The Wind and the Lion

One of my favorite old movies is The Wind and The Lion. It was made in 1975 and stars Sean Connery, Candice Bergen and Brian Keith. The plot goes; that in 1904 an Arab Chieftain in Morocco named Mulai Ahmed al Raisuli (Connery) kidnaps an American woman named Eden Pedecaris (Bergen) and her two children to protest foreign involvement and interference in his country. The story then follows the response by President Teddy Roosevelt (Keith) and his actions to get her back from the Raisuli. The story is roughly based on the true story of an American businessman and his nephew who were kidnapped for the same reason and eventually returned unharmed. I’m sure for the sake of drama and a hint of romance the filmmakers changed the plot to make the Americans a woman with her children.

It is a very entertaining movie. It has swashbuckling action, dashing figures, great horsemanship, cleaver dialogue, and more than a touch of true-to-life history. Connery’s portrayal of the Raisuli is great, and Brian Keith’s Teddy Roosevelt is amazing. The context for Teddy Roosevelt is that he is running for re-election after gaining the Presidency when McKinley was assassinated. The blustery Roosevelt campaigns on confronting the roguish Raisuli (“the big stick” foreign policy), but privately admires his audacity. In contrast the Raisuli is a devout Muslim leader who wages a guerrilla war that is meant to unite his tribal brothers through symbolism more than actual damages. The Raisuli is both a spiritual and political leader.  In truth, the Raisuli has no intention of harming his captives, and plans all the while to return them, once his point has been made. His point, of course, is that European and American corporations and military interests need to stop trying to exploit the Arab world for its resources and strategic importance. And to make his point, Roosevelt uses the Big Stick by sending in Marines for a rescue. All along, the Raisuli knows he cannot win a conflict with the great emerging western powers, but he needs to be true to his people and their heritage. For how the rest of the story turns out, you’ll just have to watch the movie. But, I wonder if my description of the movie plot sounds a little familiar.

We are now engaged in the longest war in American history. Our troops have been in Afghanistan for eleven years, while also having engaged in years of war in Iraq. This war is “scheduled” to last another two and half years. Last week the war in Afghanistan claimed the 2000th American life. By nineteenth and twentieth century standards, 2000 fatalities is relatively low number (remember 23,000 died at Antietam in one day during our Civil War). But each life given in war deserves our thoughts and reflections in this age, or any other.  

In the movie, the U.S. was trying to establish strongholds around the world in the new 20^th Century- which is true to history. Many of the European countries were doing the same thing-which was a prelude to World War I. Some methods concentrated on winning over local Bashaws and Chieftains with weapons, money and political alliances meant to protect despots in power in order to gain a foothold.  Other tactics were less graceful and were focused on brute force to coerce alliances. Some partnerships were formed at the end of a gun barrel. In the movie, tribal leaders like the Raisuli simply believed that their land and their ways, both political and religious, should never be subject to foreign influence or occupation. In the movie, the Raisuli knew that he was committing a criminal act by kidnapping Mrs. Pedecaris. But he also knew that this was his only weapon against the superior technology and might of the western powers. When the Raisuli is questioned about his morals by Mrs. Pedecaris he bristles, saying these matters are the will of Allah, and he is but an instrument of Allah’s will. Again, I wonder if this sounds at all similar to current events.

I hardly know the best policy for the U.S. to pursue in the Middle-East, and in the Arab or Muslim world. But I’ve tried to study the matter and there are a couple of notions that have occurred to me. I readily admit they are arguable, but I present them as different thoughts than the ones we normally hear, even from our two Presidential candidates. 

The first thought is that the events of the last decade or so are did not develop recently. Western intervention and influence seeking has been occurring in that part of the world for over a hundred years. It started because of the strategic significance of Arab lands in modern world-wide transport. The middle-east is literally the crossroad between the far-east and the west. Then as we began to use oil in the early 20^th Century the resources of these lands became highly coveted. Western countries have, for a century now, been using any means possible in an attempt to control that part of the world for political and financial gain. In American Middle-Eastern policy we have alternately thrown our support behind popular uprisings or dictators, depending on who could give us the best deal.  Presidents from both parties, and Congressional leaders have all done it because oil has become our life’s blood. They alternately screamed their heads off, or sat quietly in the face of human rights violations depending upon who we were supporting at the time. Again, both parties are guilty of this behavior. FDR once famously said, when confronted with information about some foreign dictator we supported, “..Sure he’s a son-of-a-bitch, but at least he’s OUR son-of-a bitch”. For us to believe that all things about the Middle-East or Muslim relations in the region began on or just before 9-11-01, or are all attributable to al Qaeda, is to ignore at least a hundred years of history. That long history played a huge role in the Persian state of Iran, when the Shaw was overthrown; the Clerics took control of the country, and held American hostages in1979 & 1980. Like the Raisuli, they knew it was a criminal act, but (right or wrong) they felt justified. 

The second thought is that our current policies will likely never work well in the Middle-East or any part of the Muslim world, because we don’t understand their culture. I’m not arguing in support of their culture. I’m simply arguing that in order to be effective in either diplomacy or warfare it is critical to understand them. Our notion of time is very different. Middle-Eastern culture is an old culture. For us, a war lasting eleven years is a long war. For them, eleven years is nothing. The argument that we shouldn’t broadcast our timetable on matters of war is non-sense, because their culture has endured centuries of occupation in the past and they always remain in the end.  It simply doesn’t matter to them.  We have never really tried to understand the role of religion in the Muslim world. Our tradition is to separate church and state. Their tradition is the opposite. Because they meld religion with governing, the Muslim world never sees itself as being in the wrong. This, of course, is the primary danger of bringing religion and government too close together-no matter what the religion. As the Raisuli said in the movie, “it is the will of Allah”. Religious faith justifies a great many things, just as it has for all religions throughout history. (consider: European behavior in the middle ages when  horrible atrocities, mass killings, torture and warfare were committed by Kings in the name of the Christian Church) I think we have become so accustomed to thinking our ways are so superior (and in many ways I believe our ways are better) that we have lost the capacity to see the world from another point of view. For example, it is unfathomable for us to watch the “Arab Spring” and see freed people elect a new totalitarian leader. We ask ourselves: why don’t they just create a government like ours? What’s wrong with these people? Why do they take our money and help, then not act like us? The answer is actually fairly simple- they are not us.  We cite our own culture and values constantly, but we have a bad habit rarely respecting the culture and values of others. Their culture is just as ingrained in them as our culture is ingrained in us- more so, because they have practiced their ways many centuries longer than we have. We can militarily conquer any country in the world, with our vastly superior power. But we will never reform a country until we understand its people, and they themselves come to accept reform. Then we must have the wisdom to accept the reform they choose.

We will soon have a Presidential debate about foreign policy. I doubt we will hear anything of substance in that debate besides the usual blaming over petty matters and platitudes about democracy. Neither Romney nor Obama will change the course of our policy in the Middle-East because it can’t be changed in these circumstances. Our policy there is based on the same thing it has been based on for a hundred years: oil. The politics of oil will always put us at odds with the people of that area and we will never win their hearts. We can talk of spreading democracy all we want, but we only pursue that end when our interests hang in the balance. The existence of Israel has complicated this basic equation - but it has not altered the longstanding nature of our relationship with the Arab/Muslim world.

We need to re-think our relationship with this part of the world. We need to be honest about what we do there- and why we do it. Until we change our ways on the use of resources (oil) from the Middle-East we will always be stuck in un-winnable, drawn out wars in countries that are supposed to be our friends.

When I re-watched The Wind and the Lion recently I was struck that the plot and the dynamics are so similar to the issues we and the Arab/Muslim world are facing today. Remember, that story takes place in 1904. After more than a hundred years of misunderstanding and conflict perhaps it’s time for a new approach to that part of the world-and a new approach to the kind of energy we use. Terrorist attacks here and around the world, plus three wars in twelve years tell us this isn’t working. 

Thanks for looking in.