december: Close, but not quite. Yes, I would probably choose #3, though my actual modifications you might find surprisingly mild and more in line with a more thoughtful approach to the region, rather than major policy switches ( i.e. I think the U.S. should continue to support Israel and safeguard the strategically sensitive Persian Gulf - perhaps the manner in which it does those things could be altered, but that’s an argument for a different thread ).
However it does not follow from thinking that al-Qaeda’s hatred is totally legitimate. Quite the contrary, I don’t think it is. I’m really not at all concerned with al-Qaeda, who are unconvincible, but rather with opinion on the street. As I said there may be some overlap, but most Arabs aren’t fanatical terrorists. Very few are. But bad feelings on the street transforms into unwarranted shows of support for criminals. Rather like the murderous James Gang was sheltered by normal, upstanding folks in their home county because they robbed hated instituitions.
Better propaganda means there are fewer places for al-Qaeda to hide and makes it harder for them to recruit and brainwash the disaffected ( they’ll still get their quota of lunatics anyway, unfortunately ).
Thank you, Tamerlane and Sam Stone, for joining the debate.
Sam Stone, what bin Laden cares about has never been the point. The point, for me at least, is what are the policies which in the long run make the region --and the world-- more secure?
Rather than asking “what does bin Laden want?” we ask “why is there support among Muslims for murderous perverters of Islam?” I think even with propaganda and religious polemics directed against us, that much hate indicates at least that we’re not doing everything right.
Tamerlane: Okay, but you’re speaking in generalities again. You admit that Al-Qaida’s grievances would not have been addressed by any reasonable action the U.S. could have taken. You admit that Al-Qaida has a reasonably large swath of support in the Arab world.
And yet, you claim that Americans should modify their behaviour in the world, in order to stop ‘Arab resentment’, and thus improve security.
I don’t understand this point. It’s one thing to say, “I don’t agree with America’s position on X on moral grrounds, and I think they should stop doing that.”, and saying, “The Americans should stop doing X in order to prevent more attacks.” The first is a statement of YOUR values. The second is an unsupported assertion.
Most people who make this claim invariably start talking about poverty, support of despots, feelings of hopelessness among Arabs, etc. The problem is, those are our values. I have seen very little evidence that these are the kinds of things that drive Arabs to hate the United States. Many of the most virulent America-haters come from the wealthier ranks of Arabs, and are direct beneficiaries of America’s dependence on their oil and support for their regimes.
I tend to take people at their word. If you read the Arab press, or the stated words of Osama himself, America-hatred always seems to revolve around infidels vs muslims, American presence on sacred ground, and most importantly, the American support for the hated Jews.
It’s only when I read western op-eds about the Arab world that stuff about poverty, equality, and democracy enter into the debate. A classic case of trying to judge our enemies not by their own values, but by ours.
So I’ll ask the question again: IN PARTICULAR, what should America do differently in the Gulf, and what do you think its effect would be on the likelihood of terrorist attacks against Americans?
Hmmm…Not quite. Actually not at all, but I suppose it depends on how you define “support” and “large swath”. I understand why you interpreted my statements to mean that. But I think the real situation is more complex.
Not stop, ameliorate. And maybe not a lot. Otherwise, yes.
Okay.
As assertion I never made :). I’m not talking about preventing attacks per se, which may or may not be possible, but probably isn’t. I’m talking about decreasing tension by increasing mutual respect.
Well, what can I say - I disagree. I think those are universal human values, not values particular to any given culture.
Many? I disagree here as well. A few. ObL is an exception, not the rule. Most elites in most Arab countries aren’t riddled with terrorist cells. A rather larger number are from the pious middle-class. Educated and disaffected precisely because they are educated enough to understand what people can achieve elsewhere, yet are still shut-out from the political process and blame the U.S. for, well, all sorts of things.
The base continues to be, however, from the radicalized lumpen proletariat. There aren’t a lot of sons of rich men in Hamas or Hezbollah.
Sure. In some cases that is all there is. But desperation can exacerbate the situation by putting people in a mindset where they have nothing to lose and are more easily swayed by ideological demagogues. Was the American Communist Party ( and associated socialist movements ) at its peak during the Great Depression because of desperation or the appeal of a new ideology? I’d say both.
Again, it really isn’t about “our enemies” to me. Not at all. I’m not looking to reform al-Qaeda.
I can’t answer the second because I haven’t a clue and I’ll have to think about the first, as unfortunately it is a complex problem and hopefully one to which smarter people than me are applying themselves.
By the way I sometimes debate generalities because I don’t always have the specific answers ( if there are any ). I’m not ashamed of not being brilliant :).
Tamerlane: Actually, you’re probably the last guy I should have directed my comment to, because I actually find your position to be quite reasonable. Nevertheless, there are a lot of people going on about ‘root causes’ today, but I never hear anyone of them propose any alternate policies. Especially not any that would appear to have made a difference.
What sort of policy proposals were you looking for, Sam? Hopefully not specific, detailed recommendations; there are a few Dopers who are qualified to do that, but most of us are neither regional experts nor diplomacy wonks. How about a few general foreign strategy bullets?
[ul][li]No more “regime changes”. We suck at it, and it’s not part of the American idea I’m so hep on.[]Be more participatory in (less obstructive of) international conflict resolution (International Criminal Court).[]Play the arbiter between Israel and Palestine; we are not acting as Israel’s friend by giving blanket approval. We should continue to press for reform of the PA, but accompany that with all possible organizational assistance. A Palestinian Authority which was able to exert actual authority would be a far more effective damper on extremism than extreme Israeli actions, which only tend to bolster it.[/ul][/li]I’d also like to see us try some different ways of administering humanitarian aid to try and keep from lining corrupt pockets; third party management, focus on logistical aid, etc.
Sorry I don’t have any brilliant solutions in my pocket, Sam, but thankfully one doesn’t have to have all the answers to have an idea where the wrong ones are being offered.
Well, you don’t have to propose NEW policies. But which policies of the past do you think the U.S. engaged in which directly led to the 9/11 attack?
I keep hearing people saying, “Our behaviour does not excuse what they did, but it does explain it.” Or words to that effect.
So the question is, WHAT policies led to the attack, and what would you have done differently in the past?
If we take Osama at his word, then essentially his problem is the Gulf War. So would you have let Hussein take Kuwait? Just how else could that situation have been resolved without raising the ire of al-Qaida?
I just see this ‘root cause’ stuff to be just a bunch of muddy thinking.
As for your other points… “No Regime Change”? How about Afghanistan? Do you think we should have just left the Taliban in power, and given Bin Laden a safe haven to build a powerful army of terrorists?
How about Iraq? We should not seek regime change? Even if Saddam builds nuclear weapons and starts threatening his neighbors with them? Even if he invades Kuwait again? Just where are you willing to draw the line?
As for playing the arbiter between Palestine and Israel… You realize the U.S. is doing exactly that, right? Are you saying the U.S. should do less supporting of Israel? If so, please be specific. Just what things should the U.S. do to ‘arbitrate’ between two parties that refuse to talk to each other? The problem with ‘arbitrating’ between the two is that neither Israel or the U.S. is willing to accept the destruction of Israel, and many Arabs will settle for nothing less.
And I have to repeat: Osama never mentioned the Palestinians. What he DID mention was ‘reclaiming the al-Aqsa Mosque’. Are you advocating that the Israelis withdraw from Jerusalem?
As for the ICC, that’s really a straw man in terms of the Middle East. It’s simply not an issue. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Arabs hate the idea of a world ‘criminal court’ made up of infidels much more than the U.S. does.
Look, only bin Laden’s pathology explains the attacks. I don’t know (or care) who you’ve been hearing. The dialogue concerning American foreign policy should not bear as a consideration the thinking of bin Laden. Certainly any investigative efforts (one would think long past effectiveness) might consider that, but that’s a forensic effort, isn’t it?
Are you confused about the concept of “arbitration”? Obviously, the motives of “many” Arabs —and I challenge you to put a verifiable percentage on that number— cannot negate a negotiation based on representation of most Palestinians.
Threats are something America is pretty familiar with. Did we declare war on the USSR? If Iraq invades another country (pretty unlikely) that’ll be a clear provocation for international response. Won’t it?
The subject was “American foreign policy.” Any foreign policy based on unilateral application of law relies purely on military and economic hegemony for success. That’s not the American idea either.
I guess my problem with it was, if the classroom discussion turned to blaming ethnic groups, he encouraged expounding on past American repression of ethnic groups in a response to an attack or conflict - even if said discussion isn’t a very good fit to what is occurring now (Japanese internment).
But completely missing from his list was any kind of emphasis to kids along the lines of, “Look; I know this gets complicated and confusing. But never lose sight of the fact that this was mass-murder. There is no justification for it. There is nothing the United States did that caused this to happen or warranted it happening.”
Many might say, “Well, doesn’t that go without saying?” Right back atcha. Doesn’t it go without saying that we don’t want to do what we did when we detained Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor? Who is advocating that? Who has made one step in the million-mile journey in that direction?
Indeed, not only is the “don’t forget we’re not to blame” message absent on the list, but we get Lippincourt’s curiously non-contextual comments about understanding that self-blame may allow students to feel in control; something they could have done or could do in the future. Many in the Pit thread howled that he still thought such thinking was bad. Perhaps they are correct, and it was only worded horribly. But I wonder. I wah-wah-wah-wah won-derrrrr.
**
You miss the point.
How could a discussion of terrorism not include the world’s worst and most recent terrrorist act?
It’s when the discussion of America’s foreign policy actions are interjected in certain ways in a Sept. 11 discussion that it can begin to become offensive to some.
As has been repeatedly pointed out by me and others, there is nothing that can be pointed to in America’s foreign policy history that = Sept. 11 attack. There is nothing America could realistically do now or have done in the past that = no Sept. 11 attack.
In another, non-Sept. 11 attack discussion, any and all points on America’s foreign policy shortcomings are legitimate topics of discussion. For example, completely setting aside Osama bin Laden and his merry band, who we should view as nothing more than cockroaches to be squashed or poisoned until they no longer exist, American focus should be on the millions in the Arab and Muslim world who, jaw-droppingly, read and see what ObL is about, yet still hold some level of support for him. Or who don’t see the Sept. 11 attacks as all that atrocious.
Now for me, much of that process has to do with educating said people. Providing them with information to counter their misinformation. Or at least whittling down their position to the point where it is exposed for what it is - which I suspect from talking with several people who hold such views is nothing more than jealousy and/or resentment at America’s power and their country’s lack thereof.
Yes, I can think of dozens of inappropriate examples. For instance, there’s no justification whatsoever for someone to reply to an admiring comment about NY firefighters by criticising our sanctions against Iraq; it’s a truly offensive non sequitur. But when the conversation turns, as most of them do, to the broad questions – how does terrorism flourish? what do we do in response? what do we do domestically / where should we go in our foreign policy? – then it’s reasonable to note the change in context and broaden the range of topics which we consider polite. It’s that contextual shift that I think is being ignored by many, possibly because the horrendous and indefensible nature of the attacks makes us so totally (and justifiably) unforgiving.
Just so with Lippincott’s list. The context it was created to deal with wasn’t the question “were the attacks at all justified?” It was the question “should we hate/fear/act against all Arabs?” You may certainly question the necessity of preparing for this attitude if you think it’s an unlikely one to encounter (although I think school teachers might tell you it’s pretty common), but it’s hardly fair to criticise the list for not addressing every question. The list said nothing about supporting our military or the importance of police forces, for example, because those subjects were beyond the intended scope.
I’m in 100% agreement. I think a prerequisite for effective education is a society which encourages open expression of ideas. While I understand from some of the Dopers who know the region that political discourse is alive and well in most Muslim societies, I tend to doubt that the information we’d like to spread is either widely available or that public dissent is much encouraged by the governments of some of our allies. And it’s only in a climate of open dissent, I suggest, that real information regarding American policy can be effectively presented.
Not nearly as much as either of us might have thought a few days ago.
There is nothing wrong with trying to figure out why our enemies attack. Von Clausewitz would agree, and he was no shrinking violet.
The problem I see is that we tend to evaluate them by projecting western morals and ideology on them. At least, that’s what many of the ‘root cause’ people are doing.
What are you going to do if your examination of ‘root causes’ discovers that A) They think democracy is decadent and destructive, and B) Jews are a blight on the earth and must be destroyed, and C) Americans are infidels, and no amount of influence by Americans in the gulf at all will be tolerated?
I agree that we shouldn’t evaluate any culture through projection of ideologies they don’t hold. I’m not sure if that’s what many ‘root cause’ people are doing, or if possibly some have a poor understanding of Middle Eastern cultural differences. Either way, a discussion of root causes of hatred can’t be productive if the cultures under discussion aren’t clearly understood.
Depends on who “they” are, how much influence “they” have on larger society, and how pervasive and intractable are these ideas that “they” hold. I don’t think it will be any surprise to you to hear that “Arab culture” is not monolithic.
No, of course not. And I wasn’t trying to suggest that these WERE the ideals anyone was holding. My point is that many people want to ‘examine’ things for which they have already drawn conclusions. It’s just another way of saying, “See? America is bad.”
For instance, here is what I see as one of the ‘root causes’ of radicalism in Saudi Arabia - the fact that the country is full of young men, and not very many young women. A huge number of workers in Saudi Arabia are men from surrounding countries. And since the government is so freaking misogynist, no women allowed. This has led to a lot of problems, but it’s hard to see how any of that is America’s fault. In fact, you could argue that part of the problem is that there aren’t enough of our values over there - particularly, political and economic power in the hands of women.
I’m just wondering if the ‘root cause’ folks are even willing to entertain the notio that the root cause of terrorism is the backwards, misogynistic nature of much Arab culture? And if so, what the solutions are? The old mantra of more ‘cooperation’, ‘understanding’, and financial aid may be completely irrelevant in this war.
And there is no doubt that anti-semitism is a big problem in the Arab world, but I don’t hear any ‘root cause’ people talking about that, other than to suggest enabling that anti-semitism by withdrawing support for Israel.
Anti semitism does exist, and is part of some of the anti-Israel feelings in the Arab world. And where it is overtly expressed, where it is used as the primary cause against Israel, I suppose it would tend to occlude the legitimate grievances that do exist regarding Israel. Off hand, I can’t think of any MENA nation or organization which is purely or primarily anti-semitic in its mission; can you provide a cite? Also, what do you suggest we ‘root cause’ people need to learn from the fact that anti-semitism exists, that we don’t already take into account? There’s at least a few of us who don’t suggest withdrawing support from Israel, but at the same time don’t heartily stand behind every position that country takes.
You’ll get no argument from me about that. —I don’t know if your theory that the misogynistic culture causes radicalism is accurate (I’m no expert), but I think you’d have to reconcile that theory with similarly patriarchal societies which haven’t produced extremists.
" The depth of royal coercion has meant that no alternative voices have been allowed to flourish. Today, there is not a viable alternative to the ruling family that could unite the disparate parts of the country, perhaps enhancing bin Laden’s pull artificially. But what many Saudi Arabians are talking about constitutes neither full democracy nor absolute monarchy. Rather, it is a voice in governance, and the rule of law. The challenge before Crown Prince Abdallah is to promote domestic reform that incorporates the diversity of the population. His strong nationalist voice can be used to counter the power of the radical movement. The wide middle ground between a revolutionary bin Laden and an authoritarian ruling family cries out for cultivation."
And this, from a source you might not appreciate quite so highly offers similar information in a different tone:
I tend to think “anti-Semitism” is an easy aspersion to cast, pretty lazy as a means of understanding Arab/Muslim sentiment towards the Israeli State and a mis-characterisation.
If nothing else, the Arab/Muslim world has always been consistent in their agenda – at the top of the list it’s first and foremost a self-determining Palestinian State. Has been for 30-50 years. The fact that it’s a Jewish nation supported by the US that lies in the way of that goal is incidental, IMHO.
There is probably, IMO, nothing the US could have done to stop 9/11 and no change in policy will prevent Bin Laden launching another heinous and unjustified attack.
What different policy choices, (perhaps taking a longer term view of our interests, enlightened by our finer our ideals), made by the West could do however, is drain the sea from which he derives support and from which future terrorists will arise.
Isolate the guerilla from their support and deny them hiding places in a sympathetic general populance. Just killing them won’t do if it creates more motivation for a new generation of terorists to arise. And “hearts and minds” can’t just be media spin on our existing actions, that just exacerbates things.
I hope we nail the SOB and his ilk but i hope we also understand that the pursuit of short term or sectional interests in the world today, can be counter-productive.
It was the West that helped foment and arm Islamic fundamentalism to wage a proxy war in Afghanistan because it was seen as in our interest to do so. Can we be confident that was the right move with hindsight?
Might it not have been better just to let the communist government alone to educate its people out of the middle ages?
By now it might have either collapsed or reformed like Eastern Europe or be like Vietnam, eager to do business. Even if it collapsed into fundamentalism at least we would not have trained and armed a lot of them.
Google gives 5000 hits for “arab antisemitism middle east.” Not all address Arab antisemitism, but some do, sometimes government-sponsored Arab antisemitism. This is the opposite of Western governments, which typically sponsor tolerance. Here are a couple of examples.
LC, please don’t ignore cites, just because they’re Jewish. It’s not right to assume that Jewish sources are automatically dishonest on this subject. Naturally Jews are the ones most concerned about antisemitism.
If you really want to dispute the level of antisemitism in middle eastern countries, I would request some counter cites. Try some of the 5000 google hits at the site I provided above. You might find data contradicting Arab antisemitism. Howeverl, I think you will find lots more support for it.
I think Arab antisemitism is something that just isn’t reported much, except in conservative American media and, of course, in Israeli and Jewish media. That’s probably why you aren’t familiar with it.