIC STUDIES, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICE, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON,

DC

Ambassador AHMED. Thank you, sir. A great honor to be speaking to this committee. I am especially thankful to Chairman Lugar

for inviting me.

I have been arguing since 9/11 that terrorism, the war on terror,

cannot be understood without looking at the big picture, and this

is what I’ll do this morning. Terrorism is one small piece of the jigsaw puzzle, and that has been the limitation of the strategy thus

far.

Let us remind ourselves why relations between the United States

and Muslim world are so important. Islam is a world civilization

of 1.4 billion people and growing, 57 states, one of which is nuclear

for the time being, and there are some 7 million Muslims living in

the United States. Besides, the United States has troops fighting

and losing lives in two Muslim nations, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Neither the war on terror nor a serious tackling of the global crises facing all of us on this planet, crises like global warming, poverty, the population explosion, the religious and ethnic conflicts,

none of these can be resolved unless the vast and highly significant

world of Islam is brought into a mutually respectful partnership

with the rest of the world, especially with the United States, the

sole superpower and leader of the world.

As a Muslim scholar living in Washington, DC, I felt on 9/11 that

I had to do whatever little I could to create understanding between

the two. I also knew that my extensive field experiences in charge

of some of the most inaccessible areas of the Muslim world, such

as South Waziristan Agency where Osama bin Laden is supposed

to be hiding, would be an added advantage.

This urge took me on travels in the Muslim world, to nine countries in the three major regions of the Muslim world—the Middle

East, South Asia, and Far East Asia—from February to April 2006.

I was accompanied by a small but enthusiastic group of American

research assistants.

We were able to discuss these issues with a whole range of people, from President Musharraf to prime ministers, princes, sheikhs,

professors, students, taxi drivers, the whole gamut of society. We

visited mosques, madrassas, university campuses, and classrooms.

And the project was sponsored by three leading institutions in

Washington: American University, the Brookings Institution, and

the Pew Forum.

Now, at the conclusion of the trip, my team and I felt that there

was bad news and there was good news, so the bad news first.

Throughout the travels we encountered very high levels of antiAmericanism and anti-Semitism. I have never encountered such intensity of emotion.

The Muslim world, in the years of the cold war when the United

States was so obviously the moral power, admired and respected

the United States. Today we found that many Muslims do not see

the United States as the moral power it once used to be. In fact,

many of the people we surveyed throughout the nine countries said

27

that they would prefer Saddam Hussein, the most ruthless and vile

of dictators, to the Americans in Iraq.

In Turkey, the most popular film ever made is called ‘‘Valley of

the Wolves: Iraq.’’ It’s in theaters everywhere, and it is a crudely

anti-American film which shows a group of ‘‘Rambo’’ Turkish soldiers fighting against the evil United States soldiers.

Even in the moderate country of Indonesia—and I have bad news

for my colleague who referred to Nigeria in hope that Osama bin

Laden would only be restricted as a role model there—on university campuses we found that bin Laden was the number one role

model. He is now referred to as ‘‘Sheikh’’ Osama bin Laden. That

is bad news. Perhaps you don’t understand the nuance, but for a

Muslim like me it is bad news. Anyone trying to preach and promote moderation will find this a major hurdle, because ‘‘Sheikh’’

means he has been elevated to a religious status.

The Muslim world focuses on action rather than rhetoric, and

right now they are seeing cold-blooded rapes in Iraq by United

States soldiers, the encouragement of torture, and they feel they

are not seeing the ideals of the United States, of democracy, human

rights, and acceptance of diversity, that it once so proudly and

clearly stood for. One affluent woman who used to live in the

United States even told my team that she was scared to bring her

grandchildren back to the United States because of the way they

treat Muslims. That is the bad news.

Furthermore, there is a widespread perception in the Muslim

world that Islam is under attack from the United States. As we

saw with the Danish cartoon controversy and the desecration of the

Quran story, Muslims all over the world are very passionate about

their religion and their Prophet. It is a culture with high reverence

for and sensitivity to these religious symbols and traditions.

Now let me explain what’s going on in the Muslim world. There

is a common belief here in the West that all this begins on 9/11.

In fact, the story goes back almost two centuries. There has been

a struggle within Islam, not so much for the soul of Islam but for

the politics and the culture of Islam, between three broad interpretations of Islam: Between an orthodox, literalist interpretation, between one that advocates synthesis and receptivity to the West,

and third the universalist or mystic response to the world. Three

defined but distinct responses. So some of the labels that we are

seeing after 9/11 cause nothing but confusing, and if you get your

labeling wrong, you’re going to run into problems later on because

all your strategy is going to be wrong.

Right now the warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, the perceived attacks on Islam, and the insensitivity to culture are all reinforcing

the strong orthodox, literalist interpretation of Islam, and this is

now spreading throughout the Muslim world. So remember the formula: The more you push the Muslim world, the greater the support for the literalist, orthodox, the more you marginalize the moderates, the more you wipe out the mystics and the humanists. This

is the simple formula we need to appreciate.

There is cause and effect here. I refer to anti-Americanism and

anti-Semitism but would like to introduce another word, related,

perhaps not directly, but related to the concept of hatred, which is

Islamophobia, the hatred of all things Islamic, although these conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:03 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\ISLAM.TXT mich PsN: mich
28

cepts are different, but Islamophobia after 9/11 has gained momentum.

The reasons are obvious. The 19 hijackers on 9/11 were all Muslim. Some of the most wanted people on the planet, Osama bin

Laden and so on, are Muslim. So people generally and too easily

equate Muslims to terrorists and extremists.

The result of this Islamophobia has been attacks on Islam and

on Muslims. Muslims then find there is little hope of getting justice

in this climate, and are sometimes pushed toward acts of violence.

I do not wish to condone these acts by any means, and have condemned them, but I want to put the discussion in some context.

Now for the good news. This ignorance and hatred can be challenged and can change. Just as Muslims are sensitive to attacks on

Islam, Muslims are also very receptive to the positive messages

from within Islam. I encourage, Chairman Lugar, you and your colleagues, and indeed the American people, to learn about Islam and

find the common bonds between the two civilizations.

Indeed, American values of equality, justice, knowledge, and

compassion, as seen in the respect for human rights, are shared explicitly with Islam. Remind the leaders in the Muslim world and

the people there of these common values, without giving lectures

to them. Remind them of the context.

Remind them that beheadings, suicide bombings, are not part of

Islam, and that two of the greatest attributes of God in Islam are

the ‘‘merciful’’ and the ‘‘compassionate.’’ These two words are repeated by Muslims throughout the day all over the planet. Speaking about the common values shared by the Founding Fathers of

the United States and the ideals of Islam will make a powerful and

long-lasting impact on the hearts and minds of Muslims.

Furthermore, Muslims, Christians, and Jews share deep bonds

between them. Muslims are asked in the Quran to recognize the

Jews and the Christians as ‘‘people of the book,’’ and they hold a

special place in our theology. A common figure who inspires us and

who we share as a common patriarch and ancestor is Abraham.

And as for the love of Jesus in Islam, I urge you to read the ‘‘Jesus

poems’’ of Rumi, who is such a popular poet in the United States.

We share the notion of an omnipotent, universal God, the Ten

Commandments, many of the central values. While political and

historical events have divided the two, examples of peaceful coexistence also exist.

So during these travels in the Muslim world, I would use these

ideas, and I believe that the first, most important step was to talk

about dialog, understanding, and friendship. So dialog, No. 1, understanding, No. 2, friendship, No. 3. You cannot have simple dialog and leave it there.

One of the ways I would deal with the anti-Americanism and

anti-Semitism was to talk of the dialogs I am having and the

friendships that have been created here in Washington, DC. I mentioned my friends like Jean and Steve Case, Ambassador Doug and

Ann Holladay, Bishop John and Karen Chane, Senior Rabbi Bruce

Lustig and his wife Amy, and Dr. Lachland Reed, and many other

friends like this. In my travels I mentioned these wonderful Americans who became my friends and who reached out to me after 9/

11, seeing a lonely stranger in their midst.

29

I mentioned how I am personally inspired by the example of my

friend, Judea Pearl, who lost his only son, Danny Pearl, in a brutal, savage, and senseless killing in Karachi. Having gotten to

know Judea as a friend over the years because of our dialogs conducted nationally and internationally in promoting Jewish-Muslim

understanding, I have seen the heroic transformation of a personal

tragedy into building a bridge to reach out and understand the

very civilization that produced the killers who took his son’s life.

I would point out that these friendships have also helped to transform the relationship between Muslims, Jews, and Christians in

the United States.

And please keep the context in mind. I was quoting these names

in a mosque in Damascus, where I was asked to deliver the postsermon talk on a Friday, very significant for Muslims; in

madrassas in Deoband and Delhi, in speeches in Islamabad, at the

Royal Institute in Amman.

I would finally ask my team of young Americans to speak, and

I would introduce them as the best ambassadors we have between

the United States and the Muslim world, as intrepid Americans

who represented the best ideals of America. And for commentary

on our travels, please see Beliefnet.com for articles by Dilshad Ali

and the young Americans who accompanied me, Hailey Woldt and

Jonathan Hayden. And I am grateful, Chairman Lugar, for giving

permission to bring them here. They are here with me this morning.

As a professor on campus I would also recommend some books,

and this is what I would urge for you to do. This is an instinct,

I suspect a genetic instinct in all professors. We can’t restrain from

doing this.

My first book is by my friend, Dr. Jonathan Sacks, the Chief

Rabbi of the United Kingdom, and it is called ‘‘The Dignity of Difference.’’ It is a powerful plea for Abrahamic understanding in the

age of globalization.

The second book I would recommend to my Muslim audiences

and to my American audience this morning is also by a friend,

Karen Armstrong, and her book is ‘‘The Battle for God.’’ In this

book Karen illustrates how the three different faiths, Judaism,

Christianity, and Islam, are all going through a period of intense

internal debate in what she calls the ‘‘fundamentalist’’ mode.

And, third, to keep a balance—you’ve got a Jewish, a Christian,

a Muslim author—I would recommend my own book, ‘‘Islam Under

Siege,’’ which argues that we are living in a world in which societies are feeling under siege, whether American societies, Israeli

societies, or Muslim societies. And when societies feel under siege,

they tend to be defensive and there is limited scope for wisdom or

compassion.

Essentially, this boils down to one recommendation, and perhaps

you may dismiss it as too idealistic, but that is the only way to

make lasting peace for the United States and the Muslim world.

It is to create bonds of friendship across religion, race, and tradition. I have discovered in a very personal sense, not only as a

scholar on campus but as someone involved in a very realistic,

pragmatic way in dealing with real life situations, that once friendship develops, everything can change. Without these friendships,

30

dialog itself remains a restricted exchange of ideas and leads to little else.

This suggestion may be unlikely, particularly with the growing

situation in the Middle East, but without genuine friendships we

cannot expect any major changes in how we are dealing with the

political situations on the ground. Take the example of the Palestinians and the Israelis. Too often the two view each other as enemies and are not prepared to concede anything except in terms of

an advantage to themselves.

The result is that even if there are concessions, they are seen to

be a result of bitter negotiations which continue to leave acrimony

on both sides. But if both parties are able to create friendships and

then meet as friends, the situation will be very different, and the

peace process itself may take a new momentum and a new meaning.

In conclusion, this is a great leap of imagination I am asking you

to make, but the exercise to understand the Muslim world is not

a luxury for the United States. It is an absolute imperative. It is

the first step, allowing you to confront the looming series of world

crises which we face in the 21st century. And as you on the panel

are those who this great Nation looks to for wisdom and guidance,

I plead with you this morning to set aside the partisan and parochial issues and focus on the challenges of providing justice, compassion, and friendship in this dangerous, uncertain, and violent

time.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Ahmed follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR AKBAR S. AHMED, IBN KHALDUN CHAIR OF

ISLAMIC STUDIES, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICE, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY,

WASHINGTON, DC

On that catastrophic day of September 11, 2001, I was acutely aware that the sole

superpower of the world, the United States, which had the capacity to show the way

to solving the global challenges that faced us, could be diverted in an endless war

of revenge and anger. This event set the United States directly in confrontation with

the world of Islam as it launched its ‘‘war on terror.’’ The complicated confrontation

is bleeding the energies and resources of both civilizations. It is diverting the United

States from its greater mission of showing the way to solve the problems that face

the planet and concerns every human on earth. Whether the United States accepts

the role as the moral leader for the 21st century willingly or not, the United States

is the sole superpower and leader.

Let us remind ourselves why a dialog between the United States and the Muslim

world is important. Islam is a world civilization of 1.4 billion people, 57 states—one

of which is nuclear for the time-being—and there are 7 million Muslims living in

the United States. Besides, the United States has troops fighting and losing lives

in two Muslim nations—Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither the war on terror nor a serious tackling of the global crises facing us can be resolved unless the vast and highly

significant world of Islam is brought into a mutually respectful partnership with the

rest of the world—especially the United States.

As a Muslim scholar living in Washington, DC, I felt I had to do whatever little

I could to create understanding between the two. I also knew that my extensive field

experiences in charge of some of the most inaccessible areas of the Muslim world—

such as South Waziristan Agency where Osama bin Laden is supposed to be hiding—would be an added advantage for both sides. This urge took me on travels in

the Muslim world to nine countries in the three major regions of the Muslim

world—the Middle East, South Asia, and Far East Asia, from February to April,

2006. I was accompanied by a small but enthusiastic group of American research

assistants. We were able to discuss these issues with a whole range of people from

President Musharraf to prime ministers, princes, sheikhs, professors, and students.

We visited mosques, madrassahs, university campuses, and classrooms. The project

31

was sponsored by three leading institutions in Washington DC—American University, the Brookings Institution, and the Pew Forum.

BAD NEWS

Throughout the travels we encountered very high levels of anti-Americanism and

anti-Semitism. I have never encountered such intensity of emotion. The Muslim

world, in the years of the cold war when the United States was so obviously the

moral power, admired and respected the United States. Today, we found that many

Muslims do not see the United States as the moral power it once used to be; in fact,

many of the people we surveyed throughout the nine countries said that they would

prefer Saddam Hussein, the most ruthless and vile of dictators, to the Americans

in Iraq. In Turkey, the most popular film ever made called ‘‘Valley of the Wolves:

Iraq’’ was in theaters when we were there. It is crudely anti-American and it shows

a group of ‘‘Rambo’’ Turkish soldiers fighting against the ‘‘evil’’ United States soldiers. Even in the moderate country of Indonesia, the No. 1 role model for young

Indonesians is Osama bin Laden—who is now widely called ‘‘Sheikh’’ as a mark of

religious respect. The Muslim world focuses on action rather than rhetoric and right

now they are seeing cold-blooded rapes in Iraq by United States soldiers, the encouragement of torture, and they feel they are not seeing the ideals of the United

States of democracy, human rights, and acceptance of diversity that it once so

proudly and clearly stood for. One affluent woman who used to live in the United

States even told my team that she was ‘‘scared’’ to bring her grandchildren to the

United States now because of the way they treat Muslims. That is the bad news.

Furthermore, there is a widespread perception in the Muslim world that Islam

is under attack from the United States and the West. As we saw with the Danish

cartoon controversy and the desecration of the Quran, Muslims all over the world

are very passionate about their religion and their Prophet. It is a culture with high

reverence for and sensitivity to these religious symbols and traditions.

There is a struggle within Islam which has been in play for centuries but is now

erupting, between the more literalist interpreters of Islam and the more receptive

and mystic forms. Right now, the warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, perceived attacks on Islam, and insensitivity to culture are all reinforcing the strong, literalist

interpretations of Islam. More outward signs of orthodoxy are spreading throughout

the Muslim world, even to Indonesia. The greater the perception that Islam is under

attack, then, the greater the support for those Muslims who stand up as champions

of Islam. There is clearly cause and effect here.

I am referring to anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism but we need to keep in

mind Islamophobia which means a hatred of Islam and prejudice against Muslims.

Although they are different to each other, I suggest we need to understand their

impact on each other. Islamophobia after 9/11 has gained momentum. The reason

is obvious: The 19 hijackers on 9/11 were all Muslim. Some of the most wanted people in the world like Osama bin Laden are Muslim. People too readily equated all

Muslims to terrorists and extremists. The result of this Islamophobia has been attacks on Islam and on Muslims. Muslims find that there is little hope of getting

justice in this climate and are sometimes pushed toward acts of violence. I do not

wish to condone these acts by any means and have condemned them, but I want

to put the discussion in some context.

GOOD NEWS

But there is good news. This ignorance and hatred can be challenged and can

change. Just as Muslims are sensitive to ‘‘attacks’’ on Islam, Muslims are also very

receptive to the positive messages from within Islam. I encourage all of the Senators

and American people to learn about Islam and find the common bonds between the

two civilizations.

Indeed, American values of equality, justice, knowledge, and compassion (as seen

in the respect for human rights) are shared explicitly with Islam. Remind the leaders and the people there of these common values without giving a lecture—remind

them of this especially in their own context as well. Beheadings and suicide bombings are not part of Islam—remind them of that and that two of the greatest attributes of God in Islam are the ‘‘merciful’’ and the ‘‘compassionate.’’ Speaking about

the common values shared by the Founding Fathers of the United States and the

ideals of Islam will make a powerful and long-lasting impact on the hearts and

minds of Muslims.

Furthermore, Muslims, Christians, and Jews share deep bonds between them.

Muslims are asked in the Quran to recognize the Jews and the Christians as ‘‘people of the book’’ and they hold a special place in our theology. A common figure who

inspires us and who we share as a common patriarch and ancestor is Abraham. As

32

for the love of Jesus in Islam, I urge you to read the ‘‘Jesus Poems’’ of Rumi who

is such a popular poet in the United States. The notions of an omnipotent, universal

God, the Ten Commandments, many of the central values, are shared by the religions. Political and historical events have divided us, but examples of peaceful coexistence between the three religions can also be seen in history and contemporary

society.

I also used this idea to encourage understanding during my travels. The first and

most important steps were to encourage dialog, understanding, and friendship. One

of the ways I would deal with the anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism was to talk

of the dialogs I am having and the friendships that have been created between

Jews, Christians, and Muslims and give my own personal example. I mentioned my

friends like Jean and Steve Case, Doug and Ann Holladay, Bishop John and Karen

Chane, Rabbi Bruce Lustig and his wife Amy, and Dr. Lachland Reed. In my travels

and talks, I mentioned these wonderful Americans who became my friends and who

reached out to me after 9/11 seeing a lonely stranger in their midst.

I mentioned how I am personally inspired by the example of my friend, Judea

Pearl, who lost his only son, Danny Pearl, in a brutal, savage, and senseless killing

in Karachi. Having gotten to know him as a friend over the years, because of our

dialogs conducted nationally and internationally in promoting Jewish Muslim understanding, I have seen the heroic transformation of a personal tragedy into building a bridge to reach out and understand the very civilization that produced the killers who took his son’s life. I would point out that these friendships have also helped

to transform the relationship between Muslims, Jews, and Christians in the United

States.

Please keep the context in mind: I was quoting these names in a mosque in Damascus where I was asked to deliver the post-sermon talk on a Friday, in

madrassahs in Deoband and Delhi, and in speeches in Islamabad, as well as the

Royal Institute in Amman.

I would finally ask my team of young Americans to speak and I would introduce

them as the best ambassadors we have between the United States and the Muslim

world as intrepid Americans who represented the best ideals of America (for commentary on our travels see Beliefnet.com for articles by Dilshad Ali, and the young

Americans who accompanied me, Hailey Woldt and Jonathan Hayden).

As a professor on campus, I would recommend essential reading to Muslims during our travels and now to you all to help us understand each other: The first book

is by my friend, Dr. Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, and

it is called ‘‘The Dignity of Difference.’’ It is a powerful plea for Abrahmic understanding in the age of globalization. The second book I would like to recommend is

also by a friend, Karen Armstrong, and her book is ‘‘The Battle for God.’’ In this

book, Karen illustrates how the three different faiths Judaism, Christianity, and

Islam, are all going through a period of intense internal debate in which what she

calls the ‘‘fundamentalists’’ who are in opposition to the more ‘‘moderate’’ or ‘‘liberal’’

versions of faith. The third is my own book, ‘‘Islam Under Siege,’’ which argues that

we are living in a world in which societies are all feeling under siege. When societies

are under siege they tend to be defensive and there is little scope for wisdom and

compassion.

Essentially, I have one recommendation, one that can easily be dismissed as too

idealistic, but that is the only way to making a lasting peace for the United States

and the Muslim world: It is to create friendships across religion, race, and tradition.

I have discovered that once friendship develops then everything can change. Without these friendships, dialog itself remains a restricted exchange of ideas and leads

to little else. This suggestion may be unlikely, but without genuine friendships forming, we cannot expect any major changes in how we are dealing with the political

situations on the ground. Take the example of the Palestinians and the Israelis. Too

often the two view each other as enemies and are not prepared to concede anything

except in terms of an advantage to themselves. The result is that even if there are

concessions there are seen to be a result of bitter negotiations which continue to

leave acrimony on both sides. But if both parties are able to create friendships and

then meet as friends, the situation will be very different and the peace process itself

may take on a new momentum and a new meaning.

In conclusion, this will not be easy, but the exercise to understand the Muslim

world is not a luxury for the United States—it is an imperative. It is the first step

to confronting the looming series of world crises, and as you on the panel are those

who this great Nation looks to for wisdom and guidance, I plead with you to set

aside the partisan and parochial issues to focus on the challenges of providing justice, compassion, and friendship in this dangerous, uncertain, and violent time.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very, very much, Mr. Ahmed.

33

And now we call upon Dr. Khan for his testimony.

STATEMENT OF DR. MUQTEDAR KHAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, NEWARK, DE

Dr. KHAN. In the name of God, most merciful, most benevolent.

Distinguished chairman, Senator Lugar, and Senator Boxer, it is

indeed an honor to share my expertise with this august body. As

I was sitting here, I was thinking of an important Islamic ritual

called shura, and I think we practice shura with great nobility and

distinction here in the United States and in any Muslim society,

unfortunately. Shura means the process of consultation and deliberation.

Islam is structurally a dynamic religion that is systemologically

pluralistic from the very beginning. What I mean by structurally

dynamic isn’t bad, that it has internal mechanisms that allow it to

be continuously evolving, to be reinterpreted, and as a result of its

internal dynamic structure Islam continues to remain relevant to

Muslim life regardless of time and place. It is not a coincidence or

an accident that Islam is more meaningful to Muslims, whether

they live in the West or whether they live in the East, than other

religions in other societies.

But what is also interesting about Islam is its internal pluralism.

From the very beginning there have been many interpretations of

Islam. It is safe to say that there have been many Islams. There

have been the Shia and Sunni, rational and traditional, mystical,

philosophical, cultural, and juristic. So in the last 1,400 years we

have seen several interpretations of Islam. They have coexisted

across time and space.

Lately, for the purposes of U.S. foreign policy, since 9/11 we have

been trying to imagine a specific interpretation of Islam as perhaps

the designated enemy. Conservative Americans, particularly, and

Israelis, try to believe that there is a discrete ideological and institutionalized actor called ‘‘radical Islam’’ and sometimes ‘‘radical

fundamentalist Islam.’’ That is essentially the problem.

I submit to you that it is a mistake to assume that this is a discrete and coherent entity. For example, increasingly in the last few

days as the Lebanon crisis has precipitated, people have equated

Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda as representative of the same

phenomenon.

Al-Qaeda and Hamas are Sunni organizations; Hezbollah is a

Shia organization. Hamas is very close to Islamic Brotherhood in

its theology and its ideology, whereas Zawahiri, the No. 2 person

of al-Qaeda, has written books chastising the Muslim Brotherhood.

There is enormous enmity between the Muslim Brotherhood and

the Jihadis, and therefore there is no sympathy that al-Qaeda has

for Hamas. This is why until now we have not seen al-Qaeda target

Israel. What is also interesting is that we have never seen Hamas

target the United States.

So it’s very important for us to not club everything under the rubric of radical Islam, but that does not mean that there is no such

tendency of radical Islam. There are many manifestations of Islam

today, but for the purposes of American foreign policy it is important to recognize that there is, yes, a very vicious, very violent,

34

very intolerant interpretation which is out there. But in order to

understand that, I submit to you that it is better to look at these

various manifestations of Islam in the Muslim world as options.

Today there is a near universal consensus in the Muslim world

on three issues: No. 1, that there must be political, social, normative, cultural, economic, and structural change. Nobody wants

the Muslim world to remain as it is. Everybody wants change.

Muslims are struggling to respond to these challenges of modernity

and post-modernity, to the challenges of globalization, and particularly to the challenges, the structural challenges that have emerged

as a result of the decolonization process.

No. 2, most Muslims agree that there is no security in Muslim

societies. They are victims of terrorism and war. As I heard President Bush repeatedly repeat that Israel has a right to defend itself,

I kept amazingly wondering as to how nobody has ever said that

even the Lebanese have a right to defend themselves. Muslim insecurity is taken for granted.

There is also a strong consensus that Islam must play a role in

the resurgence, the reconstitution, revival of the Muslim world, and

therefore you see many different options. The point I am trying to

make is this: That Muslims are trying through many ways to cope

with modernization and globalization. Radical Islam is one option,

and it is not an ideological issue.

If moderate Muslims cannot deliver, then Muslims will abandon

that option and seek another option. If our moderate allies in the

Middle East will not provide Muslims security, dignity, respect,

and freedom, then they will turn to the next option. So the United

States, when it chooses partners, it is not important to choose partners on the basis of what they say or what they believe, but it is

important for us to actually shape the outcomes on the ground in

the Muslim world.

There is, however, an alternative interpretation of Islam which

is a direct challenger of radical Islam. We sometimes call it moderate Islam, or sometimes we call it liberal Islam. Liberal Islam

has three or four important strategic merits for the United States

and the West, and I will list them for you.

No. 1, liberal Islam is providing an alternative understanding of

world political and global reality in order to prevent the perception

that war on terror is a war on Islam. No. 2, liberal Muslims have

an interpretation of Islam which places Itjihad over jihad. Itjihad

is an intellectual exercise for reviving society, the privilege, education, and development, over violence and conflict.

No. 3, the liberal interpretation of Islam advances an idiom that

explains the compatibility of liberal values such as tolerance, democracy, and pluralism. Finally, liberal Islam deconstructs the

jihadi discourse to expose the extremist tendencies behind their interpretation of Islam, and underscores the more compassionate and

rational dimensions of Islam.

It is important for us to understand who is a moderate Muslim.

One of the jokes in the Muslim world is that all moderate Muslims

have been ‘‘Karzai’d’’ in the sense that they have become like

Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, who has no respect in

his own people. And this is very important for us. When we work

with moderate Muslims, we ensure that we do not undermine their

35

own legitimacy in the very constituency that they seek to reform

and address.

I would also like to talk to you about American Muslims. The

9/11 Commission, to a great extent, exonerated the American Muslims of any direct involvement in the attacks of September 11.

American Muslims are very unique because they are very rich in

terms of per capita income, perhaps the richest Muslim community

in the world. They are also the highest literacy levels.

The American Muslim community, in my opinion, manifests

more of liberal Islamic values and has institutionalized them more

than any other community anywhere in the rest of the Muslim

world. As a result of that, the American Muslim community becomes a natural ally of the United States.

What role can American Muslims play in this war on terror?

American Muslims have enormous potential to become an important ally in America’s war against extremism. They can discuss

threat assessments and threat identification. This is a role that we

can play to a great deal.

American Muslims would have provided the administration with

a more accurate picture of the potential for threats from within the

United States and outside. It is possible that the American Government is unnecessarily spending vast amounts of resources in surveillance of groups and individuals who may not constitute a

threat, and may actually be overlooking those who could be problematic. American Muslim input on this subject can be immensely

useful. Many U.S. policy makers continue to err in understanding

and predicting the behavior of Muslim groups, and the chaos in

Iraq is a case in point.

One interesting distinction that I would like to make is the confusion over Hiz-ut-Tahrir and al-Qaeda. For the last 2 years I’ve

been watching experts in Washington, DC, attribute al-Qaeda’s tactics to Hiz-ut-Tahrir, which is essentially a nonviolent organization,

and attribute Hiz-ut-Tahrir’s ideology to al-Qaeda, thereby committing gross errors. These are things that American Muslims, called

on to study these movements, can help the administration in understanding.

American Muslims can provide a Muslim face to American foreign policy, and the administration has already realized the enormous benefits of having somebody like Zalmay Khalilzad as Ambassador to Afghanistan and then as Ambassador to Iraq. But only

one. I once confronted Under Secretary Karen Hughes and asked

her to name the Muslims in her department, and she said there

are 22, but she could not name one. That means they were not sufficiently high up for her to be consulting them for policy making.

It is important that American Muslims be part of this administration. The Bush administration could have appointed a number

of prominent American Muslim sportsmen who have respect worldwide, such as Hakeem Olajuwon, or even Imams, local indigenous

Imams like Imam Hamza Yusuf, to become spokespersons for

America and American Muslims.

Another area in which American Muslims can provide assistance

is in human intelligence and also in undercover operations. The recent operation in Canada which arrested 18 was essentially beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:03 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\ISLAM.TXT mich PsN: mich
36

cause of the work of a moderate Canadian Muslim called Mubin

Sheikh.

And, finally, American Muslims can play an important role in

counseling the radical Islamic discourse. One important arena

where the United States needs its Muslim citizens is in countering

the anti-U.S. propaganda. Both Islamists and governmental media

have launched a propaganda war against the United States in response to its war on terror. This anti-U.S. media offensive is determined to focus on U.S. foreign policy excesses and failures.

The enormous success of Islam and Muslims within American

borders is an asset to America. It is a wonderful story that needs

to be told. The very fact that American Muslims are thriving in

America is proof positive that America is not against Islam. If

America was waging war against Islam, then Muslims in America

would have been its first victims. This is an important message

which we need.

Finally, I think American Muslims can restore balance to America’s foreign policy. To put it bluntly, American foreign policy in the

contemporary era has been a colossal failure, and I think even a

potential danger to America’s security interests. This administration would do well to listen to some moderate Muslim voices in

shaping its foreign policy.

And finally, I want to address what the United States can do.

The United States must deliberate seriously on what kind of relations it wishes to have with a religion whose adherents constitute

nearly 25 percent of the world population and include over 55 countries. Islam is also the fastest growing religion in all sectors of the

West—in the United States, in Canada, in Europe, and Australia.

Islam is outside and Islam is inside.

The United States and the West must find a way to coexist with

Islam without constantly demanding Muslims to abandon Islam.

This is a very important issue for Muslims, since many see the

United States as waging a war against Islam. This has to be done

at every level, including government, media, and education. One

statement by the President saying that Islam is a peaceful religion

is not enough. It has to be repeated often, again and again.

The United States must not undermine the important role of

maintaining positive United States-Muslim relations for short-term

goals or for immediate expediencies.

The United States must improve its credibility. It must practice

what it preaches, fulfill its promises, and certainly abstain from betraying those who take risks at our behest. If you look at the situation in Lebanon today, the way we have abandoned Lebanon, I am

not very sure if in the near future any moderate Muslim will be

able to trust the United States and take risks for democracy at the

behest of the United States. Muslims in Lebanon and Christians in

Lebanon believe that the United States, after marching them down

the path toward democracy, has betrayed them.

American Muslims are America’s natural allies and the best community when it comes to institutionalization of liberal values. The

United States must embrace it and treat it as an asset rather than

as a suspect.

The United States has to make goodwill gestures toward the

Muslim world, and that does not mean supporting dictators or sellVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:03 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\ISLAM.TXT mich PsN: mich
37

ing more arms. Cooperation in areas of development, education,

and economic empowerment will go a long way. Evenhandedness in

its approach to the Muslim world is absolutely necessary. Abandoning it, especially in moments of crisis, is extremely detrimental.

The United States must also rethink its relations with Islamists,

and find ways and means to work with the more moderate

Islamists who are pro-democracy, in order to empower them and to

isolate the radicals. The United States must find a way to deal

with the Arab-Israeli conflict that does not undo years of diplomacy

and good work on the United States-Islamic relations every time

there is a crisis over Israel.

Muslims think that the United States and the West does not

value Muslim life and that we do not care for their human rights.

The changing of this perception will take a long time, but the

United States can begin with Guantanamo, and by recognizing that

Muslims too have a right to defend their lives, their property, their

territory, and their sovereignty.

U.S. foreign policy since 9/11 has sought security for America

and its ally Israel by deliberately undermining the security of the

Muslim world through bellicose rhetoric, irresponsible aggressions,

and astonishing disregard for Muslim lives. We must realize that

we cannot be more secure by making others feel insecure.

There needs to be a paradigm shift in how we think of security.

We live in a highly globalized and interdependent world. Islam is

outside, Islam is inside. It is important that we think of security

for all, including Muslim nations, Muslim societies. This is imperative.

I leave you with this comment: The United States and Muslim

relations will remain a critical component of global politics for a

long time. They must be repaired and nurtured. There is no other

alternative.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Khan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MUQTEDAR KHAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, POLITICAL

SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, NEWARK, DE

In the name of God, most merciful, most benevolent.

Distinguished Chairman, Senator Richard G. Lugar, and eminent members of the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is indeed an honor to share my expertise

with this august body. We are engaged today in a highly noble Islamic and democratic ritual—Shura—consultation and I thank you for this opportunity.

Islam is structurally a dynamic religion and has always been epistemologically

pluralistic. In simple terms Islam has a built-in mechanism for continuous evolution, reform, and self-rejuvenation through the engine of Ijtihad. Ijtihad is a legal

tool that enables Muslim jurists to think independently on issues where scriptures

are either silent or ambiguous. It is also a divine invitation to all Muslims and all

human beings to think, reflect, and deliberate on God’s message and global realities

in order to act in the most gracious, most compassionate, and most just fashion.

Ijtihad will always keep Islam relevant and meaningful to Muslims and others who

are fortunate to be blessed with its grace.

Muslims have from the earliest period, after the death of the Prophet of Islam

[pbuh], interpreted Islam in many ways. There have been many interpretations of

what the Islamic Shariah—the essence of Islamic message—constitutes, some even

contradictory, but Muslims have recognized difference and diversity as a consequence of divine purpose and developed a culture of tolerance for different manifestations and interpretations of Islam.

So from the very beginning there have been different interpretations of Islam,

Shia and Sunni, rational and traditional, mystical and philosophical, cultural and

juristic. So it is more accurate to talk about Islams rather than Islam. For academic

38

as well as strategic purposes, it is absolutely necessary to distinguish between different Islams and not paint with a broad brush for it will inevitably lead to bad

analysis and bad policy.

For the purposes of U.S. foreign policy however, it is important to distinguish between two broad competing historical tendencies within Islamic history. These two

tendencies can be captured as a defensive mechanism that seeks to conserve, preserve, and defend ‘‘Islam,’’ and eventually leads to narrow, combative, and often intolerant interpretations of Islam and who a good Muslim is. In our times we associate this tendency very strongly with Salafi and Wahhabi groups. But we must be

careful to recognize that religious intolerance does not necessarily lead to political

confrontation, violence, terrorism, and anti-Americanism. While al-Qaeda is definitely Salafi-Wahhabi and is our enemy, the Saudi royal family and the Qataris and

the Kuwaitis are also mostly Salafi-Wahhabis, but they are our friends and allies.

Most jihadis are theologically Salafi-Wahhabis, but very few Salafi-Wahhabis are

jihadis.

The alternative is a more liberal and compassionate, even mystical interpretation

of Islam, which is highly accommodating of difference within Islam and between religions. It is compatible with democracy, religious pluralism, and is often referred

to as liberal Islam and or moderate Islam.

WHAT IS RADICAL ISLAM?

Since September 11, there has been a strong tendency among conservative Americans and Israelis to construct the enemy as a discrete, ideological, and institutionalized actor called radical Islam, and sometimes radical fundamentalist fascist Islam.

Radical Islam is imagined as a manifestation of Islam that is narrow, intolerant,

authoritarian, violent, anti-west, anti-democracy, anti-American and anti-Israel. I

too have been guilty of this generalization in an article for current History in 2006.

However, since then I have noticed anomalies. Secular, progressive Muslims also

often share several of these characteristics with radical Islamists and there is no

definitive relationship between conservative and traditional Islam, anti-Americanism, and violence.

There is no doubt that there is at present a very angry and viscous and growing

tendency within the Muslim world, but it may be a mistake to put it in a box called

radical Islam. For example, Hezbollah and Hams are very different from each other,

the former is Shiite, the later is Sunni, the former is motivated by geopolitics, the

latter is struggling for independence. Neither shares theological or political goals

with al-Qaeda. For example, Hamas has never targeted the United States. Also consider the Wahhabis and Salafis, while al-Qaeda sure is anti-America, not all Saudis,

Kuwaitis, and Qataris, who share the same theology, are anti-America or even violent.

My humble suggestion is to consider the various trends—political and theological—as options. Today there is nearly a universal consensus in the Muslim world

on three issues: (1) That there must be political, social, normative, cultural, economic, and structural change. Muslims are struggling to respond to the challenges

of modernity and postmodernity, not to mention the global geopolitical realities of

the postcolonial world. (2) Most Muslims agree that there is no security in Muslim

societies; they are victims of terrorism and war. (3) There is also a strong consensus

that Islam must play a role in the resurgence, reconstitution, revival, development,

and transformation of the Muslim world.

I submit to you that all these movements in the Muslim world—secular bathism,

Islamism, resurgent Sufism, the calls for Islamic democracy, for liberal democracy

and revolution—are all attempts to cope with the relative backwardness of the Muslim world, its tensions with modernity which is driven by western culture, and its

inability to secure itself. Islamists like secular and moderate elites have a vision to

offer.

The battle of competing visions will not be won through rhetoric and discourse—

it must come through delivery. The vision that delivers reform, change, empowerment, and security will win. So far Islamists have done a better job than most in

the Arab world, unlike in South Asia and East Asia. Moderate and liberal Muslims

can win the battle for the soul of Islam only if they are able to deliver. So far they

have failed. So far everyone has failed except for the radical who at least hit back

against those whom Muslims perceive as enemies.

Radical Islam is an option that Muslims have turned to, due to the failure of all

other ideas and movements to deliver a stable, prosperous, and peaceful state and

society for average Muslims.

Radical Muslims also offer an explanation of global politics and recent history

that glorifies Islam, privileges Muslim tradition, and sometimes is consistent with

39

a simplistic view of reality. For example, the current crisis in Lebanon goes a long

way to convince Muslims that radical Islamists are right when they say that Israel,

with the help of the United States, is out to destroy their nations.

Political, military, economic, and intellectual independence from the West has always been the overriding goal of political Islam. However, the failure of Islamists

to achieve these goals in nearly a century, in combination with real and perceived

injustices committed by America and its allies against Muslims, has engendered an

extremely vitriolic hatred of America in the hearts of some Islamists giving birth

to radical Islam. I like to refer to these radicals as rogue Islamists, who are willing

to do anything, absolutely anything, to destroy America and its power and will to

prevent the realization of Islamist goals. Rogue Islamists and their hateful discourses are globalizing anti-Americanism, and in the process undermining the moral

fabric of the Muslim world and corrupting the Islam’s message of justice, mercy,

submission, compassion, and enlightenment, not of war, hatred, and killing.

Radical Islamists are a threat to both America and Islam. Their discourses are

corrupting Islam and generating hatred against the West, modernity, America, and

other Muslims who disagree with them. Their most powerful weapons are their

ideas and their ability to convince Muslims to even give up their lives in order to

hurt America, Americans, and American interests. While America seeks security

from the attacks by rogue Muslims and needs to reduce anti-Americanism, moderate

Muslims who do not subscribe to the Islamists discourse seek to rescue Islam and

innocent Muslims from the corrupting influence of rogue Islamist.

A response to rogue Islamists requires a complex strategy that above all must

counter and delegitimize the Islamists worldview and discourses and expose their

fallacies and the devastating consequences they could bring to Muslims and the

world by triggering a long and bloody global conflict between America and the Muslim world.

LIBERAL ISLAM AND ITS STRATEGIC MERITS

It is my contention that the best antidote to radical Islam is liberal Islam. Liberal

Islam cannot only challenge radical Islamist worldview using Islam as the

foundational idiom and also provide an alternate interpretation of Muslim reality

and a more positive vision of the future.

Moderate Muslims have a very idealistic view of the Islamic duty of jihad. They

argue, based on a tradition of Prophet Muhammad, that jihad is essentially a struggle to purify the self and to establish social justice. The highest form of jihad, Jihade-Akbar (the superior jihad) is struggle against the self to improve and excel in

moral and spiritual realm. The lowest form of jihad is the military jihad that is essentially defensive and constrained by strict ethics of engagement. They correctly

point out that terrorism, or Hirabah (war against society), is strictly forbidden by

Islamic scholars. They, however, do maintain that Muslims can and must struggle

for justice and freedom while strictly obeying Islamic and international norms of

just warfare. For Muslim moderates, Islam is a religion of peace without being pacifist.

Moderate Muslims are critical of American foreign policy in the Muslim world.

They are also critical of the prejudiced view of Islam in the West and, in particular,

among the policy elite who are also quite ignorant about Islam and the Muslim

world. But Muslim moderates do not blame the United States or the West or modernity for all the problems in the Muslim world. They recognize that the decline of

the Islamic civilization preceded colonialism. They are aware that the decay of free

and creative thinking in the Muslim world was not caused by Western powers but

came about as a result of internal dynamics. Moderate Muslims are critical of the

polemics against the West, the rising anti-Semitism and the tendency to blame

Israel for everything problematic in the Muslim world and the growing intolerance,

sectarianism, and authoritarianism in Muslim societies. Above all, they lament the

intellectual decline of the Muslim world.

Moderate Muslims are also engaged in what is now referred to as the ‘‘battle for

the soul of Islam.’’ They argue that Islam is a message of compassion and peace sent

by God in order to civilize humanity and give human existence a transcendent and

divine purpose. They are aghast and reject the use of Islam to incite terror, to justify bigotry and to discriminate on the basis of faith, or gender, or ethnicity. They

recognize that Islam has been appropriated by political and extremist groups who

are using Islam as an ideology to pursue a counter hegemonic agenda, both with

the Muslim world and against the rest, especially against the United States. Moderate Muslims acknowledge the global problem created by ‘‘rogue Islamists.’’ They

insist that the false interpretations of Islam by the jihadis and their crusades are

40

not only creating a global fitna (crisis) but are also corrupting the essence of Islam

and worsening the socio-political, economic, and cultural crisis in the Muslim world.

It is in the battle for the soul of Islam that America and liberal Islam share a

common strategic goal and that is the systematic dismantling and delegitimization

of the discourse coming from rogue Islamists that projects America as an anti-Islam

crusader power and Islam as an ideology of hate and violence. It is in the arena

interpretation and reinterpretation of global political realities and religious texts

and their contemporaneous meanings that the war on terror will be won or lost. It

is also in this contested realm that the hearts and minds of Muslims can be won

or lost. So far, while moderate Muslims are beginning to have an impact in this battle in America, they are not even an important player in the Muslim world. American policy makers must recognize the strategic value of liberal Islam and promote

and protect it.

The interpretive battle the liberal Islam wages is in three arenas:

• Providing an alternative understanding of world political and global realities in

order to prevent the perception that the war on terror is a war on Islam. • Advance a liberal understanding of Islam within the Islamic idiom that explains

the compatibility of Islam and liberal values such as tolerance, democracy, and

pluralism. • Deconstruct the jihadi discourse to expose the extremist tendencies behind their

interpretation of Islam and underscore the more compassionate and rational dimensions of Islam.

WHO IS A MODERATE MUSLIM?

As one who identifies himself strongly with the idea of a liberal Islam and also

advocates moderation in the manifestation and expression of Islamic politics, I believe it is important that we flush out this ‘‘religio-political identity.’’

Muslims, in general, do not like using the term—moderate, progressive, or liberal

Muslim, understanding it to indicate an individual who has politically sold out to

the ‘‘other’’ side. Others insist that there is no such thing as moderate Islam, or radical Islam; there is ‘‘only one Islam’’—the true Islam and all other expressions are

falsehoods espoused by the munafiqeen (the hypocrites) or the murtads (the apostates). Of course the unstated politics behind this position is, ‘‘my interpretation of

Islam is obviously the true Islam and anybody who diverges from my position is

risking their faith.’’

In some internal intellectual debates, the term moderate Muslim is used pejoratively to indicate a Muslim who is more secular and less Islamic than the norm,

which varies across communities. In America, a moderate Muslim is one who peddles a softer form of Islam, is willing to coexist peacefully with peoples of other

faiths and is comfortable with democracy and the separation of politics and religion.

Both Western media and Muslims do a disservice by branding some Muslims as

moderate on the basis of their politics. These people should generally be understood

as opportunists and self-serving. Most of the moderate regimes in the Muslim world

are neither democratic nor manifest the softer side of Islam. That leaves intellectual

positions as the criteria for determining who is a moderate Muslim, and especially

in comparison to whom, since moderate is a relative term.

I see moderate Muslims as reflective, self-critical, pro-democracy and human

rights, and closet secularists. Their secularism is American in nature. That is, they

believe in the separation of church and state, but not French; they oppose the exile

of religion from the public sphere. But who are they different from and how?

I believe that moderate Muslims are different from militant Muslims even though

both of them advocate the establishment of societies whose organizing principle is

Islam. The difference between moderate and militant Muslims is in their methodological orientation and in the primordial normative preferences that shape their interpretation of Islam.

For moderate Muslims, Ijtihad is the preferred method of choice for social and political change, and military jihad the last option. For militant Muslims, military

jihad is the first option and Ijtihad is not an option at all.

Ijtihad, narrowly understood, is a juristic tool that allows independent reasoning

to articulate Islamic law on issues where textual sources are silent. The unstated

assumption being when texts have spoken, reason must be silent. But increasingly

moderate Muslim intellectuals see Ijtihad as the spirit of Islamic thought that is

necessary for the vitality of Islamic ideas and Islamic civilization. Without Ijtihad,

Islamic thought and Islamic civilization fall into decay.

For moderate Muslims, Ijtihad is a way of life, which simultaneously allows Islam

to reign supreme in the heart and the mind to experience unfettered freedom of

thought. A moderate Muslim is therefore one who cherishes freedom of thought

41

while recognizing the existential necessity of faith. She aspires for change, but

through the power of mind and not through planting mines.

Moderate Muslims aspire for a society—a city of virtue—that will treat all people

with dignity and respect [Quran 17:70]. There will be no room for political or normative intimidation [Quran 2:256]. Individuals will aspire to live an ethical life because they recognize its desirability. Communities will compete in doing good and

politics will seek to encourage good and forbid evil [Quran 5:48 and 3:110]. They

believe that the internalization of the message of Islam can bring about the social

transformation necessary for the establishment of the virtuous city. The only arena

in which moderate Muslims permit excess is in idealism.

The Quran advocates moderation [2:143] and extols the virtues of the straight

path [1:1–7]. For moderate Muslims the middle ground, the common humanity of

all, is the straightest path.

It is my contention that the mainstream American Muslim community broadly

qualifies as an example of liberal and moderate Islam. They believe in democracy,

human rights, respect women’s roles in the public sphere, and most importantly believe, practice, and advocate religious pluralism.

WHAT ROLE CAN AMERICAN MUSLIMS PLAY IN THE WAR ON TERROR?

American Muslims have an enormous potential to become an important ally in

America’s war against extremism. If consulted and brought into counterterrorism

planning they can help America become more effective, more focused, and more costeffective. These are the following areas in which they can and could have played

a major role:

Threat assessments and threat identification

American Muslims would have provided the administration with a more accurate

picture of the potential for threats from within the United States. Their analysis

would have helped in making the Department of Homeland Security a vastly smaller and more effective institution.

It is possible that the American Government is unnecessarily spending vast

amounts of resources in surveillance of groups and individuals who may not constitute threat and may actually be overlooking those who could be problematic.

American Muslim input on this subject can be immensely useful.

Many United States policy makers continue to err in understanding and predicting the behavior of Muslim groups and the chaos in Iraq is a case in point. If

American Muslims were involved in the management of Iraq after the war, it would

have been easier for Washington to establish better communications and perhaps

gain more cooperation from various groups.

Provide a Muslim face to America

American Muslims could have given a Muslim face to America’s response to September 11, and the feeling in the Muslim world that this is a Christian-Zionist crusade against Islam would have been averted.

The Bush administration should have appointed a number of prominent American

Muslim sportsmen, such as Hakeem Olajuwon, and some Imams such as Imam

Hamza Yusuf (American convert to Islam who is well respected in the Muslim

world) as special envoys of goodwill to the Muslim world. The State Department is

now attempting this in a less prominent way. Prominent Muslim presence in America’s diplomatic and counterterrorism endeavors would have gone a long way in not

only preempting the rise of anti-Americanism, but also in building trust between

America and the Muslim world.

Human intelligence

The most important assets that American Muslims can bring to the war on terror

is human intelligence, cultural insights, linguistic skills, and experience and awareness of the diversity within Islamic groups and movements. It is possible that FBI,

CIA, and the NSA can access this resource through recruitment. But voluntary support in this area from the community can be priceless.

Many American Muslim scholars have argued that Islam and democracy are compatible. The Bush administration could have recruited several of them to make this

case in Iraq and help design the Iraqi democracy and write its constitution. Without

a significant input from respectable Muslim scholars, the Iraqi constitution may not

stand up to accusations that it is un-Islamic and written to make Iraq subservient

to American interests.

Moderate Muslims opposed to extremism can also play a role in undercover operations like that played by Mubin Sheikh in Canada and in the Showtime serial,

Sleeper Cell.

42

Counter-Islamic discourse

One important arena where the United States needs its Muslim citizens is in

countering the anti-U.S. propaganda. Both Islamists and governmental media have

launched a propaganda war against the United States in response to its war on terror. This anti-U.S. media offensive is determined to focus on U.S. foreign policy excesses and failures. It also seeks to explain every aspect of American policy as if

it is serving only Israeli interests. With American Muslims as spokespersons surfing

the media and the airwaves in the Muslim world, the United States could have a

better chance of getting a more balanced view of its policies.

American Muslims can also counter the abuse of Islam by rogue Islamists and undermine their legitimacy. American Muslim scholars have consistently maintained

that Hirabah (terrorism) is not jihad and is strictly prohibited by Islamic principles.

They have also demonstrated how suicide bombings violate Islamic ethics of self-defense and are not legitimate instruments of jihad. If the voice of American Muslim

scholars was given more attention, say through a White House-sponsored conference

on jihad, many of the moderate and liberal elements in the Muslim world would recognize the fallacies in the Islamic edicts of rogue Islamists and the scholars who

support and justify their cause.

Restore balance to America’s foreign policy

To put it bluntly, American foreign policy lately has been a colossal failure and

even potentially dangerous to America’s interests. This administration would do

well to listen to some moderate Muslim voices in shaping its foreign policy objectives

and in determining tactics. Except in the case of Israel, American Muslims have the

same vision for the Muslim world as claimed by this administration. American Muslims, too, want wholesale regime changes and establishment of democracy in the entire Muslim world. They, too, want to see the general human rights environment

improving and wish that prosperity and freedom would take root in the Muslim

world. The difference is that American Muslims would recommend strategies that

are more humane and involve less bombing and killing. This administration needs

American Muslims and it is time it acted on this need and included them in its policy deliberations.

WHAT CAN THE UNITED STATES DO?

The United States must deliberate seriously on what kind of relations it wishes

to have with a religion whose adherents constitute nearly 25 percent of the world’s

population and include over 55 countries. Islam is also the fastest growing religion

in all sectors of the West, United States and Canada, Europe and Australia. Islam

is outside and inside, the United States and the West must find a way to coexist

with Islam without constantly demanding Muslims to abandon Islam. This is a very

important issue for Muslims since many see the United States as waging a war

against Islam itself. This has to be done at every level including government, media,

and education.

The United States must not undermine the important goal of maintaining positive

United States-Muslim relations for short-term goals or for immediate expediencies.

The United States must improve its credibility. It must practice what it preaches,

fulfill its promises, and certainly abstain from betraying those who take risks at its

behest and when motivated by it to pursue democratization or social liberalization.

After watching the way we have handled the crisis in Lebanon and repeated requests for help from the Lebanese Prime Minister, I am not sure anyone will be

eager to trust the United States in the near future.

American Muslims are America’s natural allies and the best community when it

comes to institutionalization of liberal Islamic values. The United States must embrace it and treat it as an asset rather than as a suspect.

The United States has to make goodwill gestures toward the Muslim world, and

that does not mean support dictators or sell more arms. Cooperation in areas of development, education, and economic empowerment will go a long way.

Evenhandedness in its approach to the Muslim world is absolutely necessary.

Abandoning it, especially in moments of crisis, is extremely detrimental.

The United States must rethink its relations with the Islamists and find ways

and means to work with moderate Islamists in order to empower them and isolate

the radicals.

The United States must find a way to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict that does

not undo years of diplomacy and good work on the United States-Islamic relations

every time there is a crisis with Israel.

Muslims think that the United States and the West does not value Muslim life

and do not care for their human rights. The changing of this perception will take

43

a long time but the United States can begin with Guantanamo and by recognizing

that Muslims, too, have a right to defend their lives, property, and territory.

United States foreign policy since 9/11 has sought security for America and its

ally, Israel, by deliberately undermining the security of the Muslim world through

bellicose rhetoric, irresponsible aggressions, and astonishing disregard for Muslim

lives. The United States must realize that they cannot feel more secure by making

others feel insecure. It is important that the United States work for the security

of all, including Muslim nations. This is imperative.

United States-Muslim relations will remain a critical component of global politics

for a long time. They must be repaired and nurtured. There is no other alternative.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Khan. Let me say we

really appreciate the comprehensive testimony of all four of you,

and I know that Senator Boxer and I both have a number of questions. I would like to call upon Senator Boxer first of all, in case

she has a time requirement, if you would proceed.

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I do, and I so appreciate that, Mr.

Chairman. I found all of you very interesting, and I want to make

a few comments here and ask a few questions. How much time

would I have?

The CHAIRMAN. Take the time that you require.

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Thank you very much. I’ll try to keep

it succinct.

First of all I want to say, Dr. Khan, I really liked your idea of

having Muslim Americans playing a large role in our foreign policy,

especially these days. It just makes sense, and I think we all need

to pay attention to that.

The beauty of our country is that we are so diverse, and you’re

right, the American dream is there for everyone. That’s why we are

here, to make sure that stays that way, and everyone who has had

the opportunity I think could be a great voice for our country. So

that I really like.

The place I really disagree with you is your comment about how

America has abandoned Lebanon, and I know this is a very hot

topic right now, but I feel I must say that as I look at the situation,

it isn’t America who has abandoned Lebanon, but in fact it is Syria

and Hezbollah and the fact that the Lebanese don’t have the ability, the wherewithal, to police their own southern border. This is

a crisis of major proportions, and if everyone paid attention to U.N.

Resolution 1559 and Lebanon could in fact be free of this militia

in the south and free of foreign influence, the world would be a far

safer place.

Now, I know this is a hot topic. I’m not going to get in an argument with you, but I don’t believe in any way that America has

abandoned Lebanon. Now, the one way I think America could have

done better all these years is to pay more attention to that whole

situation, to be pushing so that in fact U.N. Resolution 1559 was

listened to, and to play a bigger role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For sure I agree on that, but I don’t think in this case you

can point to America as the culprit for what is happening there.

And I want to say to His Excellency Ahmed that I so appreciate

your insights on religion. For myself, in my youth, I will never forget this because when you’re a child and your parents are everything to you, my parents bought me a book. It was called ‘‘One

God.’’ ‘‘One God.’’ And I never forgot it because it was so interesting to me, because the point of the book—it’s written for chilVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:03 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\ISLAM.TXT mich PsN: mich
44

dren—was that in essence, regardless of what religion we follow,

there is one God at the end of the day.

And that very simple point really unites all people, and I think

that unfortunately what has happened with religions, with organized religion over the years is, instead of all of us working on that

concept, somehow the differences have come to the fore. And that’s

a way bigger question than we have time to go into, but I just really think that simple message has to get to children and get to all

of us because it will in fact bring us together.

I need to get a few things off my mind here. When I listened to

Mr. Kohut and his exceptional work out in the field, he is a bearer

of bad news. He doesn’t relish telling us this news, but the fact is

that the opinion of this country in the world, and frankly if you

even look beyond the Middle East, but in the Middle East, is dismal, and I think it is making us less safe. Anti-Americanism, to

quote you, Mr. Kohut, is a global phenomenon.

This news is a blow to the American people. When I remember

back—again, you know, we all bring our own experience to the

table here—when we were so beloved in the world, and rightly so,

I mean, we had a clear sense of what we were about and what our

role was in the world. And I think we have lost our way and made

a lot of mistakes, and rage toward America makes us less safe and

anger makes us less safe.

I personally believe that, you know, you take President Bush’s

urge for democracy and elections, but you couple it with this anger,

and what you get is Hamas winning in the Palestinian Territories,

and Ahmadinejad being elected in Iran. Even in Iraq the Bush administration favorites lost, and one didn’t even get any votes. In

other regions of the world the same thing is happening, sadly in

our own hemisphere.

So while democracy as a goal is laudable, we have got a lot of

homework to do to make sure that we are seen as a success and

a beautiful model of what the world should all be like, and it’s just

not happening out there. I want to talk about why I think that’s

so, and I don’t want to be simplistic about it because it’s not simple. Just listening to you, Dr. Hoffman, I mean, it’s complicated.

But I think after 9/11 we had the whole world with us, Mr.

Chairman. You remember. The whole world. In France the headline was, ‘‘We are all Americans.’’ And we blew it by going into

Iraq. There wasn’t one al-Qaeda cell there on 9/11. I have shown

this booklet on many occasions, as has Senator Feingold. This is a

State Department document that came out right after 9/11, showed

where al-Qaeda was. Not in Iraq, no way, not one cell. Not one cell

in Iraq.

But instead of going after Osama bin Laden who attacked us,

keeping it clear, keeping the world together, going after terrorism,

we turn around on a dime and we go into a place where our own

State Department said there wasn’t one al-Qaeda cell. And the

President still said Iraq is part of the war on terror, and he said

it at the time, and the fact is, the terrorists moved in there after

we went in there, because we became real fuel for the insurgency.

We are sitting ducks. We’re losing. I read today that yesterday

we lost another five Americans, Mr. Chairman. About 23 to 25 percent of the people we’ve lost over there, of our military are either

45

from California or based in California. It’s extremely painful. I

think the war in Iraq is a gift to Osama bin Laden, and it’s a gift

that keeps on giving every day that we are there. It’s fueling the

recruitment of terror groups, the more we get bogged down. And

as I said, now al-Qaeda in Iraq is there, and they’re responsible for

10 percent of the violence there, the most heinous violence.

So I have a question here about a comment by Peter Bergen, and

I’m going to address it to Dr. Hoffman. Peter Bergen, as you all

know, I think most of you know, is an expert on terrorism. He said,

‘‘What we’ve done in Iraq is what bin Laden could not have hoped

for in his wildest dreams.’’ This is all his quote. ‘‘We invaded an

oil-rich Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very

type of imperial adventure bin Laden has long predicted was the

United States’ long-term goal in the region.’’

Dr. Hoffman, do you agree with Peter Bergen that the war in

Iraq played right into the hands of Osama bin Laden and those

who are twisting the Muslim religion to benefit the war on terror?

Dr. HOFFMAN. Yes, I do. Certainly in bin Laden’s seminal

thoughts, which I referred to in my testimony, that was issued in

August 1996, in fact in the last pages he predicted that the United

States and the United Kingdom would use Saudi Arabia as a base

to wage a predatory and aggressive campaign against Islam, with

the intention of taking over the Muslims’ most precious natural resource, the oil in the region. So in some respects he was cuing this

up long before it occurred.

The reason though I agree with Peter is that there was an enormous change in al-Qaeda’s propaganda in February and early

March 2003, where the more ideological statements that appeared

on alneda.com, its principal Internet organ then, were replaced by

actual clarion calls to battle, calling upon jihadis to converge on

Iraq to resist this latest instance of Western aggression; not to prop

up Saddam Hussein but rather to use this as an opportunity, I

think an opportunity that they had lost because of their defeat in

Afghanistan, to confront United States forces and to use suicide

terrorist tactics and other means. So certainly I think it did play

into his hands, that this was one of the battlefields that he sought

to create.

By the same token, though, I think today we are in an enormously difficult situation where immediate withdrawal is not a solution, because this would indeed also play into his hands, in the

sense that this would be trumpeted, much like the withdrawal of

the Soviet Union from Afghanistan in 1989, as yet another victory

for the jihadi terrorists, and indeed perhaps even add more fuel to

the fire in their aggressive intentions.

Senator BOXER. Well, you have said it well. The worst leadership—you didn’t say this—to me the worst leadership is when you

have no good choices. You know, as a mom I always learned from

the child psychologists that you give your kids three good choices

before—you know, you say, ‘‘You can either go to bed at 8:00, 8:15,

or 8:30.’’ You know, they are all good choices.

Well, we don’t have a good choice. Either we leave and cut our

losses, or we stay, continue our losses, because we’re not sure

what’s going to happen. It could be used as propaganda and the

rest. That’s a debate that we’re having here every single day and

46

every single minute, really, within the parties and across party

lines. But to me the fact is, you never can forget why you’re in this

situation if you’re going to be able to have better policies in the future.

I have one last question, if I might. You have been so kind and

generous, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate it.

You know, again on the dilemma that you pose, get out or stay,

I was thinking the other day, if each of us picture ourselves in a

room with a swarm of bees, and the door is shut and we’re in the

room, and we have insecticide to spray that doesn’t work too well

but it helps a little bit, we have a newspaper to swat, and then we

have the door we could open and get out, I think that reminds me

of where we are. However, I do think closing the door is the best

option. You could figure out how to deal with the situation once

you’re safely out of the room.

But again, I’m not asking about that because you fortunately

don’t have to vote on those kind of issues. I do. And you don’t have

to write the letters that I write every day—every day—the condolences. So that’s where we are.

So I want to go back to public opinion, Mr. Kohut. You found,

in a global opinion poll released last month, that favorable views

of the United States continue to drop throughout the world—

throughout the world. According to your report, ‘‘America’s global

image has again slipped, and support for the war on terror has declined even among close United States allies like Japan. The war

in Iraq is a continuing drag on opinions of the United States, not

only in predominantly Muslim countries but in Europe and in Asia

as well.’’

I want to ask you first, do you think—you mentioned the war in

Iraq. If you were to—I know it’s hard for you to do this—put a percentage as to how much of a role the war in Iraq has played in that

opinion, and while you’re thinking about this, also, do the people

in the world know that Americans don’t really agree with this administration on Iraq?

Because in March, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll of

Americans in which respondents were asked to give a one-word impression of the situation in Iraq. This is in our own country. According to the poll, the words ‘‘mess,’’ ‘‘bad,’’ ‘‘chaos,’’ ‘‘terrible,’’ and

‘‘disaster’’ were offered most frequently, along with such variants

as ‘‘hopeless,’’ ‘‘pitiful,’’ ‘‘Vietnam,’’ and ‘‘out of control.’’

So do you think the people throughout the world are distinguishing between the American Government’s policy in Iraq and

the American people and their views? Hard questions, I know.

Mr. KOHUT. Well, I think that probably in the Muslim world that

distinction is not being made. There is more convergence between

anti-Americanism toward the government and not liking the American people in the Muslim world than elsewhere. Perhaps in Europe there is a greater sense, or among our allies more generally

there is a greater sense that there is discontent with the war, although attitudes toward the war in the United States, as you

know, remain highly partisan. There is not discontent with the war

among Republicans. It’s mostly among Democrats and Independents.

47

So I think the answer is a mixed one to your second question.

As to your first question, I would give you the two headlines. In

2002, before the war in Iraq, our headline was that there is growing dislike of the United States around the world and discontent

with the United States, but there’s still a reserve of goodwill toward the United States all around the world, outside of the Muslim

world. A headline in May of 2003, when things were really going

pretty well in Iraq, was that the U.S. image has plummeted all

around the world, and it pretty much hasn’t recovered. There have

been some ups and downs.

A lot of what we were writing about this year was the fact that

the progress we had seen in some places last year had slipped

back, in Indonesia, in India, in Russia, for example. But, you know,

the war in Iraq is the 800-pound gorilla with respect to the image

of the United States around the world, but perceptions of America’s

policies with respect to Israel and Palestine, the Israeli-Palestine

dispute is the 800-pound gorilla in that realm of the world.

And I wanted to react to the comment you made with respect to

Dr. Khan’s comment. I think whether the United States has abandoned Lebanon or not, that is probably the perception in the Muslim world today, because in the Muslim world so many people

think, even in places like Kuwait where the United States still has

a good image, that we unfairly support Israel. So I would think

that in that dispute, I would think that what’s bad for Israel, what

makes Israel look bad in that world among the public, makes us,

the United States, look bad.

Senator BOXER. Well, I was heartened to hear some Lebanese

saying that it’s time Hezbollah got out, and when you look back at

the assassination of Hariri, maybe that was a turning point, too.

So I think it’s a little more complex than just as simply as you lay

it out there.

But, Mr. Chairman, I so appreciate this hearing. I know it’s not

well-attended because of so many competing things going on, but

I just have learned a lot, and I so appreciate this panel and your

indulgence. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Senator Boxer. I

share your enthusiasm for this panel and the timeliness of the

hearing. I appreciate so much your presence.

Senator BOXER. It would have been a little more lonely for you,

I know.

The CHAIRMAN. Exactly, and we’re grateful. And I would just say

that Senator Boxer is a regular attendee at our hearings, but nevertheless has, as I do, an intense interest in the issues that we

have before us this morning.

Let me begin my questioning by noting that the Aspen Institute,

among other good things that it does, has a congressional program,

and a study program following 9/11 proceeded to try to bring some

instruction to Members of Congress, Senate and House, about

Islam. This is sort of basic training for many of us, and this is

achieved through breakfast meetings here in the Capitol and likewise through conferences in other countries. So recently we had, at

least several of us, 17 as I recall, were in Istanbul for a conference

that brought together people from the area as well as scholars from

the United States and our own resources.

48

Now, during these conferences, you mentioned, as I recall, Dr.

Ahmed, Karen Armstrong as one of the authors whom you were

recommending, and she has participated in our conferences, as

have other scholars that you would recognize, and that has been

helpful. Whenever any of their books arise, we are alert because we

have heard the persons, have had some dialog, in the presence of

people who had a variety of Muslim experiences, and that has been

important. That’s a point that you have made, Dr. Khan, as well

as you, Dr. Ahmed.

Let me just say that having said that, one of the themes of the

early conferences came down to this thought, whether it’s a 200-

year separation and problem or whatever the time frame, that the

Industrial Revolution proceeded in Europe and did not proceed, at

least in the same form, in the Muslim world; that essentially Europeans, because of the modernity or what have you that came from

the Industrial Revolution, gained wealth, gained substantial capital, and that did not occur in many states in the Middle East.

And, furthermore, there were different developments in attitudes

toward women. In the most stark sense, Europeans would say we

utilized the total work force, and in some Arab and Muslim states

people would say we used half of the work force; women were not

a part of this. Now, that overgeneralizes the situation, but nevertheless there were very stark differences in attitude.

So, as a result, at the end of the day, whether this is for good

or for bad, a number of countries that appear to be in the West,

in Europe, leaving aside the United States, appear to be doing reasonably well, and a lot of young people coming up in the Middle

East do not appear to be doing very well, and they don’t have very

much hope of doing very well under the current circumstances.

Now, whether that is the basis for problems or not, the fact is

that into this picture about 60 years ago—we have learned in other

hearings in this committee in which we have discussed energy to

a fair-the-well—the United States and Saudi Arabia got together

during the Franklin Roosevelt administration. We had mutual interests, and among them, perhaps paramount, was oil and the possibilities that that had for us and for Europe, and ultimately for

Japan and for others who were in industrial situations.

There was not necessarily a pact between the two countries, the

United States and Saudi Arabia, or any other particular country,

but nevertheless it was fairly well understood that those lines of

oil were vital to us, as well as the income to the rulers of Saudi

Arabia, and as a result we began to take steps to make certain that

that continued. One could make a case that when we became heavily involved with the Shahs of Iran we had similar thoughts, but

in any event we were involved.

Now, this maybe, for many in Congress became more acute as

Iraq invaded Kuwait, and there were prospects that that invasion

might proceed right on into Saudi Arabia, into the oil fields there,

quite apart from what was occurring in Kuwait. And President

Bush, the first President Bush, talked about pushing back aggression. We sought United Nations support to do that.

We also sent as many as 500,000 American troops into the area.

We were the only country that could do that, and it was one of the

first manifestations of that essential point in world politics, that

49

the United States alone really had that transporting quality, that

mobility to tackle difficult problems, and that was one we decided

to tackle. The Saudis, after some deliberation, decided that they

would like for us to come to their defense and we, in fact, began

to put a good number of troops in Saudi Arabia.

Now, after the war, the troops stayed in Saudi Arabia. Some who

have testified before our committee, perhaps in less comprehensive

form, have indicated that this is not necessarily when we caught

the attention of Osama bin Laden. His own history has been a

source of considerable interest to the committee from time to time,

his earlier beginnings, his work in African states, his work moving

through many states, and his relationship with family in Saudi

Arabia, for that matter.

The question that I have for all four of you to begin with is a

major part of the American predicament, leaving aside any other

country, the fact that there is considerable strategic resentment—

not simply overall public relations problems but strategic resentment—of American military forces in the area who appear to be

there, if not on a permanent basis, at least readily available to get

there, given the mobility of modern means, and who have in fact

been there on a permanent basis in one form or another, despite

destruction of barracks in Saudi Arabia, movement of troops to

more secure locations in the course of time, all sorts of allegations

as to who really was responsible, whether Iranians were involved,

quite apart from persons in the al-Qaeda movement, or indigenous

Saudi forces, whoever. This has been a part of our predicament, if

not a major part. The United States has a reliance upon oil in that

area, as does the rest of the world, and the rest of the world depends upon us to maintain the flow.

As a matter of fact, when for example, 2 months or so ago there

was a rumor that terrorist forces, whoever they were, were coming

down the road toward a refinery in Saudi Arabia that reportedly

produces 13 percent of refined oil in any one day, in which the

world has maybe a 2 percent discrepancy between supply and demand, so the knocking out of that sent chaos into the Western

world, the good news was, the terrorists were stopped, whoever

they were. The Saudis indicated they had security there, but there

was a shakeup. Prices of oil spiked. In other words, there was a

recognition by the rest of the world that life as we know it in industrial Europe, Japan, and the United States wouldn’t come to an

end but it would be severely dislocated.

So, as a result, armed forces are required to try to maintain

these supply lines. Is there any hope for the reconciliation we’re

talking about today, or movement, so long as this energy need remains and the United States finds it incumbent to be present to

protect our interests and those of others?

I would just add that the first George Bush financed the Kuwait/

Desert Storm situation through a vast international United Way

campaign. I happened to be with the President of the United States

at that time when he got a call which was vital from the Prime

Minister of Japan, informing the President of the first very generous contribution of Japan to this effort, which was followed by

several more generous contributions. I really saw diplomacy at

work in that way.

50

Is there, I ask first of you, Dr. Hoffman, a way for reconciliation,

goodwill, a better opinion of everybody, quite apart from al-Qaeda

being on the march or not on the march, while we are there and

while there are vital interests that we feel we need to protect, as

well as, for example, Saudi friends?

Dr. HOFFMAN. Well, you know, your question is an excellent one

and it’s obviously a very complex one. I think you’re right, though,

that at least historically—we’ve been examining early al-Qaeda

documents at RAND now for the better part of a year—it seems

quite clear that bin Laden was no friend of the United States from

his formative period in Afghanistan, but it was really the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that was something of a fulminate.

But I think it remained in the back of his mind until Saddam

Hussein invaded Kuwait and we had the massive build-up, which

on the one hand he thought the United States would never leave

the region. On the other hand he also thought, as you were zeroing

in on, that this was part of a United States policy to extract from

Muslims undervalued oil resources and energy resources, and this

became one of his points of contention against the United States.

I think the flash point for his turn to international or global terrorism was the influence of Ayman al-Zawahiri, his No. 2, who is

an Egyptian, head of an Egyptian Islamic jihad terrorist group,

where he at least began to formulate this concept of a far and a

near enemy. And I think it was the failure of al-Zawahiri’s group

to overthrow the Mubarak regime in Egypt in the early 1990s that

influenced bin Laden: Let’s not deal with the near enemy, the local

powers that the United States props up and supports, but let’s

move to the puppet master in the back, and that focused on the

United States.

In responding to your question, I’m not an energy specialist at

all, but I think you’re hitting an important nail on the head. And

that is, we tend to look at all of these movements as monolithic,

and we indeed buy, I think, the terrorist propaganda that they

have a united, undivided front directed against us, when in fact I

think very much the opposite is the truth, that they are subject to

the same divisions, especially the same very acute personality rivalries. I believe Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s rivalry with bin Laden

and al-Zawahiri is an example of this.

And I think that we’re not as sensitive as we should be, largely

as my colleagues on the panel have argued, that because there is,

I think, a large amount of our attitude toward the Middle East and

toward the Muslim world that’s based on conjecture rather than on

a deep knowledge, and therefore without this deep knowledge, this

understanding, not just in detail, of our adversary, which I think

in this conflict is amongst the poorest we have ever faced.

In Vietnam, for example, we encountered many frustrations, but

one thing, it cannot be said of the United States effort that we did

not understand our adversary in the National Liberation Front, the

Vietcong. There were detailed studies and interviews with thousands of Vietcong detainees, so we built up a very clear picture, not

just of how they operated and functioned and recruited but of the

divisions within their ranks, and then we could direct very, I think,

finely calibrated and effective information operations and propaganda to drive even a wider wedge.

51

So I think on the one hand we haven’t taken advantage of this

same opportunity with many of the detainees we have in the war

on terrorism and in Iraq to really understand our adversary. And

I think, as we’ve heard from my three colleagues on the panel, we

fundamentally don’t understand the constituency in the Middle

East, in the Muslim world, who we need to appeal to, who we need

to enlist in the struggle, and rather in recent years we have inadvertently, perhaps, alienated.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just pick up with Dr. Khan for a moment

this point from Dr. Hoffman’s testimony. You made a very valid

point, for instance with the Karen Hughes operation, that she was

not able to identify the Muslims on the staff. Perhaps they were

not conspicuous or high up enough.

But it’s a more basic problem than that that Karen Hughes has.

We, it seems to me, are hamstrung, as we have heard in these

hearings, by our own problems of trying to identify people of any

of the Muslim situations who are seen as reliable by our Government, to the point for example that if Osama bin Laden were intercepted by the United States on a tape, on cell phone, it is always

a question of who would be able to translate what he had to say.

Would we know really what the conversation was? Is the data mining sufficient finally, and are there enough people with language

ability, interpreters, to try to fathom through this?

Now, we get conflicting testimony. People say, ‘‘Well, you have to

understand, we do background checks for people involved in intelligence or public relations and so forth, and there are difficult aspects to these background checks. We find unusual people coming

into the lives of these people, and therefore what kind of reliance

can you put on this sort of thing?’’ It’s a circular thing that goes

round and round, through perhaps an ignorance of all the nuances

here.

As somebody who has studied this perhaps more carefully than

most, how do we begin to get some basis for enlisting people of

Muslim faith, moderate or not, who are eager to play a role in the

United States Government, to be able to assist us in whatever we

are doing now?

Dr. KHAN. Thank you very much. There is a very interesting dilemma that intelligence agencies and the U.S. Government has,

and that dilemma is that the most interesting people that will be

most useful for the government are people who have interesting

contacts back home.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Dr. KHAN. And they are the people that the government suspects

the most.

The CHAIRMAN. Interesting histories.

Dr. KHAN. Yes, so we need people who know radical Islamists,

who know people who can call up Lebanon and find out whether

the Lebanese army is supporting Hezbollah or not. The kind of person who can find that thing out for us is also the kind of person

we would like to send to Guantanamo.

Now, that is the whole dilemma for the U.S. Government as to

how to resolve this, and I heard that there are going to be changes

at the Central Intelligence Agency on recruitment. It’s coming

52

down the pipeline. Unfortunately, we have bureaucratic and legal

issues which take a long time to come.

But there are also several other issues. I think that U.S.-Muslim

relationships have been corrupted by oil to a great extent. It is like

dating an exceptionally beautiful person, and what happens is that

the physical beauty distracts from all the other qualities of the person. So when we started dating the Middle East, we only focused

on oil. We have never seen them as human beings.

The United States has had more closer diplomatic relations with

Saudi Arabia than with Israel, but there are no people-to-people relations between the people of Saudi Arabia and the American people. And this whole idea of looking at Islam and even American

Muslims through the lens of the Middle East has created invisible

barriers.

American Muslims, too, made a big mistake when they became

politically active in this country and started trying to participate

in this policy. They made the goal of reducing the influence of the

Israeli lobby as one of their most important goals, and making the

Palestinian cause as their No. 1 goal. It’s like a flyweight boxer

taking on a heavyweight boxer in their first bout. And as a result

of that, the American Muslim community has not been able to approach the government, and has remained a challenge and a critique and not a participant.

And these are the two reasons why, when Karen Hughes comes

into this position, she does not know whom to hire and whom not

to. I took her with me to the Islamic Society of North America, and

there she made this very interesting comment. She said, ‘‘You have

more credibility than I have in the Muslim world.’’ And then she

proceeded to travel to the Muslim world without any Muslims with

her on the whole tour. And so I went on radio and I said, ‘‘Madam,

you left your credibility behind.’’ And this is——

The CHAIRMAN. She left you behind, Dr. Khan.

Dr. KHAN. No. There are two other comments that I wanted to

add about your previous question to Dr. Hoffman. I think beyond

the Iraq issue there are two or three very clear issues which alienate Muslims from America.

Muslims and Third World countries have always admired America because America in their mind is a colony that made it big, a

British colony that made it big. So can India, so can Egypt. So everybody looked up to the United States as a role model for development. But what has happened beyond Iraq, and keeping the Iraq

issue aside, is there are three things which have created a lot of

resentment against America.

No. 1, Muslims tried in two different ways to develop in the last

50 years. One model was socialism, and it led to dictators like

Nassir and Saddam Hussein, and so socialism failed them. The

other alternative was Islamization, which never really got going because Muslims have seen the United States as a barrier to

Islamization and therefore a barrier to development and modernization.

No. 2 is the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab-Israeli conflict has

been a source of pain, misery, and humiliation to Muslims all over

the place, and that is really important to Muslims. While I was

coming for this hearing, a Somalian cab driver was lecturing me on

53

how I would be betraying Islam if I did not raise the Arab-Israeli

issue in this Senate hearing, and so I am not betraying Islam.

[Laughter.]

No. 3, there is this perception in the Muslim world that the

United States now is determined to keep the Muslim world weak,

and therefore, while it looks the other way when Israel has nuclear

weapons, it’s determined to go after Iran which does not have nuclear weapons and prevent it.

So these three perceptions—and it has not to do much with oil,

actually—these three perceptions have created a sense of resentment, and I think that there are two things that America can do

to reverse this. One is to have a just solution to the Arab-Israeli

conflict just now, as quickly as possible. The other is to develop a

respect. We need to develop human-to-human contact. People have

to know.

When I travel through the Muslim world and listen to a lot of

anti-Americanism, I start by saying this. I say, ‘‘Did you know that

last year Americans gave over $250 billion in charity, in sadaqah,

which is nearly twice the annual income of Saudi Arabia?’’ That

stuns them. It completely deconstructs their perception of Americans as immoral, because giving charity is a great, great value in

Islam. It changes the way they think. They need to know the softer

side of America, and so does America need to know the softer side

of Muslims. Oil and Israel prevent us from doing that.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, maybe they do, and I suppose my first

question was a suggestion that they do, but for the moment it’s not

really clear to me how we get away from the oil. This is sort of a

passionate cause of my own, and I will not bedraggle the hearing

with this, because I think without a very sharp diminishment of

the use of oil in this country, we are fated to have the sort of problems we’re talking about today indefinitely, and this is simply a

fact of life.

As a matter of fact, we have been through the process of talking

about Ukraine and Russia and European business with natural

gas, but the facts of life increasingly are the strategic use of oil. As

Iran becomes more wealthy, leaving aside the Saudis or anybody

else, it creates very grave dilemmas for us.

Now, on the other hand, we have a strategic alliance with Israel,

an affinity there that is important to most Americans and is not

going to go away, not going to diminish. So we make the case

again, and perhaps we will have the wisdom for a peace process,

for cease-fires, for some diminishment of this, and we all pray that

that’s the case almost every day, but how, factually, that comes

about is hard to come by.

We started our day in the committee hosting the Egyptian

Foreign Minister and other ministers that are here for talks on

strategy with the United States, and they were tremendously interesting with their insights on the cease-fire or how you begin to separate the parties in Lebanon, quite apart from Syria, quite apart

from anyplace else. We always are eager to get advice, but I came

away from that meeting not sure if these are problems with regard

to public opinion. Beyond that there are simply the emotions; we

separate ourselves very rapidly.

54

Now maybe, as you have suggested, Dr. Khan, if our generosity

to countries was more apparent it would have a greater effect. Mr.

Kohut has mentioned Indonesia looking a little better, at least

those parts of it, I suppose, that were helped after the tsunami,

and that would be true in Pakistan, where relief came to people up

in the mountains. Clearly, if we were more adept at our public diplomacy—as you have suggested, our generosity to other places in

the Middle East has been profound, and so the word needs to get

out. We need to be better at this.

But I keep circling around sort of basic problems that are in the

way of all of this resolving itself very rapidly.

Dr. KHAN. Let me give you a small suggestion, like for example,

who is going to rebuild Lebanon? Do we wait until Iran provides

some funding to reconstruct Lebanon? A decision by the United

States now to say that once there is cease-fire and Hezbollah is either dismantled or moved away, further away, so they cannot

threaten northern Israel, the United States will be willing to reconstruct the damage that Israel made in Lebanon——

The CHAIRMAN. That’s probably a good idea, but let me just ask

as a matter of practical politics, to any of you, who in the world

is governing Lebanon at this point? Even if we were to make these

pledges, where is there a government that has enough profound influence throughout all of the precincts of Lebanon that any American statesperson, contractor, soldier, or what have you would be

safe in the place?

In other words, as I listened to the Egyptians talking today about

rockets in the houses of people in Lebanon, up and down the street

and so forth, being utilized by the powers that be that are firing

at the Israelis and so forth, I’m not sure, who are the Lebanese?

Where is the governance, and where do the Syrians come into this?

Are they out of it? Are they into it? Should they be back into it?

In other words, I think your point is well taken, but trying to

separate all of the parties here so that we have at least some possibility of doing good is not really clear in my mind. Can anybody

else offer some clarity as to how?

Ambassador AHMED. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to make a

comment related to the discussion.

You not only have Lebanon. Turkey has issued a statement that

it is now looking at the Kurdish incursions into Turkey and seriously considering going in. India and Pakistan are once again heating up in terms of the rhetoric between the two countries, the two

giants, both nuclear, three wars between them.

What Iraq has established is a precedent, and that is so dangerous. The United States in this situation, as the sole superpower,

needs to be acting, needs to be thinking three steps before something takes place, rather than reacting. It just cannot afford, it is

too big. It is the oil tanker in a small pond.

Now, the situation is that you have got Iraq, you have Iran,

Syria being involved, Iran being involved. And in my travels I discovered that a lot of Sunnis—and this is an important nuance in

the Muslim world, the Shia-Sunni nuance—a lot of Sunnis were referring to Ahmadinejad as the role model. Now, why? Osama bin

Laden, who is a Sunni, is understandable. Simply because he is

standing up to the United States.

55

So the United States needs to be aware of the trend and move

ahead of the trend, the graph itself. It cannot wait for events. It

cannot say, ‘‘Let us see what is happening in Lebanon.’’ Because

Turkey may be involved soon. Suppose India now says, ‘‘All right,

cross-border terrorism, we are crossing into Pakistan.’’ Pakistan is

165 million people, it’s nuclear. It will tilt everything that you’re

doing in that part of the world.

So putting it in the context of the Middle East, and I know that

this is a major concern, the oil and the oil links, and Central Asia,

both major oil producing zones where the United States does not

have the option of cutting and running, it just doesn’t, but it does

have the option of changing strategy, of playing the game by the

rules as they are played in that part of the world, what the British,

if you recall, called the ‘‘great game.’’

That part of the world has seen all the great conquerors coming

and going, from Alexander to Genghis Khan. We have now the

United States Army there, the most powerful army in the world

today. What are the rules there? You need to make allies who respect you. You need to have a word which is respected.

Right now there is a feeling, even in the close allies that you

have, apart from the governments who may be allies, and I don’t

know how loyalty would be if aid stopped, but the people certainly

feel that the United States is a fair weather friend, that when policy changes they’ll just dump you and walk away, as the Afghans

felt.

In the 1980s, the Afghans were the most loyal allies of the

United States. They fought the war with the United States against

the Soviets. One-third of the Afghan population has lost a limb.

They were the freedom fighters. In the 1990s, they became the

Taliban. Bin Laden is of that generation and from that school, if

you like. So the need to keep allies and friends and recognize them,

to play a long-term game, these are the rules of the great game.

And, third, to learn to play the game through the culture of

honor and respect and tradition, because if we don’t honor people,

they have the stories of rape. That is crossing the border. And then

this talk of jihadists, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, is meaningless.

Every Muslim, whether he is orthodox or secular or mystic, is horrified, as indeed is every good Christian or every good Jew, every

good secularist even, when rape is committed of the kind that you

are hearing emerging from these horror stories.

So if we are conscious of the great game, if our soldiers abroad,

diplomats abroad are realizing that this is a long-term game strategy, we cannot opt out of it, because if we pull out, there is a huge

vacuum in the Middle East, Central Asia. Think about it, Mr.

Chairman. You have two other local superpowers waiting to

emerge, Russia and China, both who have played the game for the

last two centuries, imperial Russia, imperial China.

And in the 21st century, two decades, three decades down the

road, if America is not aware of the game, playing by its strange

rules there—they are playing cricket, you are playing baseball, different kinds of rules—and if you cut and run, you may have a situation where in this vacuum you will get powers that may not be

friendly to interests that the United States represents. And to me,

ultimately what the United States does represent is human rights,

56

democracy, the ideals of the Founding Fathers. That is the vision

and the dream we constantly need to come back to and share with

the Muslim world. That message, that bridge is not coming across,

and that needs to be reinforced.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that statement because it certainly

is important in terms of the debate we’re having in this country,

which you witnessed. We have a fairly large percentage of the public and a fair number of Members of Congress who, as a matter of

fact, wouldn’t call it cutting and running, but they want to get out.

They would say despite all the obligations you have suggested,

even the possibilities of a vacuum being created with Russia and

China and all the rest, that as far as they’re concerned we have

had enough. People don’t like us. They are attempting to subvert

whatever we have to do, distorting what we believe we are, and

they ought to just proceed, do the best they can.

Now, I don’t think that side will prevail but I’m not overconfident. In part, a number of our congressional elections, in which

all of us will be involved in 16 weeks, are on these sorts of issues

in which things are polarized just around those points, so that

what we’re talking about today does have long-run circumstances,

but it also has some short-term volatility in our own politics, leaving aside whatever is happening in the Middle East.

Let me just ask you, Mr. Kohut, you’ve been pondering over all

of this argument for a while, but we would like your counsel as to

what you have heard.

Mr. KOHUT. Well, one thing that’s clear is that of all the things

that you mentioned in your set of questions, that the war in Iraq

has made all of this worse. It has poisoned the well. I don’t think

that, while Osama bin Laden and his ilk had issues with Americans on the ground in Saudi Arabia through the 1990s, that certainly—I shouldn’t say certainly—probably wasn’t the case in the

Muslim world at large. It wasn’t the case in Turkey, where we had

a very positive image. It wasn’t the case in Jordan and in other

places.

I think, though, that the presence of American troops in Iraq

raises the issue of Americans in the Middle East, and that makes

the American presence there more broadly more of an issue. Similarly, while as Dr. Khan said we were seen as dating for purposes

of oil, oil is even more—there is even more skepticism about our

motives and intentions because of the war in Iraq.

All of these things have just become worse, and increasingly

what we see in, I’m not saying the Arab world, the Muslim world,

is an us-versus-them phenomenon. And one of the ways that came

through is when we did our poll earlier this year about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, there was tremendous opposition to that idea

in the West and most parts of the world, but not really tremendous

opposition among Iran’s Sunni neighbors. In Egypt, in Jordan,

there was mixed opinion, in some respects, for it.

It’s a very, very negative situation that will require some dramatic success for the United States in the eyes of the Muslim

publics, and what that is I don’t know.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we very much appreciate your testimony

and your response to our questions, and we will try to make as

complete a committee record of this hearing as we can, because you

57

have said things that are important for all of our colleagues, and

perhaps the public as a whole that takes a look at these hearings

through the benefit of C–SPAN or however. These are important

moments for us, to try to concentrate on what you have to say and

to reread it, and to try to think about some of the other sources

that you have cited.

So this will not be our concluding hearing on this subject. This

is an education process, as I have indicated, for each one of us who

needs to know more, needs to be visiting with people such as yourselves, as you are able to give us this time. We certainly thank you

for your generosity this morning.

So saying, the hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

Æ