Calling All Pakistanis (December 3, 2008)

The theme of this column is that Moslems worldwide (there are about 1.25 billion) should be as outraged by the terrorist attacks on Mumbai as they were by the Danish cartoons that had satirized Muhammad. Friedman states that Moslems should demonstrate massively, even at the risk of death, and that these protests will cause an end to terrorism against India from Pakistan.
First of all, many Moslems are outraged by the attack; an opinion poll would need to be taken, but Friedman implies that none are because there haven’t been any massive demonstrations against it. Second, this instance of terrorism is as much or more political than it is religious, although the two are closely linked. According to the Wall Street Journal of Dec. 3, “Lashkar-e-Taiba [the extremist group India believes is responsible]…initially focused on fighting the Indian army in…Kashmir. Over the years, it has expanded its cause into the rest of India and aims to establish Islamic rule.” Third, Lashkar-e-Taiba is well armed, and if Pakistanis were to demonstrate against it, they would risk getting killed. For Friedman to tell Moslems that they should protest even if their lives would be at risk is the height of arrogant, double-standard presumptuousness at best. (I’m curious: would Friedman advise Jews to demonstrate against some Israeli action or policy, say the 2006 air bombing campaign against Lebanon in which over 1000 civilians were killed, even if they risked dying? Should Christians have protested against US actions and inactions vis-à-vis Iraq, which have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?) Finally, even if there were massive demonstrations against the Mumbai attack, why would this stop Lashkar-e-Taiba (see below for more on this point)?
As he tries to make his case, there are a number of statements in the column that are wrong or ridiculous. Examples:
1) If Hindu terrorists committed a similar act of terrorism against Moslems in Pakistan, “[t]he entire Muslim world would be aflame and in the streets.” Friedman is so omniscient that he can predict what 1.25 billion Moslems would do. Actually, according to the Wall Street Journal of Dec. 6/7, “…the the hand of the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party; see footnote below] lies behind some of the worst communal riots in independent India, for example Bhagalpur in 1989, Mumbai in 1992, and Gujarat in 2002; in all cases, an overwhelmingly majority of the victims were Muslims.” Friedman’s assertion with 100% certainty of what Muslims would do was thus pulled out of thin air.
2) While he correctly says that the Pakistani government is weak, he completely misses the likelihood that it has gotten weaker. I think that under civilian president Zardari, the ISI (Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence Agency) probably is less answerable to the leader of the country than under General Musharraf. What is the connection between the ISI and Lashkar-e-Taiba? Friedman goes on to say that “for now [my italics on his weasel words], no official connection between the terrorists and elements of the Pakistani security services has been uncovered.” But according to the Wall St. Journal of Dec. 3, “India claims [Lashkar-e-Taiba] enjoys support from elements of the Pakistani intelligence agency. Pakistan denied that and outlawed the organization in 2002, but has done little to curtail its operations.” On Dec. 4, the New York Times reported that “[t]hough officially banned, the group has hidden in plain sight for years. It has a long history of ties to Pakistan’s intelligence agencies.” In addition, “[a]ccording to Western intelligence officials, Lashkar was formed in 1989 with the assistance of Pakistan’s powerful InterServices Intelligence agency…Critics of the ISI in Pakistan maintain that the Pakistani intelligence agency still protects it.” Obviously, Friedman wrote his column before Dec. 3 and thus could not have read the articles I’ve cited. But he could easily have contacted his Times colleagues and asked them about the connection between Lashkar and the ISI. Furthermore, Friedman apparently has never heard of the concept of plausible deniability.
3) “I am still hoping—just once—for that mass demonstration of ‘ordinary people’ against the Mumbai bombers…” Notice how Friedman not just puts the responsibility to stop on the “ordinary people,” i.e., Moslems, but puts the moral onus on all who follow this faith. What he is really doing is to make the actions of Moslem terrorists the collective responsibility of all who follow Islam, which is as wrong as it is ludicrous. This places a higher and impossible double standard on Moslems that would never be expected of Christians or Jews, who are judged on the basis of individual responsibility. It is guilt-by-religion. I especially like the “just once,” implying that all Moslems have been irresponsible and immoral throughout their history, unlike adherents of other religions. In point of fact, The Times reported on Dec. 8 in an article entitled “Muslims in India Put Aside Grievances to Repudiate Terrorism” that “[t]hrongs of Indian Muslims…marched through the heart of Mumbai and several other cities on Sunday, holding up banners proclaiming their condemnation of terrorism and loyalty to the Indian state.” While of course Friedman is not clairvoyant, he turned out to be wrong with a week of his column appearing. It will be interesting to see if he admits that he was wrong.
4) “The best defense against this type of murderous violence is to limit the pool of recruits, and the only way to do that is for the home society to isolate, condemn and denounce publicly and repeatedly the murderers…” First, it only took 10 people to carry out the Mumbai carnage. There are 160 million Pakistanis and 1.25 billion Muslims. The pool of recruits would have to be reduced to zero, and it is clearly impossible to do this by social—or any other--means. Supposedly, “the most powerful deterrent to their behavior is when the community as a whole says: ‘No more. What you have done in murdering defenseless men, women and children has brought shame on us and on you.’” It is true that, typically in group-oriented societies such as those Moslems generally live in, shame inhibits behavior outside of societal norms. But it’s impossible to imagine how protesting against the Mumbai attacks will make every terrorist in Pakistan feel shameful, necessarily leading every one of them to give up violence.
5) “[D]estroying to destroy was their goal.” No, their motive was political and religious: to gain control of all of Kashmir for Pakistan, possibly even to bring all of India under Pakistani rule.
6) “Because, I repeat, this kind of murderous violence only stops when the village—all the good people of Pakistan, including the community elders and spiritual leaders…declares as a collective that those who carry out such murders are shameful unbelievers who will not dance with virgins in heaven but burn in hell.” Repeating something that is stupid and ridiculous doesn’t make it any truer. To make the case that the Mumbai terrorists were primarily motivated to kill people in that city, at the great risk of being killed themselves, by the prospect of “dancing with virgins in heaven” would require going to Pakistan and interviewing the terrorists’ family, friends and associates. Even then, no one could say what was inside their heads. The reason to employ the canard of virgins in heaven is to make Moslems look irrational and/or stupid.
In sum, Friedman starts with false “facts” (with a few exceptions), premises and assumptions, applies faulty reasoning to them, and comes to a ludicrous conclusion. In particular, he applies a ridiculous and grossly unfair double standard to Moslems (collective responsibility), thus revealing his strong bias against practioners of Islam. His column is stupid and ignorant and wrong. And dangerous: this foreign affairs “expert” completely misses the strong possibility that the Mumbai attacks could lead to a war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, which in the worst case could go nuclear.