Who on Earth do you think we’ve been talking about, the Tasmanians? Where do you think bin Laden comes from? Get real yourself, sister.
I provided cites. If you ignore them, it’s not my problem.
That I can agree with. I have no problem with that. But when ypu deny that you are saying the US wasn’t innocent in 9/11, and I cut and paste you saying it…
I haven’t attacked your intelliegence or your honesty, but you’ve felt free to savage mine. I leave you to think about that.
Can’t we all just get alo—
[sub]—hey, stop smackin’ me[/sub]
—Why is it legitimate for us to be resented by the Afghans and Eqyptians and Palestinians, to whom we have been giving millions or billions of dollars of aid year after year? Or, by the Kuwaitis and perhaps Saudis and others, who we saved from being conquered by Saddam? Or, our trading partners?—
The problem is, a lot of the aid goes into things that we want, not necessarily that anyone there in general wants. A lot of it is even in part just subsidies for American based corporations instead of using local corporations. So it’s not the sort of thing that’s likely to impress locals as to our having any sort of concern for them.
There’s actually a very interesting political theory rolling around now that pretty convincingly correlates the ratios of a country’s elites/selectorate/populations with its degree of responsiveness to public benefits. And what it suggests is that in the sorts of nations that populate the Middle East, the vast majority of our foriegn aid is basically goiing for the purposes of buying off elites in the aided countries so that we have political leverage over their government’s policies. Very little of that money ever gets to the people in general, and they know it. As I noted before, this gives the people a pretty low opinion of both us and the elites, but since they can’t really protest against the elites…
Again, as I argued before, in the modern age, it almost doesn’t matter if the people in control of your life are marginally nice to you (from their rather disconnected, bungling perspective, of course): the mere fact that they have such control over your life, without you having any say over this control, any feedback outlet for your concerns, is going to cause increasing tension, frustration, and anger. I argue that the hatred of many in the Middle East for the U.S. isn’t in principle all that different from the hatred of people for a local dictator: it’s still based on the fact that they see our heavy influence in their region as almost completely self-serving… and they may be right. But it’s also inevitable, given the situation: there is no political mechanism by which our government has any reason or obligation to serve the interests of people in the Middle East.
Basically: the benefits of having democracy internally don’t extend internationally: if you can’t vote for a policy that affects your life, it’s going to piss you off just as much as it would if you lived under a dictatorship: perhaps even if you DO ostensibly live in a democracy. That’s one of the major problems I think we face in an increasingly international world: even if every country were a democracy, we might STILL see the very sorts of extra-political unrest and revolution that we thought democracy was good at insuring against.
—I don’t know Apos’ politics, but I’d sure like to claim her/him—
I’m equal opportunity pissed off by every end of the political spectrum. What I want from government is mostly dealing with externalities, public goods, enforcing contracts, and upholding some basic principles of justice. I think progressive taxation is extremely unjust and unequitable. I’m not sure which, historically, has done more harm: people making laws, or people breaking laws. I don’t think publically run schooling is a very good idea, though I do think publically funded (fully funded, if need be) support for mandatory education is a good idea. I’m highly interventionist, anti-communist, anti-facist, anti-dictatorial. I could go on, but I might hijack the thread. To be short, I’m not “left” on any issues other than social and civil freedoms, but I don’t think the “right” represents any sort of honest conservatism either.
gobear and Apos, I agre that we are hated by many Arabs and I agree that you have listed some of the reasons.
However, I continue to object to the word “legitimate,” which implies that we have acted badly toward them and are morally deserving of resentment. Yes, they do resent us, but they are wrong to do so. They have misunderstood what the US has done. Our foreign policy needs to cope with their resentment. It’s reality. But, I do not feel the least bit guilty nor at all deserving of their resentment.
Matter of interpretation I guess. I think some of the Arab grievances are legitimate, some are not. Some “illegitimate” ones might be the cultural imperialism charge, which one hears from many parts of the world. Or that the U.S. is deliberately waging war on Islam, which is certainly not the case.
A legitimate one in my view - During the Gulf War, Bush called on the Iraqi military and Iraqi people to rise up and dethrone Saddam Hussein. He presumably was hoping for an internal coup by the army, which did not occur. But in the aftermath of the Gulf War, segments of the Iraqi people did rise up, specifically the Kurds in the north and Shi’a Arabs in the south. The Bush administration, fearing the tripartite division of Iraq and the loss of a regional buffer against other forces ( Syria, Iran ) decided not only to not intervene in terms of material support, but to deny only the use of fixed wing aircraft to Saddam ( which were a potential threat to coalition forces ), allowing his armor and helicopter forces freedom to crush the rebellions in a typically bloody manner. The U.S., in a moment of realpolitik, decided that a shaky but intact Iraq under the demonized ( legitimately ) Saddam Hussein was better than a cantonized Iraq, despite the bloody oppression of those minorities. So regional political considerations trumped ideals of political freedom and made a mockery of the U.S.'s earlier call for uprisings. Later the U.S. coalition did institute the temporary ‘safe havens’ in the north for the Kurds, as a result of intense public and international pressure ( especially from France ), but only after the fight was lost. And nothing at all was done to ‘shelter’ the Arabs in the south.
Now you may say the U.S.'s reasoning was perfectly sound, but that doesn’t change the fact that is legitimate for Arabs to regard that event, in light of earlier American rhetoric, as the basest hypocrisy. That the United States believes in freedom from oppression, except when it is inconvenient for them.
You needn’t personally feel morally deserving of resentment on those particular charges. But you should be able to understand just why the charges are brought and seem perfectly legitimate to the common people of the region. You seem to feel they should be more understanding and less resentful of the American’s precarious political balancing job. In part ( on some issues ) I might agree, but I think it is silly to insist that the United States has never done wrong or has made mistakes in the region which are the cause of legitimate grievances.
Personally I believe we have acted “badly” at times, for whatever reasons ( the Mossadeq coup is another that comes to mind ). We’ve done some good as well, but one doesn’t completely cancel out the other.
[tiny hijack]
Apos, except for the interventionism, it sounds like you’re quasi-libertarian. (You’re in good company in the SDMB quasi club, too.)
[/tiny hijack]
Might be a queasy Libertarian, there’s plenty of them too.
Milo:
In your quotation from the previous page, Mr. Hyde states, “If any nation has been a greater force for good in the long and tormented history of this world, I am unaware of it.” This is precisely the sort of self-righteous jingoistic propaganda that I feel does grave disservice to the political discourse in the US. In fact, the exact opposite could also be asserted; and speaking of Native Americans (as some of us were, earlier), I wonder how they might respond to Mr. Hyde’s summation of US history.
It seems strange to me that when asserting “American greatness,” one must do so by rationalizing away so much about the US that isn’t so great. For example, you write:
Exactly: and if we ignore the Holocaust, we can say many positive things about the German autobahn system as well(forgive me, Mr. G). But what compelling reasons can you give me for ignoring the damage caused by America’s “ridiculous obsession with Communism” when we seek to assess the historical role of the US in the international community? I submit that this obsession – which has led us to support some of the most dictatorial and oppressive regimes in the modern world, especially in Central and South America – has had a profound influence on the way in which the rest of the world perceives us. The well-worn case of Chile provides an example: claiming to support the values of freedom and democracy, we intervene in the free and democratic election of a mildly left-wing president in order to replace him with a brutal, fanatically right-wing dictator. In fact, it’s hard to believe that the US really does stand for freedom, self-determination, and democracy, when one surveys the historical record – quite the opposite.
I don’t really know how to address your list. I find it ironic that you cite the role of the US in Israeli-Palestinian relations as example of the “good” America does in the world, when it is quite generally understood abroad that the US could end the conflict in a heart-beat, were it merely to withdraw military and economic support of the Israeli government (or at least threaten to do so). Here, as elsewhere, US policy is perceived as essentially self-seeking by the majority of the international community: it is in the interest of the US to have a strong military ally in the region, hence our support for Israeli policies that have otherwise been roundly condemned by the UN and other international organs. In fact, wasn’t it the part played by the US in that conflict that led, to some extent, to Osama’s grudge against us? Clearly, just claiming that the role of the US in the “peace process” is an example of “good” doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Tamerlaine, above, mentions one good reason why the actions taken by the US in the Gulf War left a bad taste in many Arab, and non-Arab, mouths. Most Americans wouldn’t know too much about that however, since it has become so unpopular to critically inspect US foreign policy after 9/11 (if it ever was popular, which I doubt). I don’t know enough about Somalia to comment, but US objections to a world court for war criminals makes a kind of mockery out of our “efforts against Milosevic,” and the US military presence in the world can be as destabilizing as it is stabilizing – Vietnam, anyone? Regarding your last point, you must be aware of the criticism leveled against GATT, the IMF, the World Bank, etc, all of which seem geared to support US economic interests at the expense of “third world” development. There’s a UN conference on this very issue convened in Johannesburg as I write this – a conference that Bush refused to attend, despite Blair’s lobbying efforts to the contrary.
Finally, I would not underestimate the political ramifications of the Kyoto Treaty if I were you. Regardless of its merits or lack thereof, the unwillingness of the US to ratify it (when so many other countries have) has had a very negative impact on many average Europeans’ perceptions of America.
But enough. Lists can be written; I’m not sure how far we can get by comparing them. For what it’s worth, there is an interesting article in the New York Review books on this very issue, which can be accessed here.
Stoid:
Aw, shucks. Thank ye, ma’am.
elucidator:
Yea, touchy-feely socialism! (No Republicans!)
Yea, secular humanism! (No fundies!)
Re incumbent social collapse: well, I’d leave, but I mean – where could I go?
If I went back home, they’d probably just shoot me like the varmint I am. Nope. I’m keeping my Nixon up here safe and sound, where it belongs.
Well, as Milo said, it’s a mixed bag. You can look at Pinochet, El Salvador, and the Shah of Iran, or you can look at the Marshall Plan, the Peace Corps and the billions in foreign aid. You can look at our role in the UN Security Council, or you can look at our role in international disease prevention. The one moral authority we have that no other country has is the idea of America; that government should be as Lincoln said it should — of the people, by the people and for the people. When we decide and behave, as one country, as if we are holding that shining ideal of liberty and justice for all, when we raise up our vanquished foes, as we did in Japan and Germany, when we lead the way in accomplishment for all humanity, as we once did with our space program, then we are a beacon of light that no other country can match.
But we’re not perfect, and we do of necessity pursue the practicalities of America in preference most of the time to the idea of America. And we do it through a changing guard of administrations which each place different emphasis between the pragmatic and the ideal. But we’re the only ones even trying to be the ideal America.
And that’s my embarrassing patriotic rambling for the week.
Regarding the U.S.’ oil needs supposedly thwarting democratic urges in the Middle East - it doesn’t seem all that clear cut to me. We do support the Saudis and their dictatorial rule. But if all we cared about was oil, we’d be busy snuggling up to Iran and Iraq - but they have been cast as part of the Evil Empire. We support the Egyptian government and its human rights abuses, despite the fact that they are not big players in the petroleum market. Lebanon, a supposed beacon for progress on human rights, is under the thumb of Syria, which is not one of our big allies. I find it hard to argue that truth and light would come to the Middle East if we were not propping up dictatorial regimes there.
We also back the government of Pakistan, whose ruler is starting to resemble an out-and-out dictator. Do we withdraw that support and lose a potential chance to snag Osama?
Complex issues, not easily distilled into bromides.
Not taking bold steps to lessen energy dependence on the Middle East and not taking a more proactive stance to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (not abandoning Israel to the wolves, but being more proactive to seeking and backing up a solution) do strike me as the Bush Administration’s two glaring post 9/11 failures.
milo: u r one cool dude! u rock!
I think maybe the common theme is that, with the disappearance of the Commie boogieman, there’s no longer one coherent strategy to our foreign policies. I think, to be fair to the Bushies, that’s a positive gain they hope to make from the “war on terror”; a new foe to provide a post-Cold War direction. Unfortunately, IMO, that’s dangerously simple-minded and quite unworkable, since the “foe” in this case is so poorly defined that no direction can possibly be maintained.
xeno:
Wow. That came from an unexpected direction.
See, this sort of thing confuses me. I don’t know what you mean. Do you mean that no other countries in the world are democratic? Or that the US, as opposed to say France, or Sweden, has a special right to speak for freedom and democratic values? Why?
Well, for me, the operant phrase in this sentence is “as if:” rather than acting upon our ideals, we act as if we believed in them. But maybe you didn’t mean it that way. Anyway, my point is that while we might arguably have been a beacon, or symbol, for many good values once upon a time, our actions over the last few decades have seriously undermined that image.
Again, I’m not sure what this means. Do you sincerely believe that the US is the only country that strives towards the idea of a just, free, open, and democratic society?
If so, then you are wrong.
But it was not my intention to insult the US, or to detract from any of the good that she may have done as a nation. I just want to put it into perspective. For me, the US is no better, and in some ways considerably worse, than any of a number of other democratic European states. On the other hand, if Sweden was a world power, she might play dirty pool too. I’m tired of the constant media tirade against the US over here; Swedes forget that they have been able to live and work peacefully for the last half-century largely thanks to finding themselves under the umbrella of US military protection, in a global economic order maintained to a very large extent by the very country they love to hate. The US does the dirty work, and Swedes point the finger? How fair is that?
There are many potentially worse hegemons out there, and seriously, the world is not a particularly conducive environment for such fragile values as democracy and freedom, anyway. Which is really the crux of the problem. But if the US gov’t is going to pursue Realpolitik, which it most assuredly does, then at the very least we should have an open and public debate about it – rather than this current half-assed attempt to camouflage our self-interest in patriotic jingle-jangle, while we blanket all other critical discourse with the label anti-American. (Not to imply that your last post was half-assed, by the way.)
::shrug::
Anyway, patriotism is an emotion totally alien to me. This rhetoric about “the idea of America,” “shining beacons,” and all that stuff, might as well be in Chinese for all the sense it makes to me.
aaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhh!!! The board keeps eating my replies!
Mr. Svinlesha, I don’t mean to say that we’re the only country based on democratic principles or which strives toward freedom and open justice. What I mean about the “idea of America” includes the whole land of opportunity, symbol of freedom sort of thing that, I submit, only the USA is positioned to represent. It’s our history as the melting pot of all cultures and a crucible for progressive ideas combined with our unmatched ability through economic and military might to export that blended culture that lends us the moral authority I mentioned. (“Moral authority” != “moral superiority”)
Exactly my point by the patriotic tirade.
Thank you. That was the point of part 1 of the OP. It’s not that I think dissent is being officially suppressed; what worries me is the degree to which dissent is being marginalized by a popular tendency to translate self-criticism into self-blame.
Tamerlane:
While I think your post-Gulf War assessment was wholly accurate, but in a way it illustrates my point. Saddam Hussein crushes his own people, and Muslims fault America.
I’ll never forget how stunned I was to see in a poll that 36 percent of Kuwaitis surveyed said the Sept. 11 attack was “morally justifiable.” Given what America had done for them only a few years earlier. (Cite)
And don’t misunderstand me, Mr. Svinlesha. I don’t dismiss the U.S.'s shameful Cold War actions. But what can be done about it now? All the U.S. can do is do better.
**
And I find it surprising that you would suggest such a thing. The U.S. doesn’t view Israel as an evil interloper in the Middle East. It views it as a strong ally. And why shouldn’t its foreign policies reflect that opinion? It also works toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians as no other nation on the planet does.
I wholeheartedly reject your assertion that, were the U.S. to withdraw support for Israel, the crisis there would be solved.
Getting somewhat back on course, I don’t believe anyone ever said people couldn’t find fault with American policies in a discussion about the Sept. 11 attacks - only that to many, it’s inappropriate. As nothing America does or has ever done warranted its victimization on that day. And, reading what ObL has to say, it appears there’s nothing America could realistically change that would have made such an attack not occur.
Read the Atlantic article on bin Laden. It explores his motivations in-depth.
Many of the points some (like me) find offensive in 9/11 discussions I find perfectly legitimate topics of discussion in most any other context.
Hell, Henry Hyde was critical of American actions pre-9/11 in a certain context. When he talked about how we all for years watched people rallying in the streets, shouting “Death to America!” and burning flags, then shrugged and flipped the channel over to The Simpsons.
Milossarian: “Many of the points some (like me) find offensive in 9/11 discussions I find perfectly legitimate topics of discussion in most any other context.”
It seems to me that the “9/11 context” is so omnipresent in America that delegitimizing any points of discussion in that context becomes stifling of real dialogue. As an example (and I know I promised to move on, but this is not offered as a reengagement of the argument, just an illustration of a principle), the Lippincott List was offered as a response guide in the event that teachers or parents had to deal with xenophobic or racist statements/questions, which all of us are agreed must be answered in a way which stresses non-discriminatory behavior. Yet, because of it’s marginal connection with a September 11 Remembrance page, the List’s points were held to be offensive and roundly criticized because of the 9/11 context.
As an experiment, I’m going to try and have a 2 minute conversation about terrorism (or the “war on terrorism”) with my coworkers without any mention of the September 11 attacks or their victims being raised. —I can’t remember any such discussions which haven’t included a 9/11 comment, but I’ve never deliberately tried to hold one without mentioning 9/11, either. Under the new rules of political correctness, if the topic is raised, I’m no longer allowed to bring up otherwise legitimate criticisms of American policy.
In discussions of why the U.S. was attacked, it is helpful to read, well, Osama’s printed reasons why he attacked the United States. No guesswork necessary. In particular, you can read the text of his fatwa, which was essentially his declaration of war. Here is the fatwa.
As for the ridiculous notion that Bin Laden is just a lone nutjob and in no way represents the grievances of other Arabs, I should remind everyone that Osama has tens of thousands of direct followers, and millions of admirers in the Arab world. His fatwa received widespread praise. He had the support of an entire government, for Pete’s sake, which was willing to even be destroyed rather than turn him over. When the attacks happened, people cheered in the streets throughout the Arab world, and there are regular protests in which Bin Laden’s picture is paraded through the streets on posters. He is NOT a fringe figure in the Arab world.
Anyway, here are his stated reasons for attacking America:
[ul]
[li]"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. "[/li][li]“Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million… despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.” [/li][li]“Third, if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.”[/li][/ul]
He then concludes:
Note that Palestinians are not mentioned. The main problem Bin Laden has with Israel is that it is populated by Jews. He wants to free the al-Aqsa mosque.
Note also that a big part of his rationale is because Iraq has been attacked. This seems strange to me, because Saddam’s government is not Muslim, and in fact has been the chief threat to surrounding Muslim nations. It kind of makes me wonder how Saddam fits into all of this.
Okay, now for those who say that America is at fault, or even just that their actions precipitated the attack, please read the Fatwa, and then tell us what you would have done differently to avoid that attack.
If we take Osama at his written word, then the only way for the U.S to avoid being attacked would have been to:
Stop blockading Iraq, and end the no-fly zones, and withdraw all military presence from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Drop all support for Israel, both military and financial.
That’s it. This nonsense about poverty and dictators and the like is nothing more than people in America trying to project their own values onto the Arab world. Bin Laden says nothing about brutal Muslim dictatorships. In fact, he LIKES them. The Taliban was the worst of the worst, and he was their biggest fan. Saddam is about as bad, and he started the fatwa in part to PROTECT Saddam.
So, how many here advocate total withdrawal from the Gulf region, even in the face of a second Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and development of weapons of mass destruction? How many people here advocate letting Israel twist in the wind on its own?
If you don’t, then all this vague talk about America’s actions causing all this is disingenuous. The question is, were those actions CORRECT? Forget about other stuff, like propping up the Saudi regime or cutting oil deals with other Gulf states. Bin Laden doesn’t care about that!.
The old, “They hate us because they are poor and we exploit them” schtick just doesn’t work in this situation. al-Qaida is NOT a peasant army. This is not a food rebellion. They hate the U.S. because they hate infidels, and America is king of the infidels. They hate America because they want to kill all the Jews, and America stands in the way of that. They hate America because Americans are powerful enough to rub their noses in the dirt any time they want to, and that’s an intolerable thought to someone who sees himself as one of God’s chosen people.
So again, if you want to say that America precipitated this war through bad policies, please read the Fatwa, and then tell us, in detail, what the U.S. should have done over the last 20 years that would result in a peaceful Arab world that happily coexists with us today.
Milossarian: Oh, I don’t necessarily disagree with your point, or at least not all of them. I was just pointing out to december a legitimate ( in my view ) example of what sparks ill-feeling. The point of fact is that ( far as I can tell ) most Arabs do despise Saddam Hussein. But they also blame the U.S. for various actions, including the playing of power politics. I don’t really see a contradiction in that myself. Much of the perception of the U.S. is the result of America’s stature as a Superpower, the legacy of the Cold War as you pointed out, and the tight political/cultural ties between the United States and Israel - Things the U.S. perhaps had only so many options ( that it would consider reasonable ) to alter. Also the U.S. is perhaps the exemplar of the western world as is greatest power and therefore the inheritor of a whole series of reasonably fresh resentments from the colonial period. Still, as you have acknowledged, mistakes have been made and less than savory actions committed. Or sometimes just careless and thoughtless ones - Like leaving Afghanistan to rot after 1989, in the aftermath of what was in large part a proxy war between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A ( I’d also argue, that like Israel with Hamas, they funded the wrong people, but perhaps hindsight is 20/20 in that regard ).
Does any of this relate to ObL? Well yes and no. I think that he has become a lightning rod for many of these resentments as a result of being seen as the feisty underdog, the David challenging the western Goliath and winning here and there. Certainly he is clever enough to have taken deliberate advantage of this positioning to curry what support he can among the masses ( SH plays the same game ). For example his co-option of the rhetoric of the Palestinian issue, which had really been fairly low on his radar until recently. But while I don’t exactly disagree with Sam Stone that he has received a lot ( well at least some very vocal ) attention, I think much of it is skin-deep. For most Muslims, ObL’s vision of what the world should be, would be unpalatable to say the least. Remember the religious sect he belongs to is actually quite tiny, numbers-wise. Equally his “political sect”, the Jihadists-Salafists, though very loud and visible, are not really dominant anywhere ( even the Taliban didn’t really fall into this camp, despite some commonalities, as they were more xenophobic isolationists ). So unlike Sam I do regard ObL as essentially a very dangerous fringe player - Perhaps a large fringe and perhaps a growing one ( there is some academic dispute over this ). But a fringe nonetheless. Perhaps millions of Muslims ( perhaps ) - But that’s in a group of over a billion. And even most of those millions aren’t terrorists, don’t want to be, and never will be.
So would changing U.S. behavior ( in a reasonable way ) in the ME satisfy ObL and his cadres? No. The U.S. could pull out of Israel ( aid and support ) and Saudi Arabia and it would still be regarded by him as an indirect threat. I absolutely agree that he is a fanatic criminal that needs to be extinguished as efficiently as possible.
However, more careful, informed, and benevolent behavior by the U.S. could eventually, at the very least, reduce the ability of future ObL’s to rally resentment in the streets and thereby ratchet up political tension. I am encouraged by some recent actions, uneasy about others. But if nothing else, the U.S. seems to be studying the situation far more carefully than it has in the past. Also slightly aside I also am encouraged by the increasing number and visibility of Muslims in the western world. Which is sort of odd thing for an athiest to say ;). But I do think the perception of those people as an alien Other is fading. The world has changed a lot compared to where it was 25 years ago and not all of it is for the worse. But I’m getting off track.
My guess is that folks like you and gobear really wouldn’t disagree substantively with any of the above. Where you have a problem is saying that 9/11 flowed naturally from American actions in any way that could be seen to justify it. But it’s not quite just that simple statement, as really nobody believes the attack was justified under any set of circumstances. Your dispute is the with the argument that if the U.S. had behaved “better” in the past, 9/11 would never have happened and if we behave “better” in the future ( in a way that wouldn’t compromise us as a nation ) it might not ever happen again. Well, I think your point of view is valid and I appreciate the visceral as well as the logical reasons behind it. My opinion? I might be inclined to agree ( particularly in specific regard to 9/11 ), but I just don’t know. There are too many variables to account for and it is hard to say how much the U.S. and Britain engineering the overthrow of Mossadeq correlates to French counterinsurgency tactics in Algeria or the war in Afghanistan and how that relates to the general plight of the Third World, the misery inflicted by homegrown tyrants, the growth of religious fundamentalism, and a million other factors, large and small. Who knows what helps breed violent megalomania? I do agree that there is nothing we could do ( that is reasonable ) to 100% prevent the rise of another ObL-like loon. Some people are just nuts and will latch on to any reason and ideology to cause mayhem.
Given that I don’t know, talking about it doesn’t bother me particularly. I think such self-examination can be done with out descending into a blame mentality. And as another aside I really hate the “distract us from our focus” argument, which I consider a cop-out - We’re not so single-minded that thinking about more than one thing at once is crippling. However I do dislike kneejerk hand-wringing about as much as I dislike kneejerk jingoism. And I have seen some kneejerk handwringing, I’ll agree. Not everything is the fault of the United States and sometimes very little if any is. Now if we were talking about the Iranian revolution however…
Ultimately I guess I disagree with your stance, but am sympathetic towards it.
Sam Stone: Well, like I said I think there is difference between “general Arab resentment” and “al-Qaida’s” resentment. There is overlap and that is what is being exploited. But I think the first is ( very partially, but not completely ) addressable, while the second is not.
Tamerlane, you have clarified the debate, by moving to a discussion of actions, not just whether al Qaeda ill-feeling is “legitimate.” The preferred actions flow from one’s view of the causes. There seem to be 3 basic approaches.
[ol][]Kill or imprison as many al Qaeda as possible, as Rumsfeld often says. This follows from a view that they are totally in the wrong.[]Change our behavior. This follows from a view that their hatred is totally legitimate. A combination of #1 and #2.[/ol] You appear to favor #3. I believe current US policy is #1, and I support it.