Natural Design principles for Madrasas in Pakistan and Afghanistan

On today's Fareed Zakaria's show, GPS, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted that power alone will not achieve the US' goals in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. In the Secretary's speech to the National Defense University he stressed that "Our National Defense Strategy is BALANCE..." Included in this strategy is counter-insurgency operation manuals, Special Forces and Navy programs and "A variety of initiatives are underway that better integrate and coordinate U.S. military efforts with civilian agencies as well as engage the expertise of the private sector, including NGOs and academia."

I did not expect the Secretary of Defense in his speech at NDU to go into details on how to integrate military and civilian efforts. This lack of specificity has been a theme with Clinton, Gates and even Zoellick, president of the World Bank. They all talk about integrated efforts, smart power and societal issues as a complementary part to their strategies, a kind of a by-product that they stumbled upon when their initial strategies did not work. These societally-fit and culturally-fit strategies should be an integral part of our defense, diplomacy and development strategies. In light of the failures we face — economic, political and military — the central theme of our Foreign policy has to change to include at its center a comprehensive understanding of the underlying codes of the cultures we operate in.

This is the basis of the value-based concept of Innovations in Memetic Technologies — IMT^® for short. I have been developing these value-based technologies throughout the years of my work in tribal and feudal cultures, from the early days of being a community organizer and attorney in the Middle East, and later framed by my work with Dr. Don E. Beck on his Large Scale Branch of Psychology.

One of the most effective tools we use in IMT^® is based on the framework of Natural Design Principles (Graves-Beck) which in its simplest form asks the following questions in order of importance:

1. WHERE (Geo-Social Landscape) are these people we want to lead/teach/reform?


2. WHAT is the overarching goal of this project or intervention?


3. WHO are they? What are their capacities? Their Value-systems? their belief-systems? their history? religion? tribal loyalties etc....


4. After assessing these essential element of our systemic strategies for change, we now decide on HOW to implement this change? and Change from WHAT to WHAT?
   
   

Reforming Madrasas Based on these Principles:

Madrasas' Islamic education has been an important part of the educational system in Afghanistan and became increasingly important in Pakistan, especially after 9/11 as it became a fear-based defense of Islam against the "onslaught of the West." Madrasa literately means "school" in Arabic, but in the context of these two countries, it is translated in a strict adherence to the study of the Quran and to extreme teachings of Islam. A good Muslim is encouraged to memorize the Quran, and sadly the feudal tribes and strategic exploiters use such nobel purposes to manipulate students into their self-serving ideologies and to fulfill their dreams of a radicalized brand of Islamic Imarat.

These Saudi-financed madrasas operated in poor areas where there was no access to education, and many of the Taliban were educated in these institutions that teach the Wahhabi brand of Islam. Wahhabism was initiated in Saudi Arabia to rid Islam of innovation and bring it back to a literal translation of the Quran. Initially, the Saudis used the Madrasas to counteract the Soviet spread in Afghanistan. A good idea at the time (maybe) that turned toxic and focused on extremism and hatred of the West. Unfortunately, neither the Saudis nor the successive US administrations at the time had social scientists or psychologists to help analyze how such institutions will affect future generations in tribal and feudal cultures.

Now, with hundreds of books and volumes of research written about this subject, the issue we're facing is what to do about these madrasas:

Do we shut them down and restart the educational system with weak governments and weak security forces? if not, how can we deal with the new generation of Taliban that these madrasas are producing?

Using the above stated steps, we start by looking at the Life Conditions surrounding these madrasas: poor neglected areas with cult figures of Taliban giving a sense of identity and a sense of purpose to kids who know they would have amounted to nothing unless they belonged to a powerful clan like the Taliban. "Going to heaven and meeting the 72 virgins" is not the main attraction in many cases. It is unfortunately money. Making a living, supporting their parents and later their families, and having a status in the community are the biggest attractions to these young men. In a culture where the cast system is prevalent, having a status in society by any means is important. The governments in these countries, like in many developing countries are consumed by corruption and most politicians put self-interest ahead of National interest. Billions of dollars in aid over the years, have been re-directed to leaders personal bank accounts abroad, and donor countries always failed to avoid these pitfalls. (This is a very similar situation to Hezbollah's rise in Lebanon.)

Considering these facts and other external/Western factors that contributed to the rise of fundamentalism, it would be wise to keep the already existing madrasas and start with subtle changes led by religious authorities who are passionate Muslims, but not antagonistic to development and progress. The religious structure of madrasas and mosques can serve a great purpose in the lives of Pakistanis and Afghans if imbued with the right content of teachings.

I recommend the initial steps for change to be the following:

• Lincense the madrasa teachers. A program to license the teachers of madrasas with higher wages and cash bonus incentives. Licensing would mean that they adhere to a common curriculum that teaches the true spirit of Islam, and can be monitored by community leaders and the council of elders. Tribal communities hold a lot of respect to their elders, and reject outside interventions from police and government. (This would help honor the traditions of the tribes and clans while subtlly changing cultural implications and creating an open society)
  
  
• Draw from the legacy of Muslim scientists and history. Adding Math and Science to the exclusively religious content, based on the work of great Muslim scientists like Averos (Ibn Sina) and Al-Bayruni whose contribution to physics and mathematics give Muslims a lot of pride.
  
  
• Add Music curricula for brain development. Music should be an essential component of these schools: since the Taliban despise music, maybe religious chanting with the use of simple instruments can be a place to start.
  
  
• Call on the grandmothers. Kids at the age of 5 and 6 years old from these madrasas are now joining the Taliban, and are taught not speak to women; which makes it hard for women in those circles to have much influence. However, grandmothers are always respected and feared and, if well informed, they can positively influence the minds of these young boys.

A comprehensive plan should be designed for such change to happen, one that coalesces the efforts of our Defense Department, State Department, local governments, NGOs and local community programs. I have only touched on key points that might start the process. This is to show that we cannot keep throwing money at the Pakistani military (the US gave more than 10 Billion to the Pakistani army in the last 8 years), without having an equal strategy to change the habitat that is creating those extremist cells. That is the "balance" that needs to take place along with the military, counterinsurgency and economic strategies to help that region. If such coalescence takes root our entire Foreign policy will be redefined to be more effective, respectful and sustainable.

Hillary Clinton's 100 days in the Muslim World

Secretary Clinton said, "Foreign policy must be based on a marriage of principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideology. …We must use what has been called “smart power”: the full range of tools at our disposal – diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural – picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy.”

I salute the Secretary for a well thought out concept of 'Smart Power' vs. hard power or soft power. She has no doubt started a new era of diplomacy that might go beyond what her husband was able to do with foreign policy. My hope is that will be a combination of both soft and hard, plus insightful power. However, Clinton's definition of "smart power" misses the viewing lenses through which we want to design our diplomatic, economic, military....and cultural interventions.

It is not enough to use principles and pragmatism, we need to use stratified strategies that are designed to meet the underlying codes that shaped each culture throughout history and the new elements that are shaping these codes now. This is what we call Integral strategies: WHY do they think or behave this way? How are they incorporating 21st century technology with thousands of years of tribal traditions? It is not enough to use "the tools" that are available to us, but also to know HOW to Fit these tools, to help these people, living in those life conditions.

• How can we help Afghanis and Pakistanis build an educational system that will not collide with the widely accepted Madrassas? (Check my blog tomorrow about this subject)
• What kind of modern indigenous architecture should we encourage NGOs and governments to use in building their new hospitals, schools and living quarters in these emerging countries?
• What is the role of women in these cultures? do we want to liberate them in our Western style? Or listen to the intelligences in the culture and help them design a system that suits their needs? My experience for many years working with bright Palestinian, Syrian and Muslim women from different countries, taught me that these bright women (who might not speak English) know exactly what is needed to move their culture to a better place. They can be the architects of development of their own countries. Here's a example from Build Palestine Initiative, a grassroots movement I have been helping design in Palestine since 2005 that takes into account the integral principles and processes and the importance of starting with the codes that are shaping the culture. In this article and video we show an example of the dangers we face when not designing for the culture, from costing our tax payers million of dollars to prolonging the effect of conflicts and not bearing results: here Palestinian women speak about the clash between USAID's idea of women's abstract empowerment and our Palestinian women's idea of practical and sustainable empowerment Click here for more...
• How can we coalesce the efforts of Gen Y leaders in the region while trying to support their efforts in changing their countries? Why should we help their governments and NGOs design a comprehensive plan to provide a 21st century education, 21st century jobs and encourage innovation. This is the kind of prideful endeavors that these young Muslim men and women are looking for.
  

In an ever increasing "Flat world" where more colliding value systems and mindsets are meeting at airports, in businesses and on the internet than ever before, and underlying clash of cultural memes and codes is rising every minute and everyday, not and epic clash of civilizations. My hope is that Secretary Clinton can widen her definition of 'Smart Power' to include the essential memetic elements that will define the new paradigm of our foreign policy.

Obama's first 100 days in the Muslim World

"United States of America is not at war with Islam" president Obama boldly declared in Ankara, Turkey and went on to visiting the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, one of the largest of its kind outside the Arab Peninsula.

The president's strategy to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world is off to a good start.

Here's the Good Start:

In his inauguration speech the President stressed the use of"mutual respect," as a key phrase with a culture that has been feeling demonized for many internal and external reasons.

The first interview he gave to and an international TV network, was with Al-Arabiya a moderate network (dare I say pragmatic) that counteracts the sensationalism and inflammatory reporting of Al-Jazeera (however, al-jazeera produces excellent documentaries on the Muslim world). Obama's interview was well received, and promised to "not only promote an American Agenda, but also to help develop the region." Leaders and pundits in the Arab world praised him, but had a wait-and-see attitude. His Nawruz address to Iran was a good conversation starter with the Iranian people, especially the majority that opposes Ahmedinejad's reckless statements and governing style.

Realizing that Pakistan presents more of an explosive problem than Afghanistan, his administration along with the Japanese secured $ 5 Billion in commitments to Pakistan "to bolster the country's economy and help fight terror and Islamic radicalism" within the country.

Closing Guitmo, was not only an ethical decision based on the Geneva convention and that "the US does not torture," but also a winning strategy against Al-Qaeda's propaganda machine.

Here's where more complexity is needed:

His promise to pull out from Iraq in mid 2010 might be a clever message that might appease the fears of Iraqis and the Arab world, but is not a realistic strategy according to many generals in the Pentagon and in view of a weak Iraqi government and an escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. To most Iraqis this government is considered an American puppet and if history of Iraq tells anything, the power lords in Iraq will not rest until they are ruled by an iron fist. My hope is that any autocratic regime that will appear when the US leaves will be one that is more open to the West.

Sending 18 or 20 Thousand more troops to Afghanistan without systemically addressing the complex underlying problem, will never produce the intended results. The build up in troops must be equally and systemically accompanied by efforts to strengthen the government and security forces while building the culturally-fit institutional, educational and economic infrastructure. Short of doing that, we will repeat the same mistakes that the Carter administration committed in that country.

In their testimony on the Hill, four veterans who served in Afghanistan and managed to establish good relationships with the tribes, complained about the rotation issue of the soldiers. Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Genevieve Chase, who served as an intelligence soldier with the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan in 2006, said troops should be allowed to extend their tours, if requested.“In a culture where a man’s trust and respect is earned with time, loyalty and devotion to a cause, we rotate out units every six to 12 months,” she said.

The other major issue for that country is that the Afghan security forces' loyalty is to their tribes and clans not to an almost non-existing nation; which makes it harder for our troops to train them.

Obama's administration does not yet have a comprehensive plan on how to address the Swat Valley issue in Pakistan and now the spread of Taliban in the Punjab province - the most economically viable province in Pakistan with half of the Pakistani population living in it. I did not expect our president to find immidiate solutions to such a gynormic problem in the first 100 days of his presidency. However, I did expect to see a systemic framework that includes simultaneous strategies to help resolve this pressing challenge. (I will explain the difference between Systemic, strategic and tactical process in future blogs).