RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Islamists’

How Islam Divorced Science

12 Mar

This post was published in the winter edition of Middle East Quarterly

 

Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy (b. 1950) is one of South Asia's leading nuclear physicists and perhaps Pakistan's preeminent intellectual. Bearer of a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology , he is chairman of the department of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad where, as a high-energy physicist, he carries out research into quantum field theory and particle phenomenology. He has also been a visiting professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and was visiting professor at MIT and Stanford. For some time, he has been a frequent contributor to Britain's leading intellectual journal, Prospect. His extracurricular activities include a vocal opposition to the political philosophy of Islamism. He also writes about the self-enforced backwardness of the Muslim world in science, technology, trade, and education. His many articles and television documentaries have made a lasting impact on debate about education, Islam, and secularism in Pakistan. Denis MacEoin interviewed him by e-mail in October 2009.

Muslim Disengagement from Science

Middle East Quarterly: In 2007, you asked, "With well over a billion Muslims and extensive material resources, why is the Islamic world disengaged from science and the process of creating new knowledge?" How would you answer that question today? Has anything changed?

Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy: Sadly, little has changed. About seven centuries ago, after a spectacular Golden Age that lasted nearly four hundred years, Islam and science parted ways. Since then, they have never come together again. Muslim contributions to pure and applied sciences—measured in terms of discoveries, publications, patents, and processes—have been marginal for more than 700 years. A modest rebirth in the nineteenth century has been eclipsed by the current, startling flight from science and modernity. This retreat began in the last decades of the twentieth century and appears to be gaining speed across the Muslim world.

MEQ: What role do you think is played by the ulema in blocking new knowledge by imposing the rulings against innovation?

Hoodbhoy: The traditional ulema are indeed a problem, but they are not the biggest one; the biggest problem is Islamism, a radical and often militant interpretation of Islam that spills over from the theological domain into national and international politics. Whenever and wherever religious fundamentalism dominates, blind faith clouds objective and rational thinking. If such forces take hold in a society, they create a mindset unfavorable for critical inquiry, including scientific inquiry, with its need to question received wisdom.


MEQ: Have religious conservatism and anti-science attitudes among Muslims always been as strong as today? Or were Muslims more pro-science, say, a hundred years ago?

Hoodbhoy: In my childhood, the traditional ulema—who are so powerful today—were regarded as rather quaint objects and often ridiculed in private. Centuries ago the greatest poets of Persia, like Hafiz and Rumi, stripped away the mullahs' religious pretensions and exposed their stupidity. Today, however, those same mullahs have taken control of the Iranian republic. The answer lies just as much in the domain of world politics as in theology. Khomeini developed the doctrine known as "guardianship of the clergy," which gives the mullahs much wider powers than they generally exercised in the past. Instead of being simple religious leaders, they now became political leaders as well. This echoes the broader Islamic fusion of the spiritual and the temporal.

Scientists, Technologists, and Islamists

MEQ: Explaining the emergence of so many Muslim doctors, scientists, engineers, and other technologists as Islamists and, sometimes, as terrorists, Malise Ruthven suggests that a superficial understanding of science leads to a belief in authoritative texts and this slots in with a belief in the infallibility of the Qur'an. What is your explanation?

Hoodbhoy: This question must be disaggregated and examined at many levels. It cannot be answered simply in terms of mere theology—the Bible contains elements of extreme violence and yet the vast majority of scientists who are believing Christians are also peaceful people. What brought about the global Islamist wave is a much more relevant question. It is, in some ways, the Muslim version of anti-colonialism and a reaction to the excesses of the West, combined with an excessive traditionalism.

But let me concentrate on the sociological aspects. To begin with, we need to separate the scientists from the technologists, meaning those who use science in a narrowly functional sense rather than as a means for understanding the natural world. I have never seen a first-rate Muslim scientist become an Islamist or a terrorist even when he or she is a strong believer. But second- and third-rate technologists are more susceptible. These are people who use science in some capacity but without any need to understand it very much—engineers, doctors, technicians, etc.—all of whom are more inclined towards radicalism. They have been trained to absorb facts without thinking, and this makes them more susceptible to the inducements of holy books and preachers.

MEQ: Has this been happening with Pakistan's home-trained scientists?

Hoodbhoy: Our best physics students in Islamabad are often the most open-minded and the least religious. They have enough social strength to keep themselves at a certain distance from the crowd. Among my colleagues, something similar takes place; the weakest ones professionally are the ones who demonstrate the greatest outward religiosity. I see a strong correlation between levels of professional competence and susceptibility to extremist philosophies.

MEQ: Is the situation the same in India?

Hoodbhoy: Yes, there, too, I find anti-science attitudes rare among scientists but rather common within the technological and professional classes, both Hindu and Muslim. The latter type of people pray for rain, attribute earthquakes to the wrath of God, think supplications to heaven will cure the sick, seek holy waters that will absolve sin, look to the stars for a propitious time to marry, sacrifice black goats in the hope that the life of a loved one will be spared, recite certain religious verses as a cure for insanity, think airliners can be prevented from crashing by a special prayer, and believe that mysterious supernatural beings stalk the earth. Their illogic boggles the mind.


MEQ: Does the fact that Indians and Pakistanis have both constructed nuclear weapons indicate that science now is firmly implanted on South Asian soil?

Hoodbhoy: To an extent, yes, but the battle against irrationality has a long way to go. For example, India's 1998 nuclear tests were preceded by serious concern over the safety of cattle at the Pokharan test site for religious reasons. Former Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh wrote, "For the team at the test site—which included President Kalam, then the head of the Defence Research and Development Organization—possible death or injury to cattle was just not acceptable."

The Prohibition of Debate

MEQ: It seems that Muslims today are hampered by a culture that refuses to take on board the prerequisites for scientific and other intellectual progress—the Enlightenment insistence on freedom of speech and thought to enable open discourse and free debate. Even in the West since the Rushdie affair, Islamists seek to use the law to prohibit debate about Islam. Do you see a way to put an end to this pattern?

Hoodbhoy: On the scale of human history, the Enlightenment is a very recent phenomenon, barely four hundred years old. One must be hopeful that Muslims will catch up. The real question is how to shake off the dead hand of tradition. The answer lies in doing away with an educational system that discourages questioning and stresses obedience. Reform in the Muslim world will have to begin here. At the core of this problem, lies the tyranny that teachers exert over their students. In Urdu, we say that the teacher is not just a teacher—he is also your father. But in our culture, fathers are considered all-wise, which means that teachers cannot be questioned.

MEQ: Is this kind of education a source of authoritarianism?

Hoodbhoy: It is both a source and an inevitable consequence of authoritarianism. Instead of experiencing science as a process of questioning to achieve understanding, students sit under the watchful eyes of despots while they memorize arbitrary sets of rules and an endless number of facts. X is true and Y is false because that's what the textbook says. I grind my teeth whenever a student in my university class gives me this argument.

MEQ: How can countries like Pakistan develop a scientific mindset?

Hoodbhoy: College and university come much too late; change must begin at the primary and secondary school level. Good scientific pedagogy requires the deliberate inculcation of a spirit of healthy questioning in the classroom. Correct attitudes start developing naturally when students encounter questions that engage their mind rather than their memory. For this, it is important to begin with tangible things. One does not need a Ph.D. in cognitive studies to know that young people learn best when they deal with objects that can be understood by visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic means. As their experience grows, students learn to understand abstract concepts, to manipulate symbols, to reason logically, to solve theorems, and to generalize. These abilities are destroyed, or left woefully undeveloped, by teaching through rote memorization.


MEQ: What, then, should normal practice consist of?

Hoodbhoy: Teachers posing such questions as: How do we know? What is important to measure? How can we check the correctness of our measurements? What is the evidence? How are we to make sense out of our results? Is there a counter explanation, or perhaps a simpler one? The aim should be to get students into the habit of posing such questions and framing answers.


Religion Trumps Science


MEQ: You have said, "No Muslim leader has publicly called for separating science from religion." Do you detect any real movement by Muslim secularists and scientists to reverse this trend?

Hoodbhoy: Nothing of this kind is visible in Pakistan, but I see this happening in Iran, the most intellectually advanced country of the Muslim world, a country that boasts an educational system that actually works. Ayatollah Khomeini was quite content to keep science and Islam separate—unlike Pakistan's leaders who have made numerous absurd attempts to marry the two. Khomeini once remarked that there is no such thing as Islamic mathematics. Nor did he take a position against Darwinism. In fact, Iran is one of the rare Muslim countries where the theory of evolution is taught. This may be because Shi'ites, as in Iran, have a different take on evolution than Sunnis and are generally less socially conservative as well. Shi'i women may wear the chador or hijab [head covering] but never a burqa [full body covering]. I've seen women taxi drivers in Tehran but never in New York City. Moreover, Iran is a front-runner in stem-cell research—something which George W. Bush and his administration had sought to ban from the United States.

MEQ: How far have madrasas in Pakistan, especially the Deobandi schools, made intellectual progress hard or impossible for society as a whole?

Hoodbhoy: The Deobandi-Salafi-Wahhabi axis of unreason does not seem capable of accommodating the premises of science—causality, an absence of divine intervention, and scientific method. Ever since Khwaja Nizam-ul-Mulk of Persia established madrasas in the eleventh century, these schools have stuck to their pre-scientific curriculum. However, they became dangerous when the Saudis used their petro-dollars in the 1970s to export Wahhabism across the world. Thousands of new madrasas were established in Pakistan by the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to provide fodder for the great joint, global jihad against the Soviets. The CIA provided madrasas with millions of Qur'ans, as well as tens of millions of textbooks published in America designed to create a jihadist mindset among young Afghans resident in Pakistan. These madrasas eventually became nurseries for the Taliban.

MEQ: Have no attempts been made to reform the madrasas?


Hoodbhoy: Following the 9/11 attacks, General Pervez Musharraf was prodded by the Americans to initiate a madrasa reform project aimed at broadening the madrasa curriculum to include the teaching of English, science, mathematics, and computers. Huge sums were spent but to no avail. These misogynist bastions of anti-modernism and militancy cannot be reformed. The Pakistani state literally cowers before them. They have the power to bring every Pakistani city to a halt. On the other hand, in East Africa, India, or Bangladesh, one sees that madrasas can be quite different. While conservative, they do permit teaching of secular subjects. Some even have small minorities of non-Muslims, which would be unheard of in a Pakistani madrasa.


MEQ: You point out the emergence of low-quality scientific periodicals in Iran and elsewhere, in which scientists publish articles of a poor standard. Also, most Muslim countries tolerate outright plagiarism in Ph.D. theses and published books. What do you suppose is responsible for such self-defeating behavior that clearly acknowledges the superiority of properly assessed articles and dissertations yet accepts the second- and third-rate?


Hoodbhoy: I call this "paper pollution." The rapid increase in substandard publications and plagiarism is the consequence of giving large incentives for publishing research papers. Some contain worthwhile research but most do not. I consider certain ambitious individuals in government to be at fault for allowing, and even deliberately encouraging, poor quality theses and books fit for nothing but the waste basket. This problem can be handled using the current administrative machinery; just remove these incentives and punish plagiarism with sufficient severity.


Open War between Muslims


MEQ: You have said, "Here [at Quaid-i-Azam University], as in other Pakistani public universities, films, drama, and music are frowned on." This is also seen in numerous Muslim schools in the United Kingdom, where even chess was banned and compared to "dipping one's hand in the blood of swine." These attitudes prevent talented young Muslims from achieving success as actors, directors, dancers, musicians, composers, artists, and writers. Your thoughts on changing this situation?


Hoodbhoy: There is open war between those Muslims who stand for a liberal, moderate version of the faith and those who insist on literalism. The unresolved tension between traditional and modern modes of thought and social behavior is now playing itself out in ever more violent ways. Most Pakistanis, while Muslims, want their daughters to be properly educated; Islamic extremists, however, are determined to stop them. On most campuses, religious vigilantes enforce their version of Islam on the university community by forcing girls into the veil, destroying musical instruments, forbidding men and women from being together, and putting a damper on cultural expression.

MEQ: Do the Taliban play a role in this arena?

Hoodbhoy: Yes, as of early 2009, they had already blown up 354 schools and they issued a decree that no girls in Pakistan may be educated after February 15, 2009. In their view, all females must stay at home. In October, educational institutions across Pakistan shut down after a suicide bomber blew himself up after walking into the girls' cafeteria of the International Islamic University [in Islamabad] while, simultaneously, another bomber targeted male students.


MEQ: Islamists bombed an Islamic university?



Hoodbhoy: Indeed, this episode sent shock waves across the country because the International Islamic University is a conservative institution where most women dress in burqas and very few wear normal clothes. But even this does not placate the extremists.



Muslims are at war with other Muslims. If the radicals win, or can at least terrify the moderates into following their restrictions, then there will be no personal and intellectual freedom and hence no thinking, ideas, innovations, discoveries, or progress. Our real challenge is not better equipment or faster Internet connectivity but our need to break with mental enslavement, to change attitudes, and to win our precious freedom.

 
1 Comment

Posted in Readings

 

A Decade Of Trends And The Unexpected

07 Jan

Published on strategypage.com on January 5, 2010

It's actually been a decade of less and less war. There's also been a lot of déjà vu, with many wars seeming to be endless. Some wars are like that. So what were all the current hot spots like a decade ago, and what happened to them? Below is a list, with the short version of what happened (check out archives for the much longer version).

 

Afghanistan was sort of under the control of the Pakistani backed Taliban in 2000. But the civil war, that began in the late 1970s, was still going on. The Taliban were winning, slowly, fueled by taxes on the heroin trade. But the Taliban were increasingly unpopular, mainly for trying to impose lifestyle rules on a hostile population. September 11, 2001 brought in the Americans to help the factions still fighting the Taliban, and within three months, the Taliban were out of power, and fleeing to Pakistan. A democracy was established, but corruption and tribal rivalries crippled it from the start. The Pushtun tribes resented the domination of the non-Pushtun tribes (60 percent of the population), and this enabled the Taliban to rebuild and undertake a terror campaign to regain control of the country. It's a suicide mission (even most Pushtuns oppose them), but that's pretty normal for Afghanistan.

 

 

Algeria. The local Salafist Islamic radicals were fighting a bloody terror campaign against a corrupt dictatorship. These Islamic radicals would lose before the end of the decade, accepting amnesty, or hunted down and killed. Over 100,000 died in a decade of Islamic terrorism.

 

Angola. The long civil war finally died out, early in the decade.

Balkans. Kosovo had just been liberated by NATO troops, and American air power. By the end of the decade, Kosovo would be independent, and the region would still be screwed up. Turkey develops an Islamic streak. Bosnia settles down, despite constant threat of Islamic terrorists setting up shop.

Central Asia. A decade of some violence. Meanwhile, dictators brew rebellion by suppressing democrats, Islamic radicals and anyone else who objects to strongman rule. Not a lot of violence, just a lot of potential. The dictators in the "Stans" (the former provinces of the Soviet Union that became five independent nations; Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan) have been rebuilding the Soviet era secret police. The new dictators noted that the Soviets never had any problems with Islamic terrorism, or any other kind of terrorism, and are going old school on this new problem.

Chad. The civil war in Sudan (Darfur) spills over. Sudan and Chad support each others rebels, and this leads on two attempts by rebel forces to cross Chad and attack the capital. French forces (there to protect current government) help keep the rebels from winning. Oil was developed in the last decade and, despite strenuous efforts by the World Bank and other NGOs, Chad officials still plunder the oil revenue. Things have settled down by the end of the decade, but there is no peace yet, if ever. Chad has been suffering civil war for three decades now.

China. Undertook a program to buy and steal all the military technology it could from Russia, and largely succeeded. China also began modernizing part of its armed forces, and shrinking the rest. The diplomatic/military "siege" of Taiwan continued.

Colombia. Decades of leftist rebels trying to take over the country, plus the growth of the cocaine trade, receded during the decade, as an effective opposition, and government, develops. Leftist groups lose more than half their strength in the decade, and drug gangs begin moving out of the country.

Congo. A civil war, caused by defeated Hutus from neighboring Rwanda, ends up destroying much of eastern Congo and leaving millions dead. Because of the Hutu militias, fleeing Rwanda after their 1994 genocide failed to destroy the Tutsi minority, civil war was triggered in eastern Congo, and eventually ended 32 years of despotic rule. Several brigades of UN peacekeepers arrive, beginning in 2000, and by the end of the decade, the fighting is dying out, but not gone yet. The worst conflict of the decade, with over four million dead.

Ethiopia. Decade began with first ever free (but not so fair) multiparty elections. There was also an end to the two year war with Eritrea. But there was no permanent peace, as Ethiopia refused to abide by the ruling of an international arbitrator regarding border dispute with Eritrea. Uprisings among Omoro and Somali tribesmen, and a yearlong incursion into Somalia.

Haiti. Peacekeepers arrived in the 1990s, and remained throughout the last decade. Two centuries of independence have failed to improve the lives of Haitians. Corruption, and lack of cooperation, continues to block progress and peace. 

India-Pakistan. Pakistani backed terrorism in Kashmir was a growing problem, and both nations had troops massed on the border, after almost going to full scale war in 1999. Pakistan begins the decade as a military dictatorship again, but switches back to democracy by the end of the decade. Pakistan comes to regret harboring and encouraging Islamic radicals since the late 1970s, and ends the decade at war with these killers, and the Pushtun tribes they have infected.

Indonesia. Throwing off 32 years of despotic rule, the last decade has largely been a battle against separatism and Islamic radicalism. Democracy survived, Islamic radicalism was defeated, and only East Timor managed to separate itself from Indonesia and become independent.

Iran.  Has two of its hostile neighbors (Saddam's Iraq and Taliban Afghanistan) neutralized by the United States. This enables religious dictatorship to increase efforts to help Shia minority take over Lebanon. In Iraq, Shia are a majority, but most are hostile to Iranian plans, and Iran is forced to back off. Same deal in Afghanistan. Offers of help accepted in Gaza, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen. Effort to build nuclear weapons and longer range ballistic missiles continues. Internal opposition to all this, and a religious police state in general, grows. By now, there are major anti-government demonstrations.

Iraq- Saddam Hussein was under siege at the beginning of the decade, refusing to comply with the terms of his defeat in the 1991 war over Kuwait. Saddam, as he later admitted, had no weapons of mass destruction, but did not want the Iranians (who wanted to kill him for invading in 1980) to know. It was a successful deception, so much so that all the world's intel agencies agreed that Saddam had these weapons, and that was used to justify the U.S./British invasion of 2003. There followed five years of terrorism, as the Sunni Arab minority (which Saddam had led) tried to murder their way back into power. That didn't work, and Iraq ends the decade with a booming, not shrinking, economy, and a bloody resolution to some long time political disputes. 

Israel. The decade began with Israel making a peace offer to the Palestinians. By today's standards, it looked like a great deal. But the Palestinians decided to try a terror campaign against Israel, to get better terms. That failed. Israel figured out how to halt Palestinian terror attacks inside Israel, and in the process, destroyed the Palestinian economy. All the stress caused a split among the Palestinians, with the old line, but corrupt, PLO controlling the West Bank, and radical Hamas, running Gaza (which Israel, in 2005, gave control of, to the Palestinians, in 2005 as a peace gesture). The decade ends with the Palestinians pleading that they are victims (of shooting themselves in the foot) and in need of international assistance (which discouraged donors are no longer willing to provide.) Israel also withdrew from bases in southern Lebanon. That gesture didn't work either, and Hezbollah is equipped by Iran to attack Israel with barrages of rockets, and does just that in 2006.

Ivory Coast. Began the decade with a growing dispute between the north and south, natives and migrants, Moslems and Christians. Got ugly for a while, but has since settled down, with the country split in two, but still pretending to be one nation.  

Korea. South Korea thrives, while North Korea spends the decade threatening to blow up the world, if enough free food and fuel is not sent to prevent North Korea from starving and freezing to death. Two nuclear tests carried out, and more are promised. Leadership also gets shaky up north, with arguments over succession, and how to cope with the economic problems. South Korea gets fed up and goes hard line over dealing with the north.

Kurdish War. The Kurdish radical PKK took a hammering and was on the ropes at the end of the decade. There's less fighting, but more political activity. The Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq became independent in the early 1990s, when the U.S. and Britain told Iraq to stay out, or else. After 2003, the several million Iraqi Kurds grew more prosperous and independent minded, while still (once more) a part of Iraq. And so it continues.

Mexico. Drug gangs grow in power, corrupting police, politicians, and even the army. This triggers a violent response from the government, which leads to high levels of violence along the U.S. border as war between the security forces and drug gangs plays out.

Myanmar. Yet another decade of military rule. Police state keeps democrats down, while army keeps fighting tribes in the north, nearly crushing the major ones by the end of the decade, and causing many tribal refugees to flee into Thailand and China.

Nepal. Maoist movement succeeds in demolishing the monarchy, when everyone decides that continued fighting is not the best way to go. Republic installed in 2008. Over a decade of Maoist violence left 12,000 dead. Maoists enter government as largest party, but then leave when they can't get all they want. Decade ends with   Maoists threatening to resume war, but are unsure if the more popular government could now crush them.

Nigeria. Islamic radicalism grows throughout the decade, but never becomes a major problem. Violence between Moslems and non-Moslems continues to be a more serious problem. But the worst violence is in the Niger River delta, where locals want a larger cut of the oil revenue. Rebels cut production by over a million barrels a day, causing the government to provide amnesty and other concessions. Niger Delta violence likely to resume because corruption in government will cause many of the amnesty benefits to disappear.

Philippines. This war, against Moslem separatists and communist rebels, continues, after four decades. Some Islamic terrorists have been added, but the government is in a better position, having gotten separatists and communists to undertake peace negotiations. Islamic terrorists grab headlines, but are not a major threat.

Russia. The army had just invaded Chechnya again. The last time, in the early 1990s, was a disaster. This time, the army was prepared. Chechnya had descended into anarchy, dominated by criminal gangs and Islamic radicals, spewing violence and crime throughout the Caucasus and southern Russia. The Russian invasion was the response. The problem was solved the way the Russians had done so many times before; using brute force. Meanwhile, Russia realized that their armed forces were falling apart (the budget had been cut 90 percent through the 1990s), and it was time to rebuild. Government revives many police state characteristics, but goes go after corruption and gets the economy moving.

Rwanda and Burundi. Decade opens with Hutu rebels were still active in Burundi, but already crushed in Rwanda. It would take another decade to settle down in Burundi. The Hutu/Tutsi rivalries and hatreds are centuries old, and are not going away anytime soon.

Sierra Leone. Years of civil war and chaos slowly ended over the first half of the decade. Peacekeepers began arriving in 2000 (and leaving in 2005). Country is still a mess, but a relatively quiet one.

Somalia. Attempts to form a government (the last one disappeared in 1991), kept failing. In the last decade, several Islamic radical factions developed. This triggered an Ethiopian occupation of the capital for a year. Islamic radical factions now fighting each other, partly over the sanctuary some groups are providing to foreign terrorists (like al Qaeda).

Sri Lanka. Tamil (ethnic separatists) are hammering army at the start of decade, but government turns things around over next nine years and crush the rebels.  

Sudan. The Islamic conservative government goes through the motions of establishing an Islamic dictatorship, and crushing all opposition from the half of the population that was not Arab (culturally). Began the decade trying to settle the civil war in the south (against non-Moslem, non-African tribesmen). Sort of did that, then started another one in the west (against non-Arab Moslem farmers.) New oilfields developed with Chinese help, and China becomes an ally.

Thailand. Decade begins with minor Islamic terror movement emerging in the south, and the cleanest national elections ever. Royalist and populist politicians cannot agree on how to run the country, and military stages a coup in 2006. Backs off after a year and allows elections, but still helps suppress populists. While all this nonviolent political strife unreels, violence grows in the south, leaving over 4,000 dead for a decade of Islamic terrorism (to establish a tiny Islamic state from the three southernmost provinces).

War On Terror. At the beginning of the decade, Islamic terrorists were being pursued, and were known to be very active in many places (particularly Afghanistan, where they were welcome,  and Algeria, where they were not). September 11, 2001 was a wakeup call for the West. Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq cause huge losses for al Qaeda, especially the loss of sanctuary in the Persian Gulf. Decade ends with al Qaeda more of a media, than physical, presence. Very few successful attacks in the West since 2001, and a long string of defeats.

Uganda. The government was able to deal with several rebel groups, except one (the LRA, or Lords Resistance Army). By the end of the decade, the LRA had been driven out of Uganda, and the army had permission from neighboring countries, to chase down the LRA remnants.

Yemen. Installed its first elected president in 1999, but powerful factions enabled Islamic terrorists to install themselves. Throughout the decade, independent minded Shia tribes in the north cause unrest, and then open rebellion at the end of the decade. This triggers drive to destroy al Qaeda presence, along with Shia tribal violence.

 
No Comments

Posted in Readings

 
 
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes