The Thistle and the Drone: a Comment
By The Rev Carol Flett
Washington DC
Since September 11, 2001, Professor Akbar Ahmed has made successful efforts to explain Islam to America. In addition to his many speaking engagements and serving as the Chair of Islamic Studies at American University’s School of International Service in Washington, DC, Dr Ahmed has taught at Princeton, Harvard, and Cambridge Universities. He has published two previous books in his trilogy on past, present and future relations between America and the Islamic world. His most recent book, ‘The Thistle and the Drone - how America’s war on terror became a global war on tribal Islam,’ is the essential missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle in the US war on terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen - advocating using anthropology to understand the people and the history of the tension between their strong central governments and the tribal Islamic societies living on the periphery and why it is best to work with the tribes, instead of destroying them, to resolve the conflicts and eliminate terrorists. “More than a decade after 9/11, the experts have failed to understand Muslim tribal societies, and therefore, the problems persist.” p. 318
Professor Ahmed knows what he teaches and writes about tribal Islam. His expertise in the tribes living in remote areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan is based in experience, earning his PhD in anthropology with a thesis that studied the tribes of Waziristan, the very area of Pakistan that was the target of post-9/11 bombings. The findings of this recent study of the effects of drones over tribal areas of many parts of the world, contained in his latest book, should be included in strategic military and political thinking on new approaches to winning the war on terror.
The book describes how the use of drones and other violent approaches to winning the war on terror are actually generating more enemies of the US and destroying the trust and respect that tribal societies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and other nations once had in America. “For its Muslim targets, the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) .... means death, destruction, disinformation, deceit and despair.... By appropriating the powers of God through the drone, in their capacity to see and not be seen and deliver death without warning, trial or judgment, Americans were by definition blasphemous.” p. 2
I found it troubling to read this book about the use of drones, a high-tech weapon that can suddenly eliminate a human target, presumed to be an anti-American terrorist, but which also, unfortunately, kills adjacent civilians, while the US government and its citizens are debating proposed gun regulations that would limit civilian access to high-tech assault rifles that also rapidly kill innocent people before they have a chance to defend themselves or flee to safety. What is the ethical difference? Neither weapon seems justified. Has the US diminished its concern for universal human rights in order to secure its own safety? How far can the US extend its citizen’s and military’s right to bear arms in self-defense?
As an Episcopal priest with more than a decade of experience with interfaith dialogue between Jews, Christians and Muslims, I have read the widely available misinformation about Islam; heard, first-hand, the increasing fears and prejudice toward Muslims from my non-Muslim friends and neighbors; and heard, first-hand, the increasing fears of American Muslims and visitors from Muslim-majority countries toward Americans and US foreign policy. So I was not surprised to read the findings of Professor Ahmed’s study of the destructive effect that drones have on tribal Muslim societies and their low opinion of Americans. These Islamic tribes are inadvertently being destroyed in an effort to eliminate suspected terrorists living within or near them. After the attacks on 9/11, like most Americans, I was angry and wanted to bring the perpetrators to justice. I was afraid and wanted my government to protect my family from terrorists. But as a priest, I continue to be concerned about the moral foundations of this war on terror. Is it a “just war”?
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. Self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause, and our leaders are morally and constitutionally obligated to protect US citizens, if necessary, through force. But the weapons used in a just war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. Professor Ahmed’s study and professional experience in these tribal areas advocates the use of anthropology - building relationships with tribal leaders as a non-violent means of winning the war on terror. As Prof. Ahmed states, “The United States will fight a cleaner, clearer, stronger and more successful war if it understands the causes and dynamics of the war and remains true to the ideals defined by its Founding Fathers: human rights, civil liberties, knowledge, justice, and democracy for all.” p.327
In support of this unique approach to the war on terror, Admiral Eric Olson, in charge of the SEALS, commented in a meeting in early 2011 on future relations between the United States and Muslim tribal societies, “We don’t know them, and they don’t know us. We generally don’t speak their languages, we don’t understand their histories, we don’t know their families, we don’t know how work is done, we don’t know how money is made, we don’t know all the nuances, we don’t know the effects of climate, terrain, religion, culture in these regions.” p. 323
What the military needed, Olsen suggested, were figures like T.E. Lawrence, the British soldier who successfully rallied the Arab tribes against the Ottoman rule. Professor Ahmed sees the potential to build bridges of relationship between the Muslim tribal societies and their central governments, and with the United States. “For Panetta, the civilian, the war on terror is about exterminating the enemy; for Olson, the admiral, it is about understanding the society in which the enemy resides and building bridges and alliances in order to reduce the threat to America and promote its interests.” p. 325
Professor Ahmed’s study suggests the ethical approach to winning any war, and a just war - understand the history, anthropology, religion and values of the people with whom the US is seeking peace. Unlimited, indefensible violence begets enemies and further violence.
(The Rev. Dr Carol Flett, Ecumenical and Inter-religious Officer for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, DC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Pakistanlink Homepage
