This article is a response to an article entitled Hail the Imperium by Fouad Ajami published in U.S. News and World Report on November 5. Ajami is head of the SAIS Middle East Department.

In his U.S. News & World Report article of November 5th, Fouad Ajami, the head of the Middle East Department at SAIS, hails America as the altruistic imperial power that will “deliver the Iraqis from their historical furies”. He focuses on the selfless sacrifice that the Americans have made in the Middle East since the last Imperial occupation, naïvely neglecting what this U.S. intervention has meant for the primary stakeholders, the people living there. Essentially, he suggests that we bow to America's “reluctant” imperialism and be grateful that we have such sage leaders.

Why would the United States succeed where others have failed? Ajami expects us to believe that the American imperial hegemony would bring about true democracy to these “furtive nation[s] that crave imperial protection but [are] too proud to admit it”. Despite the tragedies inflicted on the Iraqi people by the countless bombings of Basraa, Baghdad and innumerable other places, and the subsequent death of half a million children or so (Madeleine Albright's “collateral damage”), this population will now turn to America with open arms. Just last week, in an interview with the New Statesman, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw announced that the British Imperial past was responsible for many of the modern political problems in the Middle East, including the drawing of the “odd borders” of Iraq. The current administration would benefit from this history lesson, avoiding the proverbial doomed repetition.

In the article, Ajami goes on to compare the gulf war with today's crusade. Is Professor Ajami so naïve as to believe that the American quest in 1991 was truly about the freedom of nations, and that this one is about freedom of peoples within nations? Having witnessed empires come and go, is Ajami truly telling us that we are now blessed with a benevolent, self-sacrificing American Model of how to rule the world? At SAIS, we've been taught that the forces, which have historically driven imperialism are economic interests, ideology, aversion of internal domestic developments, and national prestige. Someone inform Professor Row to add benevolence and altruism to this list.

Many Middle Eastern place names have “become synonymous with American sorrow and heartbreak”, as Ajami claims, and the horror of some of the American-targeted events that we have witnessed there should be categorically denounced. Ajami ignores, however, what unconditional American support for Israel's oppressive occupation of the Palestinian people has become synonymous with: American-made (and financed) F-16s and Apache attack helicopters bombing civilians, firing rockets into school grounds, and 4 billion dollars worth of American tax money supporting an occupying force that behaves more like a militia than a professional army. A deeper, more thoughtful reaction to these events is required. The American people deserve an explanation of the underlying reasons for the hostility exhibited towards them in the Arab world. As a leading academic on the Middle East, it is Ajami's duty to examine it in an effort to comprehend the complexities of the situation.

However, Ajami tells us that we must blindly follow America's political and military leaders because they are “supremely sober and seasoned men and women”. The irony that he is referring to George W. as “supremely sober” aside, are we sincerely supposed to sign up to the war effort because a handful of individuals with political ambitions and personal (economic?) interests think that it is a good idea? Can't Mr. Ajami offer us something more to go on than this unquestioning acceptance of his colleagues' analysis, taken verbatim? Whether as an academic or simply as a citizen, Ajami must ask “why?”, rather than recklessly subscribe to the belligerent rhetoric of the current administration.

Finally, with respect to his statement that Sept. 11th has revealed the true extent of the hatred in the Middle East for America, I would tend to agree with him, albeit reservedly. It is true that such hatred exists. I am deeply disappointed that even the head of the Middle East department at SAIS wishes to foster that hatred through encouraging the current administration's appetite for war rather than to seek understanding. It is only with an open-minded assessment that we can begin to address the causes rather than the consequences of the resentment of American intervention in the Middle East.