U.N. Report: U.S. War on Terror Radicalizes Arabs

Great Debates
21

I can’t believe how many fall back on: “they started it! of course we’re out to kill 'em all!”.

The war on terror is a military war. It is addressing the symptoms and none of the causes. Decades of abuse of power by the corporations that run the US led to the attacks of 9/11. How anyone thought that continuing and magnifying those same abuses would make it better is beyond me. (unless “better”= richer white guys in US). Arabs continue to get more riled up because the US is not changing any of the stuff they were pissed at to start with … the US just wants to crush them and rebuild there countries in its image. before eliminating terrorism worldwide … the US needs to stop being a worldwide terrorist.

22

Hell, call 'em again even. Email them, (again).

Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

The measure passed the House as grants, but you can contact your reps and thank them chide them as is fitting.

Representatives:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

23

Unfortunately this “Changing Minds” report is dated Oct. 2003… it should be dated to Sept. 12th, 2001. The damage is done and pretending goodwill might change the pretty heavy anger and resentment of the Arab world is false hope.

Either the US shows real and strong commitment to a change in position or no diplomacy will suffice. The way they continue to support Israel no matter what means this report is worth almost nothing. 

Military war ? Are you sure ? Will body counts and territory taken be the landmarks of sucess ? What is your criteria for a Military War then ? Casualties ?   A smart comment might be the use of military hardware as being necessary and part of fighting terrorism... but a military war ? Sorry to say your going down the wrong track. Bombing doesnt mean its a military war.

Please enlighten me WHY the fuck this is a militarily winnable war ?

24

Rashak,
It’s simplistic to reduce diplomacy efforts to “goodwill.” It’s about communication. W/o communication, there can be no cohabitation.
As much ignorance and misunderstanding as there is in the US for the Muslim world, and the Arab world in particular, I’m sure there is in the Arab world for the US. If this isn’t addressed in a massive, posthaste, credible manner, then things will not get better.
Part of why the Cold War was won is that we were able to communicate w/ those on the other side of the Iron Curtain. W/o the ability for both sides to see one another as actual, real, live human beings this conflict will continue. When there is such an understanding, then bridges can be made and crossed that’ll provide various incentives toward cooperation.

However slim a chance you think that there may be, I say that unless the US side is explained, there’s zero chance of a US success. Unless the Arab side is understood, there’s zero chance of Arab success.

25

Did you folks even read the “Changing Minds, Winning Peace” report from Djerejian’s group? The responses since that link was posted by SimonX appear to be uniformly approving of the statements and conclusions of the Public Diplomacy Advisory Group. I submit to you all that this document reflects a dangerous and unbalanced perception of how the United States government should go about it’s business, both domestically and abroad. Neither Orwell nor Goebbels could have written a more frightening treatise on the application of propaganda.

You will note the report confesses at the outset (p.5),

(Agent Cooper understands this fact), but then the report proceeds to say on p. 9,

In plainer language, “even though the real reason for radicalized opposition to U.S. foreign policy in the Arab world is the result of bona fide disagreement with the greedy, short-sighted, insensitive, and inconsistent nature of those policies, we think resources and capital are better invested in propagandizing those objectors into submission rather than addressing their policy concerns. Oh, and if that doesn’t work, at least sell the government line to the American people so we can continue exercising bad foreign policy without stirring up those darned voters.”

Funny - I don’t recall Carter sequestering himself with the White House press corps at Camp David. I would swear he was there conducting face-to-face diplomacy with Begin and Sadat.

Statesmanship is dead, long live the sound bite.

26

Our foreign policy should not be aimed at making the arabs like us it should be aimed at making the arabs stop trying to kill us. What really emboldened and radicalized the terrorist was the weak responses the US gave to previous attacks. The tepid responses to the Lebanon bombing, the WTC bombing, the african embassy bombings, and the Battle of Mogadishu convinced our enemies that we were weak and could be defeated. Arab countries have sought to displace the anger of their citizens at their failings to the US and have supported terrorism or at least tolerated it. The examples of Afghanistan and Iraq should make the Arab governments rethink this calculation. Meanwhile rebuilding Afghanistan into free and prosperous states should show the Arab people that there is another way out of their poverty and desperation. The two pronged approach of attacking those who threaten us and building free societies is the best way to pacify the Arabs.

27

SO true puddle I get the the impression that some people want to think that there were no radical Arabs before the War on Terror.

28

And that way would be to threaten the US/provoke a war?

29

That’s a result of one of your own issues.
People have clearly stated that the objection are to radicalizing MORE Arabs.

30

So you object to dealing with the terrorists because it may anger otehr Arabs? Or are you suggesting we should defeat them with a PR campaign to wint heir hearts and minds so we do not offend those that harbor them? Good luck with that. I doubt the most liberal of administrations would survive an attempt to bend over for the terrorists.

of course, if you have a solution to keep the Muslim world happy while taking out their “freedom fighters” im all for it.

The name War on Terror should give you an idea of what the goal is. And it aint a love-in.

31

I’m not sure as to how you came to the conclusion that this could be what I’m advocating.

I am suggesting that a PR is a crucial element to a successful war on terror. See the Cold War. I am not suggesting that its sufficient in and of itself. Again, I surprised that you would think that what I’ve said could be construed in such a way.

However, in this context, and from multiple standpoints, it would’ve been helpful if we’d stuck to al Qaeda, an imminent threat that is still imminent rather than switching to Iraq which was merely a some day potential threat.

What an odd non sequitur you’ve decided to post.

Why should we help the recruitment efforts of our enemy by engaging in activies that “radicalize” more Arabs?

32

Really? I must live on an other planet, but can you please explain me why it happens everytime again that when dangerous elements are safely locked up inside those countries, the US based “human rights” groups start screaming that we lock up “the opposition”?

Next explain me why these same poor persecuted innocents as result of these US based interventions
1.get out of where they were no threat to anyone
2.get a free ticked to Western nations as “political asylment seeker”
3. even receive those countries nationality
4. under the protection of those Western nations can freely start recruting in inside these nations among young Muslims who aren’t informed themselves about what really goes on and are easily misled. Even more easily then people who live in the region those poor persecuted innocents came from.

And then, when something happens and they show that they aren’t as innocent and harmless as the US based Human Righters cried and the Western world in general percieves them…
The same nations where they were rounded up and locked away safely and next were put under outside pressure to let them go, get the blame.
Please make some effort in trying to explain the logic of this to me. Because already a few years ago I became sick and tired of fighting this flood with a bucket where the USA -and formerly the West in general - because of its complete ignorance and utterly arrogance shoots holes in every time again.
In addition the invasion and occupation of Iraq leaves the ones who are still trying to contain the flood with no bucket left at all.

Are you going to provide for one by doing something useful and impeach your incompetent lying murderer of a president?
Or are you going on applauding for a US government that brings more threat to the world peace with every day it is in office.

Oh God… We encounter here once again the “I have a larger bomb then you have” mentality.
What is it with US’ers that they are so utterly obessed with their extremely expensive and extremely murderous wartoys? Is that what you call US Culture and Values? I’m most of the time inclined to believe it must be.

Oh really? Can you give me examples of this “free and prosperous state”?
I must be blind that I don’t see any sign of it. I’m delirious because I only see the same chaos as there was before the Mad Taliban frightened their part of the country that much that at least the warlord criminals operated less visible.
I suppose you also perceive what you people call the Northern Allience as some sort of heros and the US oil-puppet Karzai as The Most Powerful Controler of All.
Hint: even Karzai is out of sight in the White House and doesn’t even receive enough $$$$ to keep his household going.
But maybe I overlooked the budget for this “rebuilding of Afghanistan” in the US empty bucket?
If yes, please be so nice to inform me why it is the rest of the world that tries to give at least something to the starving frightened population. By the way: the children still pick up the nice yellow coloured toy looking splinter bombs the USD left overthere and are blown up by them.

Sorry, but I must use here a US message board expression, since there is no other answer to this …

ROFLOL !

Salaam. A

33
34

In fact what is the great difficulty in searching for terrorists without invading countries where they barely exist ? So yes you can fight terrorists without pissing off the Muslim world… remember that Predator hit in Yemen ? Wow… no need to invade yemen it seems.

Its a “war” only in name. No one answered my question:

Military war ? Are you sure ? Will body counts and territory taken be the landmarks of sucess ? What is your criteria for a Military War then ? Casualties ? A smart comment might be the use of military hardware as being necessary and part of fighting terrorism… but a military war ? Sorry to say your going down the wrong track. Bombing doesnt mean its a military war.

35

Yes. I’m sure. It is also an intelligence war, a financial war, an information war. And in all those cases, the benchmark is whether it achieves the objective – capturing or killing terrorists and eliminating their networks. As it happens, we are fighting terrorism with non-military means. But military action is and will continue to be necessary as part of it. Military action by us and others.

36

From what you said its not necessarily a war… just uses military means like I said. The label “War” is silly. PR BS. The objectives should include not giving terrorists legitimacy or recruits too.

37

Oh, please. The United States has overthrown two governments and there may be more to follow. We’re assisting troops in the Phillipines and not engaging the enemy directly there solely because of the Phillipine constitution. The U.S. military will go where necessary, when necessary and in whatever force necessary to prosecute this war. One hopes that that will be minimized by the other actions being taken by the U.S. and others, but not to call it a war would be hypocrisy on which the very same “radicalized Arabs” of the OP would call us. Viet Nam wasn’t not a war because there were peace talks, Korea wasn’t not a war because lots of countries fought it, and WWII wasn’t not a war because we decoded transmissions. If you put the military out there and they destroy lots of targets, it’s perfectly reasonable to call it a war. This isn’t a one-off thing like bombing a single facility or even bombing lots of places in search of a single mobile target.

38

I think the long-term, non-military part of the plan is allready in operation.

Why is there Arab resentment against the US? Much of this I agree with Friedman on;

  1. The deepest reasons probably have to do with the USs propping up of Arab dictatorships during and after the cold war. Im not trying to judge the good or bad of that, just stating it.

  2. This propping up, or maybe to be more specific the lack of US pressure to modernize their regimes, combined with oil profits have allowed many Arab regimes to avoid having undergo changes to the benefit of their citizens that other not so nice regimes have had to undergo in the past, whether because of US pressure or internal pressure.

  3. Arab regimes actively work to deflect critisicm from themselves to the US and Israel.

  4. While given as the one of the main reasons often by Arabs themselves, our support of Israel is not as deep a cause of resentment as it may seem, it my opinion. Its just one of the most fashionable right now.

  5. Iraq. Also a current strong cause of resentment, it isnt very deep, because, well, it hasnt been going on all that long. It too is very fashionable right now. If anything, it is resented as a continuation of 1 and 2.

I posit that 4 and 5 have their roots in 1 and 2. And I think that, whether this was or is the intent of the Bush admin, we are now in the position to sow the seeds to defuse 1 and 2. But I also think its going to get worse before it gets better.

I am convinced, though I may very well be giving the Bush team too much credit, that going into Iraq was also motivated at least in part because by being in Iraq, we have a crowbar to use on the Saudis.

The Saudies created and sustain the environment that generated 19 suicide hijackers. They created and sustain the environment that produced Ibn Laden. The Saudies have been able to buy off having to change or modernize or adapt because of oil profits, and its now biting US in the ass.

Now, whether or not the Bush admin is aware of it, being in Iraq we are now in the position to:

  1. Really put some thought into helping an Arab nation establish some sort of puralistic democracy, which itself would be a threat to every non-democratic regime in the middle east by its very existance, not to mention the side issue of yeah helping out the Iraqis.

2, the biggy - destabilize the price of oil, or more specifically, the price of oil as determined by Arab regimes. This is huge. Yes, we are going to benefit from cheaper oil. A side effect of that is that Arab regimes such as the Saudis, especially the Saudies, are going to be hurt by it.

  1. With an ongoing military presence in Iraq, our need for our bases in Saudi land and our need to look the other way when the Sauds pull crap is severely reduced.

So, the whole point being, we have this opportunity, now that we are in Iraq, to set in motion a chain of events that can lead to the Arab regimes being forced to modernize, being forced to inroduce more democracy and more reforms in their societies, partly by the presence of an even partly democratic and open society in their midst and partly through decreased oil revenues which allow them to get away with so much, and thus eventually defuse much of the anger against the US or at the least, redirect it to its rightful heirs; the Arab regimes themselves.

But, its going to take time, and its going to get worse before it gets better.

39

Aleluia and peace on earth… hmpph… you really beleive in that stuff ? Your talking of things that would take more than a decade to accomplish…

Manhattan - Lets change the question… can terrorism be won by military means alone ? Is the military aspect the MAIN aspect or the SECONDARY part of fighting terrorism ?

40

Afghanistan taking its place as a nation? manny, you crack me up! Kabul and its suburbs do not constitute a nation.

But its economy is developing quite nicely, what with the opium harvests increasing by leaps and bounds.

Pardon me if I’m skeptical about ‘real democracy’ flourishing in Iraq anytime soon, my Panglossian friend. The country just ain’t built that way. I’m hoping that what they wind up with is something a bit better, and more responsive to the will of the people, than Saddam was. But it won’t be ‘democracy’ by a long shot, even if it has elections. (Azerbaijan just had elections.)

Well, we’ve put a lot of effort into regime change in a country whose support of terror was incidental, for no apparent reason.

I think we might have had a chance if we could have stuck with one country at a time. But now we don’t know what we’re doing with respect to nation-building in two countries at once.

Actually, it’s the senators you want. The House has already voted for a package with no loan component.

But modulo that correction, I’ll do it, if you call up your senators and tell them that the Iraq reconstruction package needs to lose all the Hallipork.