It’s What We Do

[kliljedahl]

The administration says the terrorists hate us for who we are.
But that isn’t what the terrorists say -- or what the record shows.
By Ivan Eland
Issue Date: 01.05.06

George W. Bush, in his global war on terror, has specifically avoided the clash of civilizations hypothesis, holding that the United States is not waging a war against the religion of Islam. However, the president has backed into the hypothesis by saying that terrorists “hate us because we are free.” The president, that is, has essentially made the argument that they hate America for “what it is.” We are not, Bush once said, “facing a set of grievances that can be soothed or addressed.” After September 11, this argument proved extremely seductive to the American political classes, media, and public, all of whom perceived that American values were under attack by the alien and villainous values of the Islamists. The argument has provided, for four years, the entire philosophical basis for how the U.S. government is fighting terrorism.

Yet the argument is wrong. Had people bothered to scratch below the surface, they would have seen warning signs that Bush’s aphorism was false and even dangerous. To start with, public opinion polls in Islamic nations repeatedly show that people in those countries actually admire America’s political and economic freedom. They also admire American wealth, technology, and even culture. So some other factor must be generating anti-U.S. hatred in these parts of the world.

Furthermore, Bush’s grand plan to reduce terrorism by spreading freedom and democracy to Islamic nations -- thereby eliminating the hatred of such values -- is not based on any empirical evidence that oppression causes terrorism. Spreading democracy doesn’t reduce terrorism and, if anything, actually may make it worse. F. Gregory Gause III, a political scientist at the University of Vermont who reviewed terrorism statistics and the academic literature, noted that the State Department’s own statistics from 2000 to 2003 reported 269 major terrorist incidents in countries Freedom House classifies as “free,” 119 in “partially free” nations, and 138 in “not free” countries. These data corroborate an earlier well-known study by William Eubank and Leonard Weinberg, professors at the University of Nevada, Reno, which found that most terrorist attacks happen in democracies -- with both the victims and the attackers usually being citizens of democracies. Gause also notes that recent elections and public opinion polls in Arab countries indicate that the advent of democracy would probably generate Islamic governments that would be much less likely to cooperate with the United States than their authoritarian predecessors. Those Islamic governments might also be more likely to sponsor terrorism.

Iraq provides a current example of democratization leading to more terrorism. During the authoritarian reign of Saddam Hussein, Iraq provided some limited assistance to selected Palestinian groups attacking Israel, but did not fund groups that focused their attacks on the United States. Terrorism now runs rampant in a more democratic Iraq, which, according to the U.S. intelligence community, threatens to become an even more significant training ground for worldwide Islamist jihad than Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation.

Finally, and most importantly, the evidence is startlingly clear that Bush’s war on terror has actually made things worse.



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. good article

You know, you don't have to agree with the terrorists and their feelings about the Shah, Israel, and our support of Middle Eastern regimes who favor Israel, but in order to understand and perhaps stop some of the terrorism you do have to examine our foreign policy. I know that even here at DU talking about Israel and its policies can lead to a flamefest and shutdown of threads. Israel is a really touchy subject, but one that I feel must be addressed-is the US interested only in supporting Israel no matter what, or will we take the time to examine how our policies look to others and try and come up with something that might, to the world view, be less biased?

[kliljedahl]

2. You're exactly right

There have been a lot of people tombstoned for not following the DU line. I think it is possible to support both Israel & the Palestinians, but with the Likudniks there is no compromise.



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. The key is to look at the politics and not religion

My father in law was Jewish. I have known Jews and had Jewish friends almost all my life. I have no problem with the Jewish religion-I've participated in Shabbot and have a Torah which I have read. Isreal is a political state that, I feel, has not always had policies that have been condusive to helping it get along with its neighbors. The US, I feel, appears to have a policy of backing Israel no matter what-and it is this that enrages so many people around the world, because they see it as unfair. Sadly, some people are blind to this because they get the religion mixed up with the politics of the state of Israel.

[thefool_wa]

4. My question is why

The following comments are politically and NOT religiously motivated:

What is it exactly that makes us so friendly to Israel? I am in no way saying they should be our enemy, but the support of ANY nation to the extent that it causes attacks against American citizens on American soil seems greatly counter productive, especially when that nation provides nothing that we, as a nation, need.

Lets forget for a second that Israel is a Jewish nation (again, I only want to look at the political aspects) and as ourselves WHY they need us and WHY we blindly support them even in the face of attacks on our own nation that are blamed, at least in part, on our support of them. They have one of the best armies in the world, are nuclear capable, and have a proven ability to defend themselves against their neighbors when necessary, so why?

Is our entire foreign policy based on regretful feelings over the holocaust? If so, then how long is it going to be before we let those who were responsible for it take the blame and bow out. Does Israel still hold Egypt accountable for the slavery that led to Exodus? I am in no way suggesting that we forget about the holocaust, but I am saying that maybe it is time for us to say "We have supported you until you had your own footing as a nation, its time for you to do it by yourself."

Please don't flame me, I have no answers to these questions, I am only looking for understanding.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. No flames here

because I ask the same questions. I think that guilt over rejecting the Jews on that boat, sending them back to Germany is part of it. This happened before we entered WWII, and was recounted in a book or movie called "Voyage of the Damned". Funny thing is that I believe FDR turned them away to appease the America Firsters, who are the ancestors of the current neocons. Then there's the fundy nutcase reason that we must support Israel so that the end times will come sooner. If we follow THAT policy, it can only be bad for the world, because it invites world destruction.

[thefool_wa]

8. Invites world destruction?

Man we have sent a car and driver for the end and are tapping our foot, looking out the window wondering what the hell is taking it so long to get here.

The more I look at the motivations behind those with anti-american entiment throughout that region of the world, the more I think that some good, ol' fasioned Laizes Faire is in order for a while. I'm sure we can figure out how to live without any involvement of the affairs of the middle east, it just takes some progressive domestic ideas (and we all know they are out there) and the motivation to adapt and make the necesarry changes.

[kliljedahl]

6. All I can say is

Mr. Sharon, tear down that wall!



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[annabanana]

7. K&R. . . . .n/t