So does a foreign military presence in Muslim countries cause terrorism?

Great Debates
1

In light of the Woolwich death, the main raison d’etre of the attack was 'foreign military presence in Muslim lands, in fact, most of the causes of terrorism have been related to this reason.

So, let’s say hypothetically, we eliminate our military presence/drone warfare stopped supporting the Gulf states, or supporting Egypt and the wider Muslim world, although I’m not naive to think this would have an effect on reducing terrorism completely, what effects would it have on,

A) Muslim opinion of the Western world in general

B) The states we supported or no longer supported in Middle East and Africa etc.

If I compare it a little bit to the UK experience in Southern Ireland before 1921, the Irish Republican brotherhood launched violent campaigns in England in the 19th century, but after the British left in the early 20th century, this no longer happened because most of the wind had been taken out of the sails of Irish nationalism (Yes, even taking into account the troubles afterwards) I was wondering if a similar experience would be repeated if we (Western World) withdrew militarily from the Muslim world.

Can it be said that our military footprint in this region of the world is a major cause of Islamic terrorism, or is it a bunk reason as to why they attack us?

2

Give us back Spain and the Balkans and we’ll leave you alone.

3

So by discounting what I asked, you’re implying that Western military presence in the Islamic world has absolutely no bearing on the rationale of Islamic terrorism against the Western world?

4

Our military footprint in this region of the world is a major cause of Islamic terrorism AGAINST US, IMO. I don’t believe that Islam has a particular hatred of the USofA but every heavy handed action or misstep by us in the area gives the fanatics more ammunition to use to insight the unstable. Religious extremists of all stripes have to have a enemy to rail against and the US is an easy target.

If we could talk North Korea into trying to police the whole world then the terrorist would target them instead.

5

Yes, it’s a factor. bin Laden cited it specifically in his manifestos, as have other terrorist groups.

But it’s not the ONLY factor, not in the least. Our support for Israel is also a big factor.

(I am not endorsing appeasing terrorists, only answering the question, which also isn’t endorsing appeasing them - just to anticipate some responses).

6

Er…no, that’s not what I said.

Perhaps you could help us by explaining what you consider to be the Muslim world.

7
8

Cause? No, I don’t think it’s the cause.

So, we completely pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, stop(?) supporting Egypt and the wider Muslim World(?), correct? We’d still have a presence in the Gulf no matter what, of course, since we have a vital strategic interest in the region, so it would be impossible to completely withdraw from the region as long as we are dependent on that oil stuff they have (plus there is other trade that goes through the region that is also a vital strategic interest not just of the US but of the rest of the world as well).

But if we did all we COULD do and reduced our presence as much as is realistically possible? Well, we’d probably be where we were in early 2001…just before 9/11. :wink:

Realistically, not much. Most of the terrorism directed at us (the US and the rest of the Western world) is more in the way of telling us to keep out and stop playing in their sand box. Groups like AQ, while supposedly dedicated to fighting us infidels, are really after consolidating power in the region for themselves. AQ et al dream of a unified Gulf superstate and regional superpower, and basically the US and other Western powers stand in the way of that, since we aren’t going to allow any state in the Gulf to start conquering and consolidating all the other states…or, more importantly, the oil that we all depend so much on. It’s a fundamental difference that is going to put us at cross purposes to groups like AQ and continue to bring periodic attacks against us, especially when you couple that with the fact that we support the status quo (for the most part…obviously we didn’t in Iraq and Afghanistan, and aren’t in Syria or Iran to a lesser extent), even when the status quo means we support a thugocracy of one kind or another. The real difference between us and the terrorists is just who is the thug in charge and what sort of system they are under.

Well, I suppose it could be pretty devastating to some of the states we support if we no longer supported them in any way, though that seems unrealistic to me. We aren’t going to suddenly stop supporting Saudi, for instance, because we depend on their oil and we aren’t likely to leave it to chance that the oil will keep flowing if we totally turn our backs on them. There is only so much we realistically COULD and WOULD do in the region as far as backing out and leaving it up to it’s own devices. Even without the oil it’s a pretty vital trade route and we wouldn’t want to have all out war happening in the region.

9

Wikipedia is a really shitty source.

Why don’t you explain in your own words?

I ask, because your reaction to my initial comment suggests you really don’t understand the concept of the Ummah or what Muslims consider the Islamic World.

You seem to think Spain isnt part of the Islamic World, but why shouldnt it be. It was ours for centuries and we built a magnificient civilization there before it was stolen from us.*

Why for example shouldn’t it included?

The same with the Balkans which were ours for even longer?

Finally, why shouldn’t the large Muslim communities throughout Europe that bigoted Europeans refuse to let us govern by our laws be considered part of the Islamic World.*

My point is, that when Muslim guerrillas talk about the “Islamic World” they have vastly different ideas than what you seem to believe.

I thought my first post made that clear with far less text.

*. Not my view but that of the Islamic radicals that we’re discussing.

10

I am operating under the impression that islamic terrorists are basically the muslim version of the KKK. They are not going to be happy until their culture stops being invaded, influenced and dominated by what they consider to be impure inferiors, and they use acts of terror to put a stop to it.

But realistically, even if you did that they’d still want someone to fight. I think Al Qaeda in Iraq targeted Shi’ites more than they did westerners (I could be wrong on that).

The US would have to stop intervening in all muslim countries, pull its troops and military units out, and on top of that abandon Israel (or more likely to win favors, become hostile to Israel). Even then you still have western culture influencing foreign nations even if government policy does not. Plus all the corrupt leaders who use anti-western sentiment as means of redirecting and displacing anger and frustration over kleptocracy and corruption towards a target other than themselves will still exist.

Even if we did that, like I said, Islamist groups would just fight what they consider to be impure muslims instead of impure westerners and impure jews. So terrorism wouldn’t go away, it would just be redirected.

Reading a biography from a family member about Bin Laden, he claimed Bin Laden had a multi-step goal in mind (totally unrealistic, but this is what his son said).

Conquer Afghanistan
Conquer impure Muslims
Conquer Israel
Conquer world

So they wouldn’t have left us alone, Islamists would go on a crusade sooner or later, doing to the west what they claim the west does to them (try to force their government, ideology and lifestyle on us).

Muslims aren’t a monolith. Bin Laden had some troubles in Afghanistan because he was Arab (apparently old women at McCain conventions aren’t the only ones who dislike Arabs. Who knew). Sunnis and Shi’ites don’t get along. I’m sure there are tons of other schizms along racial, ethnic and religious lines too that will come up if Islamists weren’t fighting us. Plus the war between moderates/reformers and fundamentalists, and the war between secular government and fundamentalists, etc.

11

To a lot of Muslim extremists, this is the same thing. They feel that Palestine is a Muslim land, so to them the presence of Israelis there is just as much a foreign occupation as the presence of Americans in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

Like you, I’m not agreeing with this opinion just noting it exists.

12

Apologies for the nitpick, but whuh ? Spain (or shrinking parts thereof, at least) was in Muslim hands from ~710 to the end of the Reconquista, circa, what, 1500 ? So, 800 years or so. By comparison, the Ottomans “only” held the Balkans from at best the fall of Constantinople until the First Balkan War, so 1492-1913. That’s 400 years short of the span of the Spanish Caliphate.

That being said, while I’ll admit I have very little contact within the radical Muslim world, do they really still consider Spain as part of their turf ? The Balkans I can sort of see, since the reversal is still pretty recent and of course there’s still a sizeable Muslim population there, but Muslim Spain was *ages *ago.

13

I’d take a wild guess that repressive cultures breed discontent and someone sees political gain in channeling that discontent away from the repressive culture itself (where it might bring about change) to someone else’s culture (where it might bring about suffering).

Either that, or the simpler reason that the dickish assholery of blaming others for your problems crosses all cultural lines.

Not a very specific response, I cheerfully admit.

14

Just to nitpick, in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue ;). Constantinople fell in 1453*. But well before that the Ottomans had overwhelmed the southern Balkans. They were in Gallipoli in 1354, held all of Thrace by 1371 and added Bulgaria, Macedonia, much of Greece and southern Serbia by the 1390’s. Here’s a decent map of the state in 1453. So you should add about a century to your calculations for places like Bulgaria. A long time, really - certainly much longer than there has been a United States.

To a certain breed of radical ( not all of them necessarily ), yes. Some really extreme jihadist headcases consider once part of the Dar al-Islam, always part of the Dar al-Islam. Of course since many such extremists also tend to hold to a philosophy that the Dar al-Islam should grow to eventually encompass the whole world anyway, it is kind of splitting hairs.

  • I’ve been known to conflate these two dates in my head as well, so you’re not alone :).
15

Kobal, you’re correct my remark was a bit careless.

And yes, to some Muslim radicals Spain is. Al Quaeda has also demanded the return of the Kashmir so unless we want cut ties with India they’re still going to be pissed.

Beyond that huge numbers of Muslims, including the recent guerrilla attacks in London and Boston were radicalized not by attacks in the ME but by their experiences in the West.

16

I’ll add that it’s simplistic and silly to think there’s any sort of quick fix to “Islamic terrorism”.

The best way to do so is improve the lot of Muslims in the West and Muslims in the ME. People with shit to lose are less likely to engage in such behavior.

17

:smack: And I’d just had a quick shufti at Wikipedia to make sure I wasn’t off by a century, too.

Well, all right, if you insist. I’ll sport **Ibn **a century. He can have two even, just to be sporting :). It’s still well short of the span of Granada’s dominion over Iberian lands, is all I’m saying.

I suppose so. Although for some reason the latter seems less insane to me than the former. Is it weird ?

18

Not really. If someone considers Dar al-Islam to be a good thing, wanting it to encompass the whole world is a straightforward logical extension of that belief. But “Once Dar al-Islam, always Dar al-Islam” rather misses the whole point of the concept, as I understand it.

19

Simple answer to the OP, yes.

Slightly more complicated answer, it will reduce dramatically mainly because while the extreme radicals always will remain, support and sympathy will erode.

20

Let them try a take-over. That’s a war I’d join in a jiffy if they’d let me – doubt I’d be needed though.

For all the regional infighting in Spain, I can assure anyone that Basque & Catalonians would become one with the rest of Spain under a Muslim threat. The Perejil Island incident is just a sampling.