Alfred McCoy’s important new
article (TomDispatch, posted on Global Research, April 5, 2010) deserves to mobilize Congress for a serious revaluation of
America’s ill-considered military venture in Afghanistan. The answer to the question he poses in his title – “Can Anyone Pacify the World's
Number One Narco-State? – is amply shown by his impressive essay to be a resounding “No!” . . . not until there is fundamental change in the
goals and strategies both of Washington and of Kabul.
He amply documents that
•the Afghan state of Hamid Karzai is a corrupt narco-state, to which Afghans are forced to pay bribes
each year $2.5 billion, a quarter of the nation’s economy;
•the Afghan economy is a narco-economy: in 2007 Afghanistan produced 8,200 tons of opium, a remarkable
53% of the country's GDP and 93% of global heroin supply.
Map of Afghanistan showing major poppy fields and intensity of
•military options for dealing with the problem are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive:
McCoy argues that the best hope lies in reconstructing the Afghan countryside until food crops become a viable alternative to opium, a
process that could take ten or fifteen years, or longer. (I shall argue later for an interim solution: licensing Afghanistan with the
International Narcotics Board to sell its opium legally.)
Perhaps McCoy’s most telling argument is that in Colombia cocaine at its peak represented only about 3 percent of the
national economy, yet both the FARC guerillas and the right-wing death squads, both amply funded by drugs, still continue to flourish in that
country. To simply eradicate drugs, without first preparing for a substitute Afghan agriculture, would impose intolerable strains on an
already ravaged rural society whose only significant income flow at this time derives from opium. One has only to look at the collapse of the
Taliban in 2001, after a draconian Taliban-led reduction in Afghan drug production (from 4600 tons to 185 tons) left the country a hollow
On its face, McCoy’s arguments would appear to be incontrovertible, and should, in a rational society, lead to a serious
debate followed by a major change in America’s current military policy. McCoy has presented his case with considerable tact and diplomacy, to
facilitate such a result.
The CIA’s Historic Responsibility for Global Drug Trafficking
Unfortunately, there are important reasons why such a positive outcome is unlikely any time soon. There are many reasons for
this, but among them are some unpleasant realities which McCoy has either avoided or downplayed in his otherwise brilliant essay, and which
have to be confronted if we will ever begin to implement sensible strategies in Afghanistan.
The first reality is that the extent of CIA involvement in and responsibility for the global drug traffic is a topic off
limits for serious questioning in policy circles, electoral campaigns, and the mainstream media. Those who have challenged this taboo, like
the journalist Gary Webb, have often seen their careers destroyed in consequence.
Since Alfred McCoy has done more than anyone else to heighten public awareness of CIA responsibility for drug trafficking in
American war zones, I feel awkward about suggesting that he downplays it in his recent essay. True, he acknowledges that “Opium first emerged
as a key force in Afghan politics during the CIA covert war against the Soviets,” and he adds that “the CIA's covert war served as the
catalyst that transformed the Afghan-Pakistan borderlands into the world's largest heroin producing region.”
But in a very strange sentence, McCoy suggests that the CIA was passively drawn into drug alliances in the course of
combating Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the years 1979-88, whereas in fact the CIA clearly helped create them precisely to fight the
In one of history's ironic accidents, the southern reach of communist China and the Soviet Union had coincided with Asia's
opium zone along this same mountain rim, drawing the CIA into ambiguous alliances with the region's highland warlords.
There was no such “accident” in Afghanistan, where the first local drug lords on an international scale – Gulbuddin
Hekmatyar and Abu Rasul Sayyaf – were in fact launched internationally as a result of massive and ill-advised assistance from the CIA, in
conjunction with the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. While other local resistance forces were accorded second-class status, these
two clients of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, precisely because they lacked local support, pioneered the use of opium and heroin to build up
their fighting power and financial resources.1 Both, moreover, became agents of salafist extremism, attacking the indigenous
Sufi-influenced Islam of Afghanistan. And ultimately both became sponsors of al Qaeda.2
CIA involvement in the drug trade hardly began with its involvement in the Soviet-Afghan war. To a certain degree, the CIA’s
responsibility for the present dominant role of Afghanistan in the global heroin traffic merely replicated what had happened earlier in
Burma, Thailand, and Laos between the late 1940s and the 1970s. These countries also only became factors in the international drug traffic as
a result of CIA assistance (after the French, in the case of Laos) to what would otherwise have been only local traffickers.
One cannot talk of “ironic accidents” here either. McCoy himself has shown how, in all of these countries, the CIA not only
tolerated but assisted the growth of drug-financed anti-Communist assets, to offset the danger of Communist Chinese penetration into
Southeast Asia. As in Afghanistan today CIA assistance helped turn the Golden Triangle, from the 1940s to the 1970s, into a leading source
for the world’s opium.
In this same period the CIA recruited assets along the smuggling routes of the Asian opium traffic as well, in countries
such as Turkey, Lebanon, Italy, France, Cuba, Honduras, and Mexico. These assets have included government officials like Manuel Noriega of
Panama or Vladimiro Montesinos of Peru, often senior figures in CIA-assisted police and intelligence services. But they have also included
insurrectionary movements, ranging from the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s to (according to Robert Baer and Seymour Hersh) the al
Qaeda-linked Jundallah, operating today in Iran and Baluchistan.3
CIA map tracing opium traffic from Afghanistan to Europe, 1998.
The CIA cite, updated in 2008 states “Most Southwest Asian heroin flows overland through Iran and Turkey to Europe via the Balkans.” But in
fact drugs also flow through the states of the former Soviet Union, and through Pakistan and Dubai.
The Karzai Government, not the Taliban, Dominate the Afghan Dope
Perhaps the best example of such CIA influence via drug
traffickers today is in Afghanistan itself, where those accused of drug trafficking include President Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai (an
active CIA asset), and Abdul Rashid Dostum (a former CIA asset).4 The drug corruption of the Afghan government must be attributed at
least in part to the U.S. and CIA decision in 2001 to launch an invasion with the support of the Northern Alliance, a movement that
Washington knew to be drug-corrupted.5
In this way the U.S. consciously recreated in Afghanistan the
situation it had created earlier in Vietnam. There too (like Ahmed Wali Karzai a half century later) the president’s brother, Ngo dinh Nhu,
used drugs to finance a private network that was used to rig an election for Ngo dinh Diem.6 Thomas H. Johnson, coordinator of
anthropological research studies at the Naval Postgraduate School, has pointed out the unlikelihood of a counterinsurgency program succeeding
when that program is in support of a local government that is flagrantly dysfunctional and corrupt.7
Thus I take issue with McCoy when he, echoing the mainstream
U.S. media, depicts the Afghan drug economy as one dominated by the Taliban. (In McCoy’s words, “If the insurgents capture that illicit
economy, as the Taliban have done, then the task becomes little short of insurmountable.”) The Taliban’s share of the Afghan opium economy is
variously estimated from $90 to $400 million. But the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimates that the total Afghan annual earnings
from opium and heroin are in the order of from $2.8 to $3.4 billion.8
Clearly the Taliban have not “captured” this economy, of which
the largest share by far is controlled by supporters of the Karzai government. In 2006 a report to the World Bank argued “that at the top
level, around 25-30 key traffickers, the majority of them in southern Afghanistan, control major transactions and transfers, working closely
with sponsors in top government and political positions.”9 In 2007 the London Daily Mail reported that "the four largest players in the
heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government."10
The American media have confronted neither this basic fact nor
the way in which it has distorted America’s opium and war policies in Afghanistan. The Obama administration appears to have shifted away from
the ill-advised eradication programs of the Bush era, which are certain to lose the hearts and minds of the peasantry. It has moved instead
towards a policy of selective interdiction of the traffic, explicitly limited to attacks on drug traffickers who are supporting the
This policy may or may not be effective in weakening the
Taliban. But to target what constitutes about a tenth of the total traffic will clearly never end Afghanistan’s current status as the world’s
number one narco-state. Nor will it end the current world post-1980s heroin epidemic, which has created five million addicts in Pakistan,
over two million addicts inside Russia, eight hundred thousand addicts in America, over fifteen million addicts in the world, and one million
addicts inside Afghanistan itself. Nor will it end the current world post-1980s heroin epidemic, which has created five million addicts in
Pakistan, over two million addicts inside Russia, eight hundred thousand addicts in America, over fifteen million addicts in the world, and
one million addicts inside Afghanistan itself.
The Obama government’s policy of selective interdiction also
helps explain its reluctance to consider the most reasonable and humane solution to the world’s Afghan heroin epidemic. This is the “poppy
for medicine” initiative of the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS, formerly known as The Senlis Council): to establish
a trial licensing scheme, allowing farmers to sell their opium for the production of much-needed essential medicines such as morphine and
The proposal has received support from the European Parliament
and in Canada; but it has come under heavy attack in the United States, chiefly on the grounds that it might well lead to an increase in
opium production. It would however provide a short-term answer to the heroin epidemic that is devastating Europe and Russia – something not
achieved by McCoy’s long-term alternative of crop substitution over ten or fifteen years, still less by the current Obama administration’s
program of selective elimination of opium supplies.
An unspoken consequence of the “poppy for medicine” initiative
would be to shrink the illicit drug proceeds that are helping to support the Karzai government. Whether for this reason, or simply because
anything that smacks of legalizing drugs is a tabooed subject in Washington, the “poppy for medicine” initiative is unlikely to be endorsed
by the Obama administration.
Afghan Heroin and the CIA’s Global DrugConnection
There is another important paragraph where McCoy, I think
misleadingly, focuses attention on Afghanistan, rather than America itself, as the locus of the problem:
At a drug conference in Kabul this month, the head of Russia's
Federal Narcotics Service estimated the value of Afghanistan's current opium crop at $65 billion. Only $500 million of that vast sum
goes to Afghanistan's farmers, $300 million to the Taliban guerrillas, and the $64 billion balance "to the drug mafia," leaving ample funds
to corrupt the Karzai government (emphasis added) in a nation whose total GDP is only $10 billion.
What this paragraph omits is the pertinent fact that, according
to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, only 5 or 6 percent of that $65 billion, or from $2.8 to $3.4 billion, stays inside Afghanistan
itself.13 An estimated 80 percent of the earnings from the drug trade are derived from the countries of consumption – in this case,
Russia, Europe, and America. Thus we should not think for a moment that the only government corrupted by the Afghan drug trade is the country
of origin. Everywhere the traffic has become substantial, even if only in transit, it has survived through protection, which in other words
There is no evidence to suggest that drug money from the CIA’s
trafficker assets fattened the financial accounts of the CIA itself, or of its officers. But the CIA profited indirectly from the drug
traffic, and developed over the years a close relationship with it. The CIA’s off-the-books war in Laos was one extreme case where it fought
a war, using as its chief assets the Royal Laotian Army of General Ouane Rattikone and the Hmong Army of General Vang Pao, which were, in
large part, drug-financed. The CIA’s massive Afghanistan operation in the 1980s was another example of a war that was in part
Video shows the CIA’s Hmong Army led by Gen. Vang Pao in action in Laos
Protection for Drug Trafficking in America
Thus it is not surprising that the U.S. Government, following the lead of the CIA, has over the years become a protector of
drug traffickers against criminal prosecution in this country. For example both the FBI and CIA intervened in 1981 to block the
indictment (on stolen car charges) of the drug-trafficking Mexican intelligence czar Miguel Nazar Haro, claiming that Nazar was “an
essential repeat essential contact for CIA station in Mexico City,” on matters of “terrorism, intelligence, and
counterintelligence.”14 When Associate Attorney General Lowell Jensen refused to proceed with Nazar’s indictment, the San
Diego U.S. Attorney, William Kennedy, publicly exposed his intervention. For this he was promptly fired.15
A recent spectacular example of CIA drug involvement was the case of the CIA’s Venezuelan asset General Ramon Guillén
Davila. As I write in my forthcoming book, Fueling America's War Machine,16
General Ramon Guillén Davila, chief of a CIA-created anti-drug unit in Venezuela, was indicted in Miami for smuggling a ton
of cocaine into the United States. According to the New York Times, "The CIA, over the objections of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, approved the shipment of at least one ton of pure cocaine to Miami International Airport as a way of gathering information
about the Colombian drug cartels." Time magazine reported that a single shipment amounted to 998 pounds, following earlier ones
“totaling nearly 2,000 pounds.”17 Mike Wallace confirmed that “the CIA-national guard undercover operation quickly
accumulated this cocaine, over a ton and a half that was smuggled from Colombia into Venezuela.”18 According to the Wall
Street Journal, the total amount of drugs smuggled by Gen. Guillén may have been more than 22 tons.19
But the United States never asked for Guillén’s extradition from Venezuela to stand trial; and in 2007, when he was arrested
in Venezuela for plotting to assassinate President Hugo Chavez, his indictment was still sealed in Miami.20 Meanwhile, CIA
officer Mark McFarlin, whom DEA Chief Bonner had also wished to indict, was never indicted at all; he merely resigned.21
Nothing in short happened to the principals in this case, which probably only surfaced in the media because of the social
unrest generated in the same period by Gary Webb’s stories in the San Jose Mercury about the CIA, Contras, and cocaine.
Banks and Drug Money Laundering
Other institutions with a direct stake in the international drug traffic include major banks, which make loans to countries
like Colombia and Mexico knowing full well that drug flows will help underwrite those loans’ repayment. A number of our biggest banks,
including Citibank, Bank of New York, and Bank of Boston, have been identified as money laundering conduits, yet never have faced penalties
serious enough to change their behavior.22 In short, United States involvement in the international drug traffic links the
CIA, major financial interests, and criminal interests in this country and abroad.
Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, has said that “Drugs money worth billions of dollars
kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis.” According to the London Observer, Costa:
...said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to
some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic
system as a result... Costa said evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by
intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago. "In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital.
In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system's main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor," he
A striking example of drug clout in Washington was the influence exercised in the 1980s by the drug money-laundering Bank of
Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). As I report in my book, among the
highly-placed recipients of largesse from BCCI, its owners, and its affiliates, were Ronald Reagan’s Treasury Secretary
James Baker, who declined to investigate BCCI;24 and Democratic Senator Joseph Biden and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, the
ranking members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which declined to investigate BCCI.25
In the end it was not Washington that first moved to terminate the banking activities in America of BCCI and its illegal
U.S. subsidiaries; it was the determined activity of two outsiders -- Washington lawyer Jack Blum and Manhattan District Attorney Robert
Conclusion: The Source of the Global Drug problem is not Kabul, but Washington
I understand why McCoy, in his desire to change an ill-fated policy, is more decorous than I am in acknowledging the extent
to which powerful American institutions—government, intelligence and finance—and not just the Karzai government, have been corrupted by the
pervasive international drug traffic. But I believe that his tactfulness will prove counter-productive. The biggest source of the global drug
problem is not in Kabul, but in Washington. To change this scandal will require the airing of facts which McCoy, in this essay, is reluctant
In his magisterial work, The Politics of Heroin, McCoy tells the story of Carter’s White House drug advisor David
Musto. In 1980 Musto told the White House Strategy Council on Drug Abuse that “we were going into Afghanistan to support the opium growers in
their rebellion against the Soviets. Shouldn’t we try to avoid what we had done in Laos?”27 Denied access by the CIA to data
to which he was legally entitled, Musto took his concerns public in May 1980, noting in a New York Times op-ed that Golden Crescent
heroin was already (and for the first time) causing a medical crisis in New York. And he warned, presciently, that “this crisis is bound to
( Heroin addiction treatment in New York whether you are seeking free or low priced rehabilitation or desire the top heroin treatment regardless of how expensive it is, we can help connect you at once.)
Musto hoped that he could achieve a change of policy by going public with a sensible warning about a disastrous
drug-assisted adventure in Afghanistan. But his wise words were powerless against the relentless determination of what I have called the U.S.
war machine in our government and political economy. I fear that McCoy’s sensible message, by being decorous precisely where it is now
necessary to be outspoken, will suffer the same fate.
Culture of hypocrisy which existed during the Bush era continues to thrive in the US today [EPA]
Every so often, a convergence occurs between a few ostensibly unrelated events in the endless swirl of news stories, polemics and propaganda, spin and advertising that make up the media sphere today.
Like the noonday sun, they pierce a hole through the fog of information that normally obscures the core dynamics behind the larger political-economic system's smooth functioning.
But unlike the sun shining through the storm clouds, this opening is not immediately obvious, and can easily be missed if one does not know where and how to look. In fact, it is more like a three-dimensional worm hole through political space, viewable if one folds specific coordinates over each other in just the right way.
In this case, the coordinates correspond to three levels of political discourse - military, media and cultural - whose harmonious interaction is crucial to the larger functioning of the system.
The brief moment of clarity reminds us of the crucial role played by one of the most subtle yet damning of human vices - hypocrisy - in sustaining the problems confronting the US, and most other global powers for that matter.
Hypocrisy laid bare
Has the US healthcare debate created an increasingly toxic political culture? [AFP]
Hypocrisy has always been an important denomination of political currency, but today it has seemingly become the coin of the realm.
One could easily ascribe it to the reascending of right-wing politics in the US and Europe, which is almost always accompanied by a politics of hypocrisy, since as a rule such politics involves the use of populist rhetoric to concentrate a country's wealth and resources in the hands of ever fewer people.
In the US, the vitriolic Republican-corporate attacks on healthcareand other much needed reforms in the name of protecting the rights of individual citizens, reflect an increasingly toxic political culture and the power of the right to manipulate deep-seated fears and prejudice for its own ends.
However, the continuities in US foreign policy between the Obama and Bush administrations reflect a more systemic hypocrisy whose negative consequences have global implications.
The US - like great powers before it - has long declared its intention to support freedom, democracy and progress while pursuing policies that encourage, or even demand, their opposite.
Not surprisingly, it has also turned a blind eye to its allies' or clients' hypocrisies: Israel declaring its desire for peace while intensifying occupation, Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, promising to fight corruption while rigging elections and placing family members in crucial positions.
Then you have this or that Arab leader pledging democratic reform while continuing to arrest and abuse citizens - until the disconnect between words and deeds threatens core American interests.
With enemies, such as Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) or Iran today, hypocrisy is assumed, even when evidence suggests that at crucial moments they might actually be telling the truth.
But who's looking?
Whether friend or foe, it is the people who suffer from a geopolitics grounded in hypocrisy.
The hardships of the present economic downturn in the USonly hint at the pain caused to the peoples of the developing world, who bear the brunt of the full power of the economic and political interests lying beneath the hypocrisy of the global powers and their leaders alike.
And these consequences are often not just painful, but deadly.
Two generations ago in Southeast Asia the death toll reached into the millions, today in Iraq and Afghanistan the toll is in the hundreds of thousands of dead and injured. But the suffering rarely makes headlines, unless it can produce images that are too powerful to ignore.
The Abu Ghraib scandalproduced one such moment, although its quick dissipation (perhaps owing to an innate sense among many Americans that the hypocrisy they revealed was ultimately not merely that of the Bush administration, but the country as a whole) ensured that the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress paid no price for the activities they revealed.
The most recent opening in the haze of media and political hypocrisy began with the near simultaneous revelations of civilian deaths at the hands of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The now ubiquitous Wikileaks video footageof soldiers firing on Reuter's photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, his colleague Saeed Chmagh, and several other civilians in Baghdad in July 2007 was equalled in graphic power by the accusations that in February 2010, US special forces personnel had not only killed two pregnant women along with a teenage girl and two local officials in Khataba, Afghanistan, but carved the bullets out of the bodies to remove evidence of their responsibility for the deaths.
The hypocrisy of the official responses has been glaringly on display.
When asked whether the Wikileaks video would hurt America's image, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said it would not, precisely because what the video really showed was the fog of war.
"These people were operating in split-second situations .... And, you know, we've investigated it very thoroughly .... It should not have any lasting consequences."
In military footage released by Wikileaks, Iraqi fatalities were called "dead bastards" [AFP]
Leaked Video of Cilivians Killed in Iraq
Hypocrisy is often accompanied by arrogance.
Gates assumes that scenes of US soldiers blithely calling the victims "dead bastards," laughing, looking for an excuse to finish off an unarmed victim, and blaming other victims for "bringing their kids into a battle" will "not have any lasting consequences".
Consequences for whom, one might ask.
Perhaps Gates understands that most Iraqis and Afghans have long ago stopped believing US rhetoric about supporting democracy and protecting civilian lives.
Whether consciously or not, it seems Gates was considering public opinion in the US, not in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Indeed, if we look behind his, and the soldiers', words we are reminded that it is extremely difficult to shoot people who do not present an immediate and clear threat unless you have first been desensitised by intense ideological preparation that dehumanises the occupied people.
As in Vietnam, this dehumanisation means that Iraqis and Afghan civilian deaths are easily accepted as mere collateral damage, since Americans have no connection to or sympathy for the peoples they have been occupying for most of the last decade.
The latest polls show that "voters are very responsive where Democrats talk boldly about our foreign policy of taking it to the terrorists".
And so even as four more civilians were killed by US forces firing on a crowded bus a day after Gates' remarks, Americans show no signs of changing the "secondary status" that Iraq and Afghanistan presently hold in their political discourse.
That would demand recognition of the hypocrisy that enabled their relegation to such a low status in the first place, even at the cost of upward of a trillion dollars and the loss of thousands of American soldiers.
Worse, it would demand a reevaluation of the larger premises upon which the unending 'war on terror' is being fought and confronting the fact that in so many areas, Obama is entrenching rather than reversing the policies of his predecessor.
Of course, Afghans are far less tolerant of the disconnect between US rhetoric and reality.
The latest deaths caused a new round of bitter protests against the US occupation while Afghan military leaders increasingly treat US promises to protect and respect civilians as meaningless and, like Karzai, even threaten to join the Taliban.
Tariq Ramadan's return
Gates' remarks and the more unscripted real-time comments of the soldiers he was defending exist in a media sphere that has failed miserably to educate the American public about the motivations behind and present-day realities of the Iraq and Afghan invasions and occupations.
Underlying this dynamic is a shared arrogance and hypocrisy by leading American commentators, especially those often portrayed as politically liberal or moderate, that was crucial to laying the groundwork for public acceptance of the rationale for going to war and continuing the occupations despite the numerous and manifest contradictions between them and the realities on the ground.
The process by which this dynamic proceeds was revealed last week in the coverage of the return of Swiss Muslim theologian Tariq Ramadan to the US for a speaking tour, six years after he was banned from entering the country by the Bush administration.
Debating with Packer
Tariq Ramadan has been lauded by Haaretz for repudiating anti-Semitism [EPA]
Specifically, Ramadan's first event in the US was a forum on "secular Islam and democracy" held in New York, where he debated New Yorker writer George Packer.
Packer chose not to engage Ramadan, who has spent over a decade working to forge a consensus among European Muslims on the need for non-violence and to produce identities that can be both fully Muslim and Western, on the issues related to the forum's title.
Rather, while declaring that he was "not asking you to repudiate your grandfather [Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood]," he demanded that Ramadan account for and renounce anti-Semitic remarks made by al-Banna well over half a century ago.
At a time when the contemporary Muslim Brotherhood is engaged in an unprecedented generational shift in ideology and attitudes, Packer honed in his criticism of Ramadan for refusing to acknowledge that "his grandfather and the Muslim Brotherhood in its origins were characterised by anti-Semitic or totalitarian views".
Although he has held prestigious appointments at Oxford as well as Notre Dame and the University of Geneva, Packer argues that Ramadan "is not a philosopher, or an original thinker".
He provides no criteria for this judgement, but that is likely because he assumes that most readers will accept at face value that leading thinkers from the Muslim world are rarely original or philosophic - a code word for reasonable and rational, presumably like Americans and Europeans.
For his part, Packer would seem to fit neither characterisation; the term, never mind ideology of "totalitarianism" he accused al-Banna of harbouring was not even in use when the Brotherhood was founded or first rose to prominence.
Packer concludes that however well-meaning his bridge-building, Ramadan's hope of reconciling Islamic and Western culture is built on "rotten foundations," namely the history and ideology of the Brotherhood.
How does he know this? Clearly not by reading Ramadan's numerous books, which are clearly opposed to most of the basic tenets of the Brotherhood during his grandfather's day.
Instead, in good Orientalist fashion, Packer refers to second-hand accusations against Ramadan made by journalist Paul Berman, who is about to publish a book accusing Ramadan of being a propagandist for Islamist extremism.
Berman's last foray into the subject of Islam was Terror and Liberalism, which was celebrated in the mainstream media for, among other things, arguing that Sayyid Qutb was the ideological godfather of al-Qaeda - which scholars had been discussing for years before his "discovery" - and that political Islamist movements are ultimately "irrational" and therefore cannot be reasoned with.
Most scholarly reviews by those who actually know the region and its languages were largely critical of Berman's arguments.
US view of Muslims
Ramadan could have responded to Packer's constant pressure for him to denounce his grandfather by demanding that Packer renounce his support for the US invasion of Iraq, or his inaccurate and journalistically irresponsible dismissal of those who opposed the war - which included Ramadan - as fringe, knee-jerk and "doctrinaire" leftists who lacked any "understanding" of the region.
Perhaps he was being polite, or was too jet-lagged to respond in kind to attacks that had nothing to do with his own thinking (indeed, Ramadan has condemned anti-Semitism so many times that he was praised for doing so by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz).
Ultimately, however, it is not Ramadan's refusal to engage Packer at a lower level of discourse that is important; it is the assumption by Packer, no doubt borne out by long experience, that his arguments as to the rotten foundation and ultimately irrational basis of Ramadan's thinking will be accepted in the media sphere, since they accord so well with the general view of Muslim intellectual capabilities and motives.
Woods' fall mirrors the corruptive hypocrisy in the US today [AFP]
While Packer and Ramadan debated in New York City, Tiger Woods was preparing for his return to competitive golf at the Master's tournament that would begin later in the week.
Of all the sins Woods has been accused of, perhaps the most ubiquitous was his hypocrisy - creating a persona based on steely calm, control, integrity, and determination while in reality his private life was based on deceit and violating the trust of his family and fans.
This is no doubt a valid criticism, but by the time the first round began on Thursday most people were far more interested in what Tiger would do on the golf course than what he had done off the links.
Of course, no one could say this openly. And so Billy Payne, the chair of the Masters tournament, dutifully criticised Woods, stating that he "disappointed all of us" with his numerous marital infidelities.
Of course, neither he nor any of the journalists present thought it worth mentioning that Augusta National remains one of the few golf clubs that refuses to admit women as players. Apparently no one considered it the least bit hypocritical for a club that does not consider women worthy of membership to criticise a member and champion who treats women as unworthy of consideration beyond their sex.
With so much money riding on Woods' return to the spotlight, his main endorser, Nike, also decided it had to make a bold statement criticising Woods, while at the same time reaffirming both his iconic status and the possibility of redemption.
So it aired a commercial that saw Woods staring blankly into the camera while his late father, Earl, asked him from the grave about what he was thinking and what he had learnt.
That a company such as Nike, whose alleged record of systematic mistreatment of workers and use of child labour has been heavily criticised around the world, determined that the ghost of Woods' father could help cleanse him, and the company, of their sins, is one of the more egregious examples of corporate hypocrisy in some time.
But the reality is they are probably right. Everyone is clearly anxious to get back to the way it was, and by the time Woods walked toward the 18th green on Sunday he was smiling and shaking hands with his course partner for the day, K.J. Choi, while receiving a standing ovation from the crowd.
No doubt most of those in attendance and watching on television will be happy to see Woods resume his golfing prowess. After all, no public figure better symbolised the power, purpose and determination of the US in the 2000s.
His fall from grace in many ways mirrored America's - the gleaming steel surface and sunny gaze turned out to be, if not quite rotten, then in need of major repair.
The blow-back of Woods' behaviour is being played out in front of the world. So is that of US policy. With enough reflection and determination, one can hope that Woods will rise above the hypocrisy that apparently has defined much of his professional and personal life.
But it is much harder for countries to do this, as it demands not one, but millions of people, from political leaders and commentators to ordinary citizens, to reflect deeply and honestly on what brought them to their present situation.
Perhaps if the fog remains lifted for long enough, one may be able to grasp the beginnings of the process of moving away from political and media cultures based on hypocrisy, greed and power and toward cultures that actually support peace, freedom and dignity. Mark LeVine is currently visiting professor at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University, Sweden. His books include Heavy Metal Islam: Rock, Resistance, and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam and Impossible Peace: Israel/Palestine Since 1989.
Jailed Whistleblower: US Lawmakers Held Offshore UBS Accounts
Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez discusses his interview with UBS whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld one day after Birkenfield’s Tax Day clemency request to President Obama. Birkenfeld is serving a forty-month sentence despite playing a key role in exposing the biggest tax evasion scheme in US history.
A Judge Rules Against Prayer, But Not Against An Imposter By Jerry McConnell
How easy it must be for a U. S. District Judge to play the role of God and strike down any references to the real God. But it must leave a bit of nagging doubt in their minds, even if they are of no special faith persuasion. Any sane and reasonably intelligent person HAS to have some tinges of ‘is it’ or ‘isn’t it’ etched in their minds.
To a heartless and uncaring atheist who loves no one beyond him or herself it is probably easy and unfettering to their minds to blaspheme or outright deny any reference to anything higher in spiritual plane than themselves.
A higher authority will censure those non-feelers at an appropriate time. But right now I would like to ask one U. S. District Judge Barbara Crabb why it is so simple to rule against a beautiful and absolutely harmless Day of Prayer that demands no special allegiance or actions save what is in one’s heart; a day that if left untouched and allowed to continue that would bring only goodness and love to all who participate.
I am sure that Madam Crabb would answer that the participants in the lawsuit brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, felt offended and damaged or some such rot. I never will understand why such creatures have to lie to stop something that gives great pleasure to many others and at no cost or loss to the self-minded offendees.
This country was founded by Christians and peopled by good and caring Christians who opened their hearts and allowed others from all over the world of all faiths to come and live in the freedom and love as did they; only to have ingratitude and selfishness spring up from the newcomers. And mostly, the ungraciousness of such people who were welcomed into the folds of Christians without question or rules, is now their unfounded hammer and nails of hate.
Judge Crabb says the day violates the separation of church and state. HOW? To me, the day brings together all those of faith for a moment to reflect and bathe in the goodness of that faith that keeps sanity among peoples of different faiths instead of bloodshed and battle. No harm is done to anyone. Our Constitution radiates with its goodness.
But if it is so simple for a jurist to so easily rule that a day of prayer that infringes on no one and harms no one is ANY kind of violation, why is it so hard for that same jurist or any of his or her peers to also follow the dictates of our Constitution and rule against a person who secretly and knowingly defrauded said Constitution by hiding his true identity and illegally filed an application for the Office of the Presidency?
That person who now holds that office is doing harm with each official action he takes in the guise of being legitimately qualified to hold office even though he violates one main requisite; that of being a natural born citizen.
Judge Crabb, I call on you to exercise your duty as a sworn defender of our Constitution to rule as firmly as you did in this case against a Day of Prayer, that the usurper in the Office of the President is also unconstitutional.
Do you have that kind of iron in your own constitution Judge?
President Reagan - Government is the Problem and his Evil Empire speech