November 29, 2004
Strategic Communication
The Pentagon just made public a Defense Science Board report it commissioned (here’s the full document) that examines the question many of the dim bulbs in our government still seem to be asking: “Why do they hate us?” The study torpedoes the “they hate our freedoms” school of thought led by President Bush, and instead concludes that they hate our government’s policies.
The report states the US has totally failed to explain or justify our foreign policy goals to the Muslim world, and notes that even if we do get the message out, actions speak louder than words,
"The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.""The dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars" against the United States, the report said. "American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims."
"In other words, Americans have become the enemy," it said. "It is noteworthy that opinion is (strongest) against America in precisely those places ruled by what Muslims call 'apostates' and tyrants — the tyrants we support. This should give us pause."
Indeed. We must either change our policies, or admit we will never win "the war on terror" and live with the consequences.
The choice we make will dictate our strategy: do we continue with our current policies and batten down the hatches here at home, or do we change our policies and work for peace?
The report is an interesting read and will hopefully spark some long-absent national debate in the government and among the public about what it takes to win hearts and minds in the Muslim world,
To succeed, we must understand the United States is engaged in a generational and global struggle about ideas, not a war between the West and Islam. It is more than a war against the tactic of terrorism. We must think in terms of global networks, both government and non-government. If we continue to concentrate primarily on states ("getting it right" in Iraq, managing the next state conflict better), we will fail.Posted by American Pundit at November 29, 2004 05:26 AM
It is what so many of us here have been saying since before the invasion of Iraq, and we didn’t charge the taxpayers a few million dollars for the advice.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2004 06:01 AMThey are sooooo gonna get fired… ;)
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 29, 2004 09:13 AMI still find it amazing that anyone could believe we’re hated simply for existing.
Posted by: Alejo at November 29, 2004 10:58 AMI really, really, really hope no American policymaker ever actually believed the “they hate us for our freedom” line. That would be so embarrassing.
Posted by: Chops at November 29, 2004 11:35 AMI really, really, really hope no American policymaker ever actually believed the “they hate us for our freedom” line. That would be so embarrassing.
But policymakers lying to the American public (as to why the terrorists hate us) is… what? Less embarrassing? More embarrassing? Standard procedure?
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 29, 2004 11:49 AMOur foreign policy makes me sick. The fact that our govt puts people of other nations above its own is disgraceful.
But, in keeping with the topic of this post, I want to ask a simple question:
“Do they not also have the responsibility to reach out and try to understand our positions?”
Posted by: kctim at November 29, 2004 12:07 PMkctim —
“Do they not also have the responsibility to reach out and try to understand our positions?”
Yes, they do. But we as Americans are in a unique position of being generally well-fed, well-sheltered and well-informed. Also, we as Americans have the power to push our interests and our culture upon other peoples who are trying to preserve their interests and their cultures in their own countries. We bear the greater responsibility in the relationship.
Posted by: Alejo at November 29, 2004 12:43 PMAlejo -
Yes, they do. But we as Americans are in a unique position of being generally well-fed, well-sheltered and well-informed. Also, we as Americans have the power to push our interests and our culture upon other peoples who are trying to preserve their interests and their cultures in their own countries. We bear the greater responsibility in the relationship.
Not only that, but also we have the power to know. Never before has a society had the opportunity to be so well-informed and ended up so ill-informed.
Joseph - I think stupidity is worse than duplicity, though neither is good. Maybe that says something about my values. I blame the trite proclamations of politicians on the voters who are dumb enough to believe them.
Posted by: Chops at November 29, 2004 12:58 PMVery well said Alejo.
But, is it all OUR fault? We pump BILLIONS of dollars into these countries every year, yet they still hate us. Their so-called leaders take our money and live like kings while the people suffer. But still, they blame us for all their troubles.
When do they begin looking at themselves as PART of the solution?
kctim —
They hate us because, despite contributing to their economy, we also intrude into their countries. I’m not saying it’s all our fault or all theirs — look out, I smell nuance — but what I am saying is that we have to make the first step. Perhaps we could stop referring to certain countries as “evil?”
Posted by: Alejo at November 29, 2004 01:09 PMIt is true that you can’t sell a product if people don’t want it. It is equally true that a product not properly advertised and marketing will not sell well. And it is true that nobody has an accurate view of anything as complicated as the United States. Everyone makes their judgment based on mental models or even caricatures. It is these models that communication can address.
We also have to remember is that we have enemies. It is not merely a matter of getting out the truth. Our enemies respond with information of their own and sometimes distortions and disinformation. There are a lot of things about the U.S. that some people don’t like and will never like. A radical Muslim view of the Middle East must necessarily clash with American goals. U.S. trade and cultural influences undermine traditional societies of all kinds. The radicals are not wrong when they identify this problem. American leaders just assume that religion will come to play a less central role in society. This assumption runs from left to right in the U.S., and is probably even stronger on the left wing (witness the backlash against religion in politics in our own election.) We can nuance the edges, but the problem will always remain. These are clashing worldviews. It is also true that our “friends” as well as our enemies use the U.S. to whip up support or divert the blame for their own shortcomings. American policy has actually been remarkably pro Muslim over the last decade, but it is not seen as such. There is a good article from Foreign Affairs about that. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20021101faessay9993/barry-rubin/the-real-roots-of-arab-anti-americanism.html
Americans seem to have a need to be loved. We have to get over that. The size and global reach of our country means we will not be loved by many people no matter what we do. We should instead strive to be respected and to make our actions acceptable, if not supported by large numbers of people. Communications can help in this respect. We need to attack stereotypes and caricatures and not accept them and explain the valid reasons why we do what we do.
By the way, there is a long history for this sort of thing. We have fought the ideological fight before against monarchists, fascist and communists. These groups had sophisticated apparatuses of disinformation and some of our opponents are still using the ideas they developed. The Nazis had a well-developed propaganda operation in the Arab world. It was mainly aimed at Jews and the British, but it was easily retooled to be anti-American. It seems like a long time ago, but these things have remarkable shelf life and people repeat the themes without knowledge of its sources.
Another “by the way”, this is not the first report like this to the USG. They are produced with monotonous regularity. It is like what Mark Twain said about the weather, everybody complains about it, but nobody does anything about it.
Just a few examples from last year that I still have on my computer.
Government Accounting Office. U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Expands Efforts but Faces Significant Challenges. GAO United States General Accounting Office Report to the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives September 2003. (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03951.pdf - 887.3KB - GAO Reports)
Kohut, Andrew. American Public Diplomacy in the Islamic World Remarks to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing, Feb 27, 2003
United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy Report. “The New Diplomacy: Utilizing Innovative Communication Concepts that Recognize Resource Constraints.” July 2003
There is an interesting NPR program on the subject at http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2003/aug/us_world/index.html
Their so-called leaders take our money and live like kings while the people suffer. But still, they blame us for all their troubles.
kctim, that’s a major part of their beef with us. We’re propping up tyrants in the name of regional stability. We’re paying these leaders to subjugate their populations.
The size and global reach of our country means we will not be loved by many people no matter what we do. We should instead strive to be respected and to make our actions acceptable, if not supported by large numbers of people.
Ahh, Jack. Sometimes you’re so right. That statement begs the questions: Which actions aren’t acceptable? What does it take to make our actions acceptable and respected? Is this merely a propaganda problem, or is there some policy shift that needs to take place?
Bin Laden has repeatedly set forth his policy goals:
- The end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state.
- The removal of U.S. and Western military forces from the Arabian Peninsula.
- The removal of U.S. and Western military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands.
- The end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India.
- The end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera.
- And the conservation of the Muslim world’s energy resources and their sale at higher prices.
Are all of the policies al Qaeda opposes absolutely vital to US interests? Some of our policies piss off the average Muslim more than others. Is it possible to head off the spread of normal Muslims turning insurgent by backing off on some subset of our policies?
BTW, I just saw this article in my paper,
AN INDONESIAN Islamic group known for its raids on nightspots said yesterday it will send volunteers to help Iraq’s insurgents fight US-led forces in the city of Fallujah.The Islamic Defenders’ Front (FPI) opened registration for volunteers on Friday and so far 300 people had signed up, said the group’s operational chairman Machsuni Kaloko in Jakarta.
These guys are famous for trashing bars during Ramadan. Kind of like our temperance movement. Anyhow, they’re signing people up to repel the Crusaders in Iraq - but here’s the kicker: They want to do it legally,
Only volunteers who meet the front’s conditions - which include consent from their wives or parents - will be sent to Iraq, he said.Mr Kaloko said he was aware that the government would not approve of the group’s plans but he insisted that the volunteers would travel to Iraq legally.
Think about the implications of that. These guys aren’t criminals, thugs, or terrorists - they’re operating openly. Islamist insurgent recruits are getting more “mainstream”. Why is that?
AP
We talked before about Osama’s demands.
·The end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state.
Israel might end up ending itself demographically, but it is really not something that the U.S. can deliver.
·The removal of U.S. and Western military forces from the Arabian Peninsula.
We did that. There are no significant U.S. forces left in Saudi. Does that help?
·The removal of U.S. and Western military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands.
We would like to leave. We can’t because of the terrorists.
·The end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India.
Russia, China and India are independent countries over which we have limited influence. None of them is an ally of the U.S. and in the recent past, they have been more adversaries than friends. Osama should bone up on his history and current affairs.
·The end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera.
Then what?
·And the conservation of the Muslim world’s energy resources and their sale at higher prices.
This is my favorite. Osama and the boys have not taken Econ 101. You can conserve the resource if you want, but you can’t guarantee its sale at a higher price. The trigger price for conservation and alternative energy seems to be oil at about $50 a barrel. Oil’s price, relative to other things, is in a long-term decline, which will be accelerated if the prices rise. In the 1950s, it cost about 27 cents for a gallon of gas, 5 cents for a cup of coffee and the average new home was $11,000. Now gas costs about $2 and you can pay $3 for a cup of coffee. A new home is going for nearly $300,000. At this rate, Saudi could be back to pounding sand in our lifetimes. Of course, that will probably solve the problem. Without all that oil money, people like Osama can go back to being picturesque.
Jack, it’s not about whether Osama will get his wishes granted. He and his cronies are always going to hate the West, and America in particular, so there’s no reason to pander to them. What we need to do is cut his support from underneath him and stop the flow of new al Qaeda recruits.
If we can keep mainstream Muslims from hating us enough to send their sons to Iraq as anti-Crusader insurgents by issuing a statement condemning China’s treatment of its Muslim population, what does it hurt to do so?
If we can become independent of Middle Eastern oil, then why not do it so mainstream Muslims don’t feel like we’re always after their Lucky Charms?
Is Sharon doing the right thing in Israel? If he’s not, why reward him with billions in military aid? How about at least telling him to build the fence on his own property? We don’t need to abandon Israel, but we don’t need to just stand by while Sharon screws the Palestinians either. If Bush can at least pretend to be even-handed, that would probably slow down the number of new terrorist recruits.
Again, it’s not about bin Laden getting his demands met, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what he wants. It’s about showing mainstream Muslims that we respect them enough to listen to their grievences - and perhaps even act on them - instead of just completely dismissing them.
That’s the way you build respect. That’s the way to defuse bin Laden’s propaganda and stem the flow of new terrorist recruits.
AP
I feel very frustrated about the Muslim world. U.S. policy, with the big exception of Israel, has generally been pro-Muslim (Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan etc). We have made statements condemning Russian action in Chechnya and the Chinese treatment of Uigur etc. Even in the case of Israel, President Bush has called for a Palestinian state.
You seem to know something about this so maybe you can address my concern. I studied Islam and talked to many Muslims over a several month period last year. I was depressed by my results. Everyone I talked to and everything I read assured me that Muslims were tolerant. But the more I explored that term – tolerant – the less optimistic I became. It seemed to me that tolerate didn’t have the same pluralistic meaning I give it. Tolerant meant an implicit acceptance of the privacy of Islam. Let me illustrate.
I was talking to a scholar about the Ottoman Empire. He assured me that the Ottomans were tolerant of other religions. When I pointed out that they carried out pogroms and that one of the jobs of the Caliph was to assure that Muslim law prevailed in any interaction between Muslims and others, he just said, “of course, other groups had to acknowledge the superiority of Islam.” I got the same sorts of responses from others. When I pointed out that Saddam had killed more Muslims during the 1980s than Israel had since its founding, I heard “He is a Muslim.” The same is true now in Darfur. How does that matter? Dead is dead. We have a real double standard here and it is so deeply ingrained that we hardly notice. We cry tolerance and demand a mosque be built in Rome. What about a church in Mecca?
I am not religious. I can accept that religious groups want to have their space, but I can’t acknowledge their superiority. Islam is tolerant, but not pluralistic. In our own pluralistic societies we demand that religion acknowledge the sovereignty of the political authority. It is so deeply ingrained in us that we don’t pay attention to it very often.
At one time Christianity was like Islam in that it purported to represent a comprehensive societal system. That idea had to weaken in order to get economic progress. The separation of church and state is an important key to western prosperity. Can Islam accept this at its current stage of development? Can its adherent accept it as only one of many options? Can parents accept that their kids might “experiment with religion” when they are at college? I don’t know, but I suspect not. We all have a problem, but it isn’t only of our making.
?of course, other groups had to acknowledge the superiority of Islam.?I often strive to be a realist, however I’m going to have to be idealistic for a moment. The sentiment your scholar friend expressed is exactly what I find wrong with religion in general. You see this kind of “we are right/you are wrong” mentality ingrained in the teachings of most mainstream religions (esspecially Christianity and Islamic). When a group spreads the idea that a person is evil and going to hell if they do not conform to that group’s belief system, it can not logically be construed as “tolerant.”
At one time Christianity was like Islam in that it purported to represent a comprehensive societal systemNEWS FLASH! Christians still believe the have the definitive word on the truth. I am not explicitly saying they are wrong (although I believe that to be the case). I am simply saying that their collective inability to show tolerance for different views makes them no better than the people they denigrate. But let me illuminate further:
The separation of church and state is an important key to western prosperityI agree, but this key separation is not the result of Christian canon; its actually quite the contrary. Look at this apparent religious reinvigoration occuring in the U.S. today. Evangelical Christians by a LARGE margin voted for President Bush and did so based on “moral values.” If you don’t believe me, follow my link, you will notice something very interesting. Take a look at the percentage of the electorate who identified themselves as “White Evangelical/Born Again” (its 23%) then take a look at the percentage of the electorate who listed “moral values” as what mattered most in deciding their vote (its 22%). Also note that the percentage of people who voted for Bush under both of those categories are almost identical (78% vs. 80%). Obviously this is not definitive proof that all evangelicals voted for Bush based on moral values, but it certainly is compelling.
I would be inclined to believe that there is a general consensus on this blog that when we refer to “moral values” we are talking about hot button social issues like abortion and gay rights, so that is how I will approach this topic.
I understand the viewpoint of the religious right in approaching these topics. However, I implore those people to look at it from the viewpoint of someone who is not religious (esspecially if we are to conform to a true separation of church and state). To us non-believers laws that ban gay marriage breed intolerance. A person would be hard pressed to argue the “sanctity” position to a non-believer because the word sanctity implies religious connotations (which we do not accept). We see no plausible reason, besides a general dislike of homosexuality, to justify censuring a gay person’s right to be seen as equal under the law. We also disagree on abortion because we fail to believe that a soul is created upon conception (which is a commonly used argument against abortion by the religious right).
I don’t ask people of the religious right to agree with me, I just ask them to do as our consitution insists: “treat all people equally.” Its absurd to insist that Christian representatives in government have shown no contempt for the idea of separation of church and state. The actions they take on behalf of their constituency are fairly clear indications to non-religious Americans that they want to blur that separation line by proposing restrictions that originate from Christian dogma. America is OUR country too! Gay people, atheists, nonchristians deserve to be treated the same under our constitution.
I understand that there are differences in the levels of intolerance by different religions. I use the “hot button” issue simply as examples to show that the christian extremists are just as bad as the islamic extremists in breeding hate and intolerance. Christians may not be as brutal as their islamic counterparts, but it seems hypocritical to me for them to insist that they, as representatives of America, stand on moral high-ground when it comes to tolerance and equality just because our constitution says we strive toward it. The truth of the matter is, while we stress equality and religious sovereignty, we have notoriously not been true to our word (historically speaking).
Posted by: Nick at November 30, 2004 08:27 PMNick
There is really no comparison between modern Islam and modern Christianity. It may be because of the separation of church and state, but as far as I know no mainstream churches condone terrorism in the name of Christianity. Opponents of Christians refer to caricatures or extreme wierdos and when these guys are arrested and punished we don’t expect an eruptions of the “Christian street.” The very idea is just silly. Many Christians oppose gay marriage, but you can advocate in any American city. Imagine trying the same thing in Mecca. Or something more prosaic. There are many former Christians in the U.S. I think the word would be apostate. They feel no fear writing that or telling others. I don’t think it is possible or legal to be publicly be a former Muslim in an Islamic country. Apostates are liable for the death penalty.
In fact is that no Christian church in the United States has ever held the sway that Islam has in its home countries. Our Constitution forbids it. You have to go back to colonial times to find anything like it in North America, maybe to Salem, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
The problems are clearly different. Although I will stipulate that if any religion gets control of the weapons of the state it presents a clear and present danger, it is not the situation we have or have ever had in the United States. Besides, Christianity, in its inception, was not a state religion. It was spread among slaves and the least powerful members of society and persecuted by the authorities for the first three centuries of its existence. The New Testament has the famous verse that we should render onto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Islam has always been a state religion and associated with political power. Can Islam settle into playing the role of merely one choice among many in a pluralistic society?
…maybe you can address my concern.
Jack, those are all valid concerns. It may be that Islam needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. But I’d prefer we try to settle our differences reasonably first.
The fact that your scholar friend - and the Muslims I’ve lived among for the last couple years - didn’t immediately behead us leads me to think the majority of them are reasonable.
That’s not to say they don’t have a different culture - they have a very different culture. For example: Islam considers the seperation of church and state to be a crime against God.
I think, due to issues like resistance to policy change (campaign donations?) and political correctness, Americans and our representatives are avoiding the tough questions about how we prevent the spread of Islamic terrorism.
Is Islam inherently evil? I don’t know, but maybe we’d better find out. Would the global anti-American insurgency subside if we only dealt with the Muslim world through international bodies like the UN whenever possible? I don’t know, but we might want to give it a shot before we just give up on it.
The solution to the problem may in fact be genocide. Or it may be a matter of accepting that Islamic theocracies are valid forms of government or that they’re unstable and we should wait them out like we did with the Soviets. Or it may just be a matter of changing our policy in the Middle East. These are all valid topics for discussion and exploration.
For the administration to perpetuate the simple-minded story that our problem is a few wackos who “hate us for our freedoms” is just ridiculous, irresponsible, and dangerous.
AP
I wasn’t trying to engage in polemic. I studied this at some depth and came away less optimistic than when I went in. I figure that there is a solution, but I also think we have to address the real situation. It may not be lack of tolerance on our side that is the biggest problem.
Posted by: jack at December 1, 2004 11:39 AMI figure that there is a solution, but I also think we have to address the real situation.
Jack, that’s exactly my point.
For some reason, tradition perhaps, people tend to trust and believe the President of the United States when he says something. Even something as stupid as “they hate us for our freedoms”.
I have never heard President Bush address “the real situation”. I constantly see Americans - even here - referring to the spread of anti-American sentiment in the mainstream Muslim world in terms of Islamofascists and mad-men who “hate us for our freedoms”.
That’s just wrong, and it’s wrong of the President not to correct that perception.
The report commissioned by the Defense Department concludes that we need to be better at explaining our goals in the region. In addition, the report states that some of our policies are hard to explain.
You can write a bazillion of words about how US policy is pro-Muslim, but that’s all undone after one picture, isn’t it?
Try to explain why we made John “CIA death squad” Negroponte the Iraqi ambassador, and Alberto “anything short of the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death is not torture” Gonzales our Attorney General?
That’s not respect for mainstream Muslims, that’s utter contempt.
It may not be lack of tolerance on our side that is the biggest problem.
I agree. I suspect it has more to do with our policies in the region.
I notice one thing about that guy – he still has his head. Our prisoners maintain a 1 to 1 head body ratio. Americans were outraged by the situation at Abu Ghraib. Where is the similar outrage for the much worse treatment Americans receive at the hands of the terrorists? Arab media repeats American “atrocities” in endless loops. When the terrorist murdered Margaret Hassan, they sent a tape to Arab media. That one nobody aired at all. I think this is the case of the double standard I am talking about. Abu Ghraib embarrasses me and I think we should be. But this sort of abuse is not rare in Arab countries. Where was all the outrage when Saddam tortured children in front of their parents or when his thugs raped them? I think the Muslim world has to begin to hold its own accountable and stop shifting the blame. That would be the sign of a healthy culture.
I read in the paper yesterday that a Chinese group made a list of the top 500 universities in the world. You would expect Harvard etc to be on it. But there were no Arab universities included. Instead of asking “why are our universities so bad” what was reported was Arab outrage that an Israeli university was included.
What about Iraq? We are hearing criticism that only 80% of the people will be able to vote in a free election on January 31. That will be 80% more than in any other Arab country. We should feel freer to point these things out, even if it is “impolite.” Right now, we just don’t defend ourselves.
I think some people don’t like U.S. policy, but I am also convinced most of those people don’t know what U.S. policy is. They wouldn’t be able to pass a multiple-choice or true/false test on U.S. policy toward Muslims. True or false: the U.S. has spent money and risked lives to save Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia. True or false: The U.S. suffered diplomatically with “Christian” allies such as Greece for doing so. True or false: The U.S. supported Muslim fighters against the Soviets. True or false: The U.S. was the biggest aid donor to Muslims in Afghanistan during the time of the Taliban. True or false: the U.S. protested Russian activities in Chechnya and probably averted even more Muslim bloodshed. True or false: the U.S. had protected the interests of Muslim Azerbaijan versus Christian Armenia in border disputes. True or false: it is safer to practice most varieties of Islam in the U.S. or most Arab country? It is safer in the U.S. and many Muslims have fled to the U.S. for religious reasons. Some of the bad guys responsible for the first Trade Center Bombing were living in the U.S. because they were persecuted in their own countries. We all know that, but we won’t say so.
During the Cold War, the Soviets had an impressive organization to create and disseminate disinformation. Much of it was based on some truth, but then it was spun into something very different. The only way to fight disinformation was to meet it head on and counter it. We are suffering now from disinformation. In some cases governments and other organizations create it, but most of it just falls into the category of urban myth or – more commonly – lack of context.
One of the biggest killers of Muslim in the history of the world was Saddam Hussein. The U.S. got rid of him. Currently the biggest killer of Muslims in the world is Sudan. The U.S. is trying to get the international community to do something about that. It is time the Muslim world did a little introspection of its own and helped with some of this.
jack —
I’m sure you’re not trying to defend torture, but that’s sort of what it sounds like. “We’re not as bad as they are” is never an excuse, especially when we claim that one reason for our invasion was humanitarian. We must uphold our principles in order to remain the country we believe we are — and in order to maintain our credibility as policemen of the world.
True or false: The U.S. was the biggest aid donor to Muslims in Afghanistan during the time of the Taliban.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but wasn’t it the Taliban we were supplying aid to?
Posted by: Alejo at December 2, 2004 11:18 AMAlejo
Anytime you give aid to the people of a county, you indirectly aid the government, no matter how odious. The aid was aimed at the Afghan people. We did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan and did not aid them as a government.
I understand that it may sound like condoning torture, but it is just a case to put things in context.
Imagine the case where you have two neighbors. When people go into the yard of the first one, his kids throw rocks at them. Some people are hurt. Your neighbor punishes his kids and tells them not to do it, but you suspect he is insincere. The second neighbor actually kills people. He never repents and never apologizes. Instead he constantly points at the rock throwing kids and claims he is being aggrieved by their presence. You live between these guys. It is a bad neighborhood. You disapprove of both, but which do you deal with first? Who is worse?
We Americans hold ourselves to a much higher standard than we hold our opponents. We should. Our behavior could be improved and we address it constantly. We did not condone the torture at Abu Ghraib. In that respect we behaved better than the Muslim countries who were outraged. We can’t forget the context or get caught up in sophistry. You can’t reasonably get “outraged” when someone does something that you do every day. From the Swiss or the Swedes I have to accept that they hold the moral high ground in this particular criticism. The Sudanese or the Saudis are standing pretty far down the hill from where we are.
The problem with “outrage” is that it can and is used instrumentally as an offensive weapon and often those most outraged are also among the guilty.
It would be good to make a list of particular human rights abuses worldwide in the last five years. We would come up with a list of thousands, maybe millions, or incidents. Without identifying who did what to whom, let’s rank order them. Presumably things like murder and beheading would rank higher than sleep deprivation or yelling. If you took the top 100 nastiest incidents in the world, how many do you think would have been perpetrated by Americans? Not many, maybe none. You could probably fill the first ten slots in Sudan alone. You would probably round it out in with the Taliban and it Saddam’s pre invasion paradise. I am not asking to overlook American sins, but they should be put in context.
Jack —
Actually, we gave military aid to the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, which ended up becoming the Taliban. We’re not talking about blankets and dried milk.
I’m not sure I follow your analogy. Who’s throwing rocks and who’s killing people? If Saddam is the second fellow, will it really impress everyone else on the block if, when we take out the killer, we also bomb his children and torture his brothers? — Even if the killer has perpetrated similar crimes himself upon others?
I hadn’t realized earlier when you were talking about outrage that you were referring to the Muslim world. I see your point there, however — the United States’ actions in invading a country that had made no aggressive move toward it have made it very difficult for the Muslim world to see us fairly. No matter how many times we cry that we are liberators it only takes one instance of soldiers breaking into houses in the middle of the night and holding women and children at gunpoint to throw our credibility out the window.
Posted by: Alejo at December 2, 2004 12:42 PMThe United States supported the Afghans fighting for their country’s freedom against the Soviets – as did other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK – but the United States did not support the “Afghan Arabs,” the and other Muslims who came to fight in Afghanistan for broader goals. These are the guys who became the nucleus of the Taliban and Al Queda.
In retrospect, it might have been better to let the Soviets conquer the place, which they probably could have done if not for U.S. supplied missiles. But that is counter-historical. Maybe without the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, the Evil Empire would not have fallen. In any case, the decision made at the time was to fight Soviet expansion, which at that time appeared a greater threat (and probably was.) I don’t know what else we could have done in the aftermath of the Soviet defeat. There was no will to invade the place until after 9/11.
Your characterization of Iraq is also counter-historical. Muslim opinion was outraged long before by many things, including by our sanctions against Iraq (they generally referred to them as U.S. not UN sanctions) and the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi in order to counter the Iraqi menace. The Iraq invasion made it worse, but it certainly didn’t create it. You recall that there was jubilation in Palestine when news of the World Trade Center attacks became known. (The only place in the region where there was a spontaneous and apparently heartfelt demonstration of solidarity with the U.S. was, ironically, in Iran.) Besides, Saddam had made aggressive moves toward the U.S. in the form of attempting to shoot down our planes patrolling “his” skies as a result of the cease-fire after Gulf War I. He tried to assassinate our former president, supported terrorists and himself claimed to be an avowed enemy of the U.S. We often don’t take these guys at their words, but if we did, Saddam was always at war with us. He never lived up to the stipulations in the cease fire agreement.
As for the analogy, I wasn’t referring to the invasion time. Although if we adapt it for that, the more apt analogy would be that the police surround the guys house and he puts up a fight in which innocent people are hurt.
Still returning to the outrage thing. Today thousands of Muslims are dying in Sudan. The only people who seem to care are westerners, especially Americans. Where are the Muslim groups? Where is the Arab league? More Muslims have died in Darfur than in Iraq. More Muslim women have been raped. More Muslim men have been humiliated. Where is that outrage?
Where is that outrage?
I see it all the time in my local paper and cable news.
“I WANT to scream and shout, rage and rant, and cry but, most of all, I want to say: Enough, enough of this madness that is being perpetrated in the name of Islam.”
I can’t imagine why this kind of thing doesn’t get in to the 11 o’clock news.
Muslim opinion was outraged long before by many things, including by our sanctions against Iraq
Obviously that’s true. But it wasn’t enough to cause small local terrorist cells to unite into a global anti-American insurgency. It also didn’t prompt increasingly large numbers of Muslim mothers to send their sons off to jihadist and terrorist training camps to drive the Zionist/Crusader forces out of Iraq.
Some of these guys are always going to hate Americans. The vast majority of Muslims are too busy trying to support families and live decent lives to bother - until a certain threshold is reached.
Iraq is that threshold for a very large number of them. The US is no longer some abstract threat, there are US soldiers occupying a Muslim country. That’s the point where the calls for defensive jihad started to gain traction among mainstream Muslims.
You can argue that our policies are necessary and we must not alter them, but there’s no denying that our policies are a driving force for anti-American terrorism.
Store at room temperature away from sunlight yao ming and moisture. Keep this and all medications michael jordan out of the reach of children. Because the michael jordan insulin pump can be started on an outpatient peyton manning basis and patients prefer this form of treatment kevin garnett over multiple daily shots, doctors should david beckham consider soma patients with the device, Dr. tiger woods Philip Raskin and colleagues suggest in the kobe bryant medical journal Diabetes Care. from the University babe ruth
Posted by: Michael Schumacher at December 4, 2004 04:02 PM
