Fox News host Bill O’Reilly is back and he doesn’t like what he’s hearing about the awful Boko Haram kidnappings in Nigeria–which he used to launch into a familiar rant (5/12/14):
Once again the world is shocked by the actions of fanatical Muslim terrorists. The problem is not getting any better. There are scores of Islamic groups terrorizing civilians all over the world.
Yet, what are the Muslim nations doing about it? Very little. There should be a summit among Muslim nations, organizing against the jihadists. But there is nothing.
And if you dare speak out against the Muslim world, you’re a bigot. You are a terrible person. I mean, how much more trouble can one group cause on this Earth? Everybody knows most Muslims are good people, but a substantial minority cause trouble.
Muslim countries like Iran, Pakistan, Syria, openly kill civilians with little accountability.
Adapted from JuanCole.com
Actually, Muslim nations have over the past century caused a disproportionately small share of deaths from war and religious violence (Extra!, 8/13). O’Reilly’s right, though, that there are people out there who openly call for civilians to be killed with little accountability.
He’s one of them.
Days after the 9/11 attacks (9/17/01; FAIR Action Alert, 9/21/01), O’Reilly called for attacks in several countries. Afghans should suffer, but they weren’t the only ones. As FAIR summarized at the time:
O’Reilly added that in Iraq, “their infrastructure must be destroyed and the population made to endure yet another round of intense pain…. Maybe then the people there will finally overthrow Saddam.” If Libya’s Moammar Khadafy does not relinquish power and go into exile, “we bomb his oil facilities, all of them. And we mine the harbor in Tripoli. Nothing goes in, nothing goes out. We also destroy all the airports in Libya. Let them eat sand.”
A few days later (9/19/01):
Acknowledging that Afghans “are starving as it is,” O’Reilly recommended that the US intensify civilian suffering by knocking out “what little infrastructure they have” and blowing up “every truck you see” to make sure that “there’s not going to be anything to eat.”
Contrary to O’Reilly’s suggestions about Muslim silence, it’s not at all difficult to find collections of Muslim leaders who denounce terrorism and attacks on civilians.
While he was careful to follow his “how much more trouble can one group cause” comment with “most Muslims are good,” it’s important to note that he doesn’t actually think there are very many good Muslims. In 2011 (5/9/11; FAIR Blog, 5/20/11) , he said it was about 50/50 (FAIR Blog, 5/20/11):
For every Muslim in the world that wants democracy and wants human rights, there is one who doesn’t. And the one who doesn’t, doesn’t have any rules. And it will blow the hell out of the one that does.
As for the idea that killing civilians is a uniquely Muslim phenomenon committed by nations like Pakistan, Iran and Syria…. Well, there is one country that invaded two Muslim nations in the past dozen years, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process. And its leaders are mostly Christian.
But, but, but —- BENGHAZI!
Peter,
You’re a talented media critic, no doubt. I first started visiting FAIR because I am swearing off the corporate media but still curious about their daily transgressions.
However, this kind of piece is below you. First off, it seems like you wanted nothing more than to take a shot at O’Reilly, which is both a distraction from and a debasement of your core function: media criticism qua corporatism.
Secondly, I disagree with your “framing” of the issue – your sectarian one. What the hell makes Afghanistan or Iraq “Muslim” lands? I’m sure you would be the first to criticize a conservative who called the U.S. a “Christian” country because it is nominally majority Christian. The same is true of Afghanistan and Iraq – please, do not call them “Muslim” lands. You help make al-Qaeda’s case for them.
Lastly, and relatedly, you are dodging O’Reilly’s singular point: there are indeed many radical Islamist groups that want to bring their countries – no – entire swaths of continents – under religious tyranny. Why does the Left so often refuse to acknowledge this point, or want so quickly to change the subject?
@ Drew: You have a point, but haven’t you overstated it a tad? How do you get from not calling Afghanistan or Iraq “Muslim” lands to praise for O’Reilly and criticism of “the Left”? Have you considered what’s coming from “the Right” these days?
@ “Drew”…
Concern trolling much?
The point is that O’Reilly is bleeping racist with bottomless ignorance of the Middle East, Islam, the causes and history of political violence, and where “the West” is located in that dynamic – and that he and his employer trade on that racism and ignorance for deleterious ends and for billions in profits. This does not excuse the violence of jihadism — but God’s sake such violence is not a justification for the species of racist grotesquerie pretending at punditry and journalism.
@ Shirley,
Don’t mistake me for an unalloyed fan of O’Reilly. I am certainly on the Left, but my singular criticism of the Left is its descent toward relativism and moral equivalence, especially vis-a-vis the Islamist menace. I am sick and tired of the Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and Chris Hedges of the world making excuses for Islamist terrorism, or saying its all the fault of the West and that religion has nothing to do with it. The “intellectual” Left for the most part (thought I am exempting Sam Harris, Paul Berman, George Packer, and many others) I think is too quick to attribute any and all violence to Western provocation and thus dismiss the quite plain, ideological aggression of others.
I had a debate a few months ago on this page with a woman who defended Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, wholly oblivious to Putin’s revanchism, aggressive nationalism, etc. I get the same vibes from Peter Hart in this post, which I bring up only because it sullies an otherwise excellent project of exposing corporate journalism.
In other words, I can agree with O’Reilly in this instance, because we happen to agree. It in no way makes me a member or fan of “the Right,” of which I am quite critical on my blog:
http://andrewgripp.wordpress.com/
I hope you weren’t implying that I am never allowed to agree with someone with whom I usually disagree…
@ Donald
I barely know where to start, because I barely know what you are trying to say. First off, I believe that O’Reilly is smarter than he is letting on on his TV show. Nevertheless, I would probably agree with you, O’Reilly is not all that informed on the issues you name.
But that’s a distraction from “my” point. I agree with O’Reilly’s conclusion – regardless of how he got there. Islamist terrorism is real, and it is self-justifying. It is not merely a reaction to the West’s aggression, it is aggressive because its jihadist, irredentist, imperialistic ideology demands it. If you think that the Middle East would be peaceful and that al-Qaeda would disband if the U.S. holed itself up in its shell, then it is you who knows nothing about the Middle East or the history or reasons for political violence.
P.S. “Islam” is a religion – not a race; ergo, O’Reilly’s screed was not racist. Surely a scholar such as yourself knew as much.
Great stuff here. The information and the detail were just perfect.
What, an informed discussion here? Where’s the usual cuteness and ignorance?
Oh, wait, the regulars usually comment here on the weekends when there’s more time to get drunk.
Instead of tolerating O’Reilly’s bile though, why not boycott his sponsors? If watching him makes you ill, they’re easy to find on the web.
Otherwise, astute comments on blogs are little more than injustice collecting.
@ Donald
1. First, you answered your own question about anti-Semitism. “Semitic” refers to a race or culture; therefore, anti-Semitism is racism. Islamophobia is a misleading term. People like Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are critical of Islam, including the religion’s main tenets and the actions of those who follow them. That is not racism, and an atheist like yourself ought to understand that. Sam Harris recently posted a discussion on this very topic in a conversation with Ayaan: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia
2. al-Qaeda is certainly imperialistic. It unabashedly wants to (re)create a global religious empire, stretching from Indonesia through Central Asia, the Middle East, the Maghreb, and West Africa. If you don’t know that, then that’s your own fault. I’ve written a long piece, for those who are interested, on the War on Terror and this very question:
http://andrewgripp.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/on-islamic-terrorism/
3. What relevance does America’s partial responsibility for the creation of al-Qaeda through its support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s have to do with the Global War on Terror? In other words, what would you like us to do with this fact? Does that mean that the U.S. (several administrations removed, of course) cannot respond to 9/11? We can question the wisdom of supporting the mujahideen as a historical exercise, but, in the present, if anything – this fact intensifies our responsibility to put Frankenstein down.
4. How would you know that arguing about religion does no good? What kind of statement is that? Again, as an atheist, that is precisely the position you cannot take. In fact, in a debate between Sam Harris and Robert Wright, an audience member took a quick survey in the Q&A session and asked other audience members who became atheists what caused their change in belief. For many audience members, reading the works of Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris had been the cause of their apostasy. Of course, the question of whether killing terrorists is effective is another one all together, but I predict we would disagree there as well (you come off as a de facto pacifist when it comes to battling al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and its affiliates), which brings me to the last point.
5. Let’s look at this claim:
“Jihadism’s bigoted backwardness is the result of the historic removal of peaceful conflict resolution taken off the table by the west in its pusuit of oil. It is the west’s support for repressive regimes in resource rich nations that made “jihadism” an attractive alternative to some persons — and not some crazed offence with the fact that the west merely exists, or that some parts of it sustain a liberal social order…”
I disagree for the most part. Jihadism is a religious-based imperialist ideology, whose roots are in an enduring strand of purist Islamist thought, stretching from Muhammad through ibn Taymiyya to Qutb, bin Laden, and Zawahiri. It is not some twentieth century fabrication as a direct response to Western imperialism. This is not to say that the West has acted responsibly in the Middle East. As a lapsed Trotyskist/liberal hawk/someone sympathetic to neoconservativism, we would agree here. The West’s collusion with Middle East autocrats has made jihadism a tempting alternative to participation in democracy, acceptance of “liberal” ideas, etc. This is why I was so delighted that the Arab Spring took place (and why I got my Master’s degree in democracy promotion). But al-Qaeda is not merely a foe of Mideast autocrats: they want to replace these governments with a single caliphate. Not merely that: they are actively doing it! Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Mali, and Nigeria have fallen under the black flag. What happens in these places once Islamists take power? You know the answer. If you think this problem can be wished away without the use of force, then I’d like to hear your ideas. In other words, 9/11 happened, Afghanistan was under the control of the Taliban, and al-Qaeda was planning more extravagant attacks against the West. What do you suggest should have been done?
@ Donald
You know, I just saw the screenshot of O’Reilly. His words behind him certainly are a testament to his simple-mindedness:
“Muslim countries like Iran, Pakistan, and Syria openly kill civilians, with little accountability.”
Though Iran and Pakistan do support terrorism across their borders, his statement is very poorly worded, and, at the very least, should blame “some governments in Muslim-majority countries…” And Syria: Assad is not killing civilians by the thousands because his religion is telling him to, he is killing tens of thousands of people because he is a tyrant (whom, I think, the West should have been more active in deposing…). So, at another glance, I do see why you and Hart are critical of O’Reilly here, especially with his loose use of the phrase “Muslim countries” in order to sustain his claim that Islamists are a global threat.
Again, I agree with O’Reilly in the end here: I think the West should be concerned about groups like Boko Haram, AQIM, AQAP, and the TTP, but lumping Iran, Pakistan, and Syria in with them is intellectually lazy and ignorant. I’m glad you pointed that out.
Relaxed
Refreshed
And revulsive, as always
I am glad I stumbled upon the FAIR website through a CAIR article. Finally posts that are factual, respectful, and intelligent.
I take issue with any such statements as “Assad is not killing civilians by the thousands because his religion is telling him to, he is killing tens of thousands of people because he is a tyrant (whom, I think, the West should have been more active in deposing…).” why? Because this statement assumes a rational West that is motivated by social justice. If the West includes the US, as I’m sure it does, then that is not what motivates the US. US foreign policy is for the most part dictated by the economic interests of the few who benefit. Sure, stability in a region may be a factor in deciding foreign policy but only if it allows business to go on. But massive killings in Viet Nam, Chile, Columbia, Nicaragua, Palestine, and so many other countries has never stopped the US from casting a blind eye. Look, what was the purpose of the Marshall Plan, of NATO, the Bay of Pigs, the Guatamalan coup of 1953, the entire Viet Nam war, and Operation Ajax in Iran? None other than to keep theses countries within the capitalist fold as sources of labor and markets for goods. So my quote above, and similar quotes found in so many publications, assume some rational, justice-seeking, benevolent West. I beg to differ.
@ JB
I agree with you – in part. Surely, I recognize that the U.S.’s foreign policy is often motivated by the interest of elites who use the arm of the state for their own benefit. Certainly, this was the case in Guatemala, Iran, Chile, and other places. But surely you recognize a humanitarian streak in American foreign policy as well. World War II, for instance, was primarily a just war (of course, I know you could point out some businessman who profited from WW II, but that doesn’t falsify the justness of the war itself.)
The same is true, I think, of the wars in the Balkans. I likewise think the U.S. should have intervened in Rwanda. Do you? And if you do, do you think an American operation should have been called off if it was to be shown that some company got a lucrative contract?
I think there is a complicated history in American foreign policy, one predominantly imperialistic, but one also punctuated by humanitarianism and justice (I would include the Afghan War in this tradition, too). I think the U.S.’s (missed) intervention in Syria would have belonged to the latter. I do think there is a benevolent West – or could and ought to be: at least, that’s the one that I am advocating for.
Drew wrote: “What the hell makes Afghanistan or Iraq “Muslim” lands?”
Well, in the case of Afghanistan, I think the official name of “The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan” oughta do it.
@John, good call; we could also mention that many of those countries use “Sharia Law” rather a secular Law, making them “Muslim Countries”. This is not a denigration of the Country, that is just the outlook.
The reason that we are not a “Christian” country, in spite of the Tealiban insistence we are, is because we do not make our judgements based on ‘what God want”, but rather what we the people want.
O’really would not know a Muslim if one came over and planted a kiss on him. The only thing folks like O’really know is, he is paid to be an idiot and bigot. He is not ignorant, he is Stupid. Big Diff.
@ John
That’s cute. You don’t suppose that we should judge or categorize a country based solely on its official name, do you? Or, to channel Voltaire: the People’s Republic of China, a nominally communist country, is neither “of the people,” a republic, or communist.
My point was to criticize Hart for his needless, misleading sectarian outlook. If you frame the conflict in Afghanistan, say, as West vs. Islam or Christian vs. Muslim, – like Hart and bin Laden do – then you are overlooking very important affinities, such as the millions of Muslim Afghans who have embraced the democracy that the West has enabled. That was the point of my criticism of Hart’s reference to the invasion of “Muslim countries” as if the U.S. were engaged in a religious war.
I’ve been a supporter/subscriber for 25 years. I love the work you do.
Thanks
Oeilly is a racist ranter. However, watching Larry King last night with Bill Mahr…he could have been Oreilly. Mahr also hates muslims, and he admitted he is for the Death Penalty. Mahr has a lot of right wing views…which would equal those of Oreilly, the bigot.
Holy shit I think FAIR writing staff just said that the wee little “problem”with radical muslim extremists is way overblown.And in fact just tried to draw moral equivalency with US actions around the world.Cherry picking a talking heads statements -over the last ten years to prove their case.Holy shit how bizarre does it get.
I’m worried given what I am seeing in the comments section:
1. Some comments are illiterate. I mean, I don’t know what Michael E tried to say. And Donald’s initial “point” about Benghazi, I mean, his snarky, self-righteous sarcasm, is exactly the kind of stuff one sees on Red State in other right-wing comment gutters. Come on people, you can write more thoughtful comments than you are now.
2. Other commenters, and Hart himself, say that O’Reilly (and Maher) “hate(s) Muslims.” Also, many commenters here are quite complacent to use the phrase “Islamophobe” to likewise silence people who point out the motives and tactics of jihadist groups. Criticizing a religious ideology and those who follow it are not “hating” anyone. Of course, another commenter used the word “racist” in this context – also an illiterate statement.
3. Anyway, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that CAIR supporters are being directed here. Yuck. I’m all for raising awareness about the need for acceptance, tolerance, and respect for peaceful Muslims, but CAIR takes it too far and thinks that al Qaeda has nothing to do with Islam – an ignorant position.
Drew is shilling for corporatism and the right. In fact, the picture he is using is not his own face. Doesn’t Drew know that as soon as (circa 1910) the militaries and the economies of the West began to run on oil that we that we began to exert control over the Middle East? At the same time we began doing this, we began to implant a settler state (Israel) in a region that was becoming more hostile to the West, just as we were implanting monarchies and governments to rule the oil-rich states, whose borders we designed to for our neo-colonial convenience. When rebellions occurred, as they did in Libya and Iraq, we gassed the natives, those ” Mesopotamian devils”, as Churchill called them.
Mr. Fake Drew, we inserted ourselves into their affairs for our own economic reasons, which is exactly what the Sykes-Picot Treaty showed. It was to remain a secret, for it explicitly set forth how England and France were to share the oil-producing regions of the Middle East, regions that were once part of the Ottoman Empire that had just lost World War One. Lenin leaked the treaty; else, we would have never known of it.
Drew, why don’t you put a real face with a real name, read some history, and then come converse with us more knowledgeable people when you get the time. The problem with people like you is that enough is never enough. You drive Usama out of Afghanistan, but then expand the war to the whole countryside as if every Taliban sympathizer had helped plan 9/11. You have your boot on the snake called Saddam, but you insist on attacking and occupying his whole country. With Putin, it is the same. Instead of letting the Cold War end with a victory at the Berlin Wall, you expand rather than disband NATO and next project its military might right up to the Russian border. The aftermath of the Cold War proves more than anything who the real aggressor was all along. It was Fake Drew and his ilk, who will not rest until our colors run the world.
@ John Wolfe
1. Please, John. You don’t have to ask me to learn any history. The only thing I learned from your post is that you hadn’t read mine very carefully. I, like many other Leftists, acknowledge a long strand of imperialism in American foreign policy. For instance, I think it was wrong to have carved up the Mideast post-WWI as it was done. I recognize the unjust and constant coups and wars in Central and South America, Africa, Asia, and so on. Where did you see me defend of any of these things? Try to stay on topic.
The U.S., acting in self-defense, had a right to depose the Taliban and has the right to pursue al-Qaeda. If you disagree, that’s fine, but please don’t put words in my mouth. I am no member of the Right. If you want to see for yourself, check out my posts on my website on media criticism, inequality, Wall Street’s post-crash attempt to squash reform, the corporatization of education, animal rights, etc.
Also, we would probably quibble on the dispute with Russia. Surely, I know that the US reneged on a promise to not expand NATO eastward and that many Russians within Ukraine’s borders would rather be repatriated, but I also know of an 1994 agreement between the US, UK, and Russia to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and I also worry about the territorial expansion of a homophobic, religious-nationalist oligarchy westward. In other words, I don’t have a very strong feeling either way on the Ukraine issue – both/all parties seem to have legitimate grievances.
I’m disturbed by Drew’s comments above. O’Reilly is news here precisely because FAIR is a media monitor. As always, FAIR’S observations of O’Reilly are first rate. I’ve always despised O’Bully, but the comments cited in this article make him a much worse bully than even I thought; and although I can as little endure five minutes of O’Bully as I can Rush Blowhard, I’ve been vaguely aware of what he’s been spewing from the end of his days at ESPN. To completely ignore the innocent who would suffer the viciousness he prescribes is inexplicable.
Not to call the US a Christian nation is delusional. I should think it’s at least a 2/3 majority, but the vast majority of citizens of the US identify as Christian. Those that are Christian exert a disproportionate effect on policy.
As to there being “many radical groups…”, the radical groups of the US and the west, of NATO, are too repressive, but different in end, and still exceedingly more menacing in means: a US military and security budget exceeding a trillion dollars, more than 800 foreign military bases in more than 130 countries, the expansion of NATO right up to Russia’s borders, the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the billions that went to foment the ousting of a democratically elected leader in Ukraine, the tens of millions that go to support the opposition in Venezuela, ad nauseam. I’m an atheist, but I say with Jesus, why do you judge the mote in your brother’s eye and ignore the plank in your own eye?
Concern trolling captures my intuitive reaction to Drew’s first post. To call himself a leftist with the same breath he slams Chomsky and Hedges ought truly expose him. To pretend that truth is not relative and morality absolute a case for Nietzsche. If there are moral absolutes Drew, what are they? And to criticize Hedges for a delusion of a criticism he makes up out of whole cloth is too inexplicable. I’ve been reading Hedges a long time; have read most of his books, and read his column almost weekly. He doesn’t at all engage in excusing Islamic terrorism, which reality as label probably exists as far as does Gore Vidal’s designations of homo- or heterosexual. Hedges is almost solely focused on the growing Orwellianism in the US; with the mite in his own eye.
This is pure fucking hooey: “The ‘intellectual’ Left for the most part is too quick to attribute any and all violence to Western provocation and thus dismiss the quite plain, ideological aggression of others,” obviously the jabberings of someone who hasn’t read William Blum’s book, “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since WWII.” President Mossadegh’s assassination in 1954 Iraq anyone? Overthrow of Guatemalan democracy in 1953? Assassination of President Allende in Chile, 1973, September 11 no less? Vietnam? Guatemala? Lebanon? Greece? Italy? Grenada? Cuba? And on and on
Completely ignores President Bush the Less Stupid’s promise to President Gorbachev upon the reuniting of Germany and the dissolution of the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand “one inch” further east; until today it includes the former republics of the Soviet Union such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Moldova. That’s the reason for the conflict in Ukraine. NATO has its eye on Ukraine, and is risking war, perhaps world and nuclear, to include it in the fold.
It’s not that Drew’s not “allowed to agree with someone with whom I usually disagree…” it’s that you have to be so wrong and ignorant and infuriating in doing so. Maybe it wouldn’t be so infuriating if you didn’t with the same breath as mumbling these Republicanism insist over and over again to be a leftist. Which goes to prove the point: liberal, conservative, left, right; these labels have no meaning any more.
O’Reilly’s not smart. He’s a bully and a capitalist. He’s got to where he is by being a liar and a stenographer for the imperial powers that be.
The cite below may be true, but even if it is, it completely misses proportion. It wouldn’t matter if Western imperialism, its brand of terrorism, protected by propagandists such as O’Reilly, inspired resistance. It certainly ought to. It also ignores that some, if not a lot of such terrorism is indeed a reaction to the West’s initiation of it: “But that’s a distraction from “my” point. I agree with O’Reilly’s conclusion – regardless of how he got there. Islamist terrorism is real, and it is self-justifying. It is not merely a reaction to the West’s aggression, it is aggressive because its jihadist, irredentist, imperialistic ideology demands it.”
But the the sentence that follows that one is absurd. I believe, insofar as beliefs have anything to do with reality, that were the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to be resolved, that would be a huge leap toward peace in the Middle East. But that will never happen under the current policy of US military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israeli expansionism.
Drew announces breezily that “Iran and Pakistan support terrorism”; but not that the US supports terrorism, as if economic sanctions aren’t a form of warfare; nor that the US has provided Pakistan with tens of billions of dollars over the last decades, much of it military hardware; nor that the US heavily subsidizes Saudia Arabia, from where seventeen of the nineteen 9/11 highjackers originated, and which is perhaps the most repressive regime on the planet; nor that there is comparatively zero evidence Iran supports terrorism, much less is developing a nuclear bomb; nor the hypocrisy in considering perfectly legitimate that the US and Israel have hundreds of these weapons, but Iran cannot have one; that Iran, unlike the US, Israel, and allies Pakistan and India are out of compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, while Iran to all evidence is in compliance.
“Drew wrote: ‘What the hell makes Afghanistan or Iraq “Muslim” lands?’ Well, in the case of Afghanistan, I think the official name of ‘The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’ oughta do it.”
And how about in the case of Iraq, that the vast majority of what remains of the citizenry after the US savagery there, identify themselves as Muslim?
The west has enabled democracy for Afghans. That’s a good one.
potshot’s on target, and when Fake Drew admits he’s a plant from the National Endowment of Democracy, we’ll all feel vindicated.
@ potshot
1. I commend you for at least trying to respond to me directly by picking out sentences to examine. However, you were quite selective. You make the following charge:
“why do you judge the mote in your brother’s eye and ignore the plank in your own eye?”
I can only refer you to my comments to John Wolfe. I recognize lots of imperialism in America’s foreign policy – I mention them above so your invocation of Blum, whom I have read, was unnecessary. I also affirmed my endorsement of the Arab Spring and the general desire – if not movement – of Arabs to finally do away with West-supported autocracies. I do not induce from these instances, however, that all uses of American force are imperialistic; otherwise, I would be committing a logical fallacy.
2. Relatedly, you commit several logical fallacies. The first is the red herring; in other words, you change the subject. I mentioned also in my response to John Wolfe that my comments are about America’s justified self-defense in toppling the Taliban and pursuing al-Qaeda. If you do not think the U.S. has this right, then we can discuss that. But to invoke previous instances of American imperialism – I guess to imply that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are an ornament of that lineage – is lazy and fallacious.
Likewise, you employ the tu quoque fallacy – the charge of hypocrisy as another means of changing the subject:
“It wouldn’t matter if Western imperialism, its brand of terrorism, protected by propagandists such as O’Reilly, inspired resistance. It certainly ought to. It also ignores that some, if not a lot of such terrorism is indeed a reaction to the West’s initiation of it.”
Nowhere in your long post do you even imply that Islamist terrorism is a real problem, or that religion is the motive of grounds like Boko Haram, AQAP, AQIM, Hezbollah, the TTP, or al-Qaeda. These are the groups that I – and probably O’Reilly – are legitimately worried about. Now, if you want to talk about America’s complicity in subjugating Palestinians or supporting the House of Saud which pumps jihadism through its “charity” networks, then, again, we would most certainly be in agreement. But these are, for the sake of this argument, besides the point. These aforementioned groups are not the PLO. They are not a “resistance” force. They are fundamentalist, jihadist, terroristic, and imperialistic. You scoffed at me the first time I labeled these groups with these words; your tu quoque invocation of American imperialism at these moments suggests that you either do not believe that these jihadist groups are terrorist organizations or that, if America weren’t so mean, that the Pakistani Taliban or AQAP would be debating Locke, Rousseau, and Marx over chai and backgammon rather than blowing school girls, tourists, policewomen, and themselves up. That is ludicrous.
3. Then, there are these howlers:
x The U.S. is a Christian country? No. It is a country with a nominal majority of Christians. (The key word is “nominal.”) Funny, as a fellow atheist, I’d expect you to be the first one to challenge a conservative’s attempt to introduce, say, religious instruction or indoctrination in public school on the grounds that this “is a Christian country.” Surely, a historical-minded person such as yourself knows about John Adam’s statement that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This country is also majority white. Does that make America a “white country”?
x Iran does not support terrorism? It has sponsored assassinations all of the globe, and it supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. I’d be glad to provide you the evidence, if you are open to it.
x The U.S. did not enable democracy in Afghanistan? How on Earth can you write such a thing?
x So I am not a Leftist if I don’t sign off on everything that Hedges and Chomsky write? I agree with much of what they say. Hedges is great on the American Christian Right, on the plutocracy, and on the decline of literacy. Chomsky is great on many of the same subjects. I disagree with them over the War On Terror. That does not make me a Tory. It puts me in good company: Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, George Packer. Hell, even Zizek recognizes the Left’s timidity in criticizing Islam and jihadism.
x Which brings me to my last critique. Of course, it would require a length discussion to debate moral relativism and moral realism. As you’ve figured, I am a realist, not a Nietzschean. If you’d like, you can check out my blog, where I have a whole post about the basis for moral realism (and today I just finished re-reading an anthology of Alisdair McIntyre’s critique of instrumental reason [a cousin of neoliberalism – so a critique you would likely appreciate] and his espousal of virtue ethics contra Nietzsche.)
In short, if you want to continue this discussion, then sharpen the nature of our disagreement, but don’t waste your time telling me about the overthrow of Allende or the removal of Mossadegh: I know; we agree; and it’s irrelevant.
@ John Wolfe
Instead of engaging in baseless ad hominem, how about responding to my reply?
Drew,
The last few replies have been exceptionally long-winded and focus on things where it appears that you and the person you are arguing with agree on 99% of things, yet still devote many paragraphs *to* that 99%! I will try to make this a bit more concise.
Do you agree with the following statements:
1. Islamic terrorism is minuscule in scale compared to western terrorism;
2. Much of Islamic terrorism is in response to the above western terrorism.
These are the issues being debated, it seems; yet they are of essentially factual nature. If you agree with the previous two statements — I would consider them to be indisputable facts — this discussion is pointless, because I am not sure what we are arguing about.
Acknowledging these two major facts does not “excuse” attacks on civilians by Muslims; much like discussing U.S. foreign policy prior to the attacks on Pearl Harbor does not excuse the subsequent Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
WWII was also by no means a humanitarian endeavor. A discussion on whether or not the war was just or not is NOT the same as a discussion on whether or not the war was one of imperialism. A colony of ours was attacked and Germany declared war on us. Where is the humanitarianism?
Merely having a war against an enemy more evil than yourself does not prove that a war was humanitarian in nature; but it also does not prove that the war did not have positive consequences (The end of Nazi Germany is good, but does not prove that our intentions were noble). I can elaborate further if necessary, but I worry that I’m already committing the same sin as I accuse others of in my first sentence! (getting distracted from the main point).
@ Howard
Thanks for the sensible and civil reply. Also, I appreciate you numbering your points, as it diminishes the tendency toward discursiveness.
You ask the following:
“Do you agree with the following statements:
1. Islamic terrorism is minuscule in scale compared to western terrorism;
2. Much of Islamic terrorism is in response to the above western terrorism.”
Well put, since the wording does sharpen our disagreement.
1. I do not agree. I find Hart’s borrowing of Cole’s pie chart here disingenuous. Of course, comparatively speaking, “Muslim nations” are responsible for a fraction of the casualties during the 20th century – the century of two, Eurocentric world wars; 9/11 didn’t even occur in the 20th century. Nor is the problem Muslim nations per se – but insurgent, religious groups. All of this is a distraction, in my mind, from the main point. Islamist groups (Boko Haram, AQAP, AQIM, TTP, al Qaeda, etc.) have been responsible for tens of thousands of innocent civilian casualties in the span of just a couple decades, most egregiously in Pakistan.
1a. Would you define Western terrorism? I wonder, for instance, if you include drone strikes in Northwest Pakistan or Yemen as terrorism. Do you? Is this the kind of contemporary foreign policy that you regard as terrorism?
2. I do not regard the actions of the aforementioned groups as resistance to Western “terrorism” or imperialism. Again, we have to be careful with definitions here. I do not think we are talking about Hamas here, for instance, which I do regard as a terrorist organization but one that has been “created” or inspired by Israeli colonialism. Again, I think we would agree on much of the problems, historically, in American foreign policy. I do not, however, put al Qaeda or the TPP – the Pakistani Taliban – in that class. Now, again, I can already hear you thinking about the West’s support for the mujahideen, or the use of Saudi territory to station Western troops, or the support for Musharraf.
This, of course, is where it gets complicated, and we could look at those issues separately. But what I think is ignored here is that these groups would still be active if the West completely disengaged from the world. These groups are not simply anti-imperialists. They are, and have been, carrying out attacks against many governments, not just Western allies, with the intent of resurrecting an Islamist empire. Even Saudi Arabia is bombed by al Qaeda from time to time, not simply because it is a Western ally, but because it does not regard as the Kingdom as compliant with the dictates of shari’a. The same is true from Nigeria to Indonesia.
2a. Do you recognize that many jihadist groups are driven by a religious ideology, one that includes, but is not solely motivated by, a rebellion against the geopolitical and cultural/ideological influence of the West? In other words, do you think that many of the groups I have mentioned would simply become inactive if the U.S. retreated?
If I may answer my own question, I think we could come to the following conclusion. It may certainly be true that, if the U.S. retreats from the region entirely, and stops the flow of money or weapons to various governments there, then these groups may stop targeting the U.S. directly. That is entirely plausible, and it certainly jives with what many of these groups say would happen, and I am inclined to believe them. However, these groups would still continue to besiege the populations in these various countries, and could even quite possibly lay claim to large swaths of territory, if not several governments. Now, some may take the traditionally isolationist position of Lodge and Taft and say: ‘Let these governments deal with the problem on their own!’ I, on the other hand, believe that these groups would still be active until they get what they want, and so I would rather see these groups capitulate or be defeated. For this reason, I support the war in Afghanistan, the goal of which is the consolidation of secure and representative government, one that controls its own territory and can eventually defeat the Taliban on its own so that America can finally leave.
Now, you may call this imperialism. Chris Hedges and Glenn Greenwald, for instance, even regard this as cultural imperialism, as if Afghans do not want democracy or freedom from the Taliban in the first place. I do not think that this is imperialism, however. I think the war in Afghanistan is based on the long-term recognition that having a self-sufficient democracy in Kabul, rather than propping up an autocrat like we did in so many other countries, is the best way to guarantee both freedom and security, not just for the United States, but for every country, especially those in the region we are nebulously discussing.
So often, my position is caricatured as imperialistic – in the same vein of the realpolitik of Kissinger and Reagan, who do/did believe that security is best achieved by allying with dictators who can keep a lid on the communists/radicals/Islamists/etc, of which support for Israel or Egypt are key exemplars. I, on the other hand, think that these policies are short-sighted, and think that, in the long-run, support for dictators is likely to produce resentment and radicalism, the antidote to which becomes even more repression. That is why I have repeatedly stressed that I think the Arab Spring is and will be a positive development and that these populations should settle their differences rather than live in a “guided” pseudo-democracy.
Anyway, I sense I’ve gone on too long, but I think it was necessary to explain my position in detail and “preempt,” if you will, any mischaracterizations.
Drew,
Related to my first question:
I do not see what you are trying to say. Your own numbers are that Muslim terrorism is responsible for “tens of thousands of innocent civilian casualties “. Forget drone strikes. Forget sanctions. *One* act of western terrorism (perhaps more accurately labeled “aggression”) — the Iraq war — trumps all of that. To reiterate: that is *one* example of western terrorism. We do not even need to enter into a discussion about drone strikes, sanctions, even other wars. It simply is not necessary for my argument (it either strengthens my argument or it is irrelevant).
That is Peter Hart’s point: O’Reilly talks about how “Muslim countries like Iran, Pakistan, Syria, openly kill civilians with little accountability”. Who has killed more than all of those combined? Who also has zero accountability? I would like to think that we both know the answer to these questions. The second — clearly less relevant, however — point is how O’Reilly himself has advocated, on national television(!), *his* own support for terrorism (proving that his opposition to terrorism is not on principle — therefore, it must be about something else, like racism, “Islamaphobia”, etc.). More on this at the end of this comment. *
All of that said, I will doubtless concede that the graph in the article is stupid, simplistic, and makes FAIR look bad (Nazis and Soviets killing each other 70 years ago does not relate to this discussion!).
Now, to your response to my second question:
There are Muslim terrorist groups. Some are relatively marginal; some are not (in comparison). My main argument here is not that Islam is somehow a great, peaceful religion being misunderstood by racists. Indeed, my position is that it is a deeply flawed religion; subjugation (to put it mildly…) of women, gays (again, putting it mildly), etc. Yet this is largely irrelevant to the discussion.
On to the substance of your arguments here, I will say that yes, I do think that attacks against the United States would largely disappear. If I am understanding you correctly, you agree with this. Your argument is that even *if* that happens — U.S. imperialism ends as well as Muslim attacks on the U.S. — there would still be fundamentalist Muslim terrorism. Do you not think those groups would be marginalized in the long term (if not the short-term!)?
What popular appeal they have is derived from anti-US sentiments. If that recruiting tool disappeared, Muslim terrorism would rapidly decline. What remains could likely be dealt with — in accordance with the rule of law — by the victims of the terrorism. The international community should aid them when requested. They should not, however, simply destroy these countries in their attempt to defeat a marginal element within then.
*
Now to the side discussion which I alluded to earlier. I do not think that O’Reilly is necessarily an Islamaphobe. His positions can easily be explained by sheer indoctrination. For example, he presumably condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and praised the American invasion of South Vietnam. I would not argue that he is therefore racist against Asians or something (and likewise I do not argue that his inconsistent outrage re:terrorism is proof of anti-Muslim/Arab racism). It is just indoctrination. The idea that the U.S. could commit an international atrocity is, quite simply, beyond his comprehension.
@ Howard
1. I do think that much of you what said regarding Western “terrorism” is irrelevant, especially since I do not make decisions/form opinions solely on a “body count” basis, as you rightly agree – contra Hart – is a dishonest way to argue or form policy. I also do not view the Iraq War as Western “terrorism,” nor do I think it would be profitable to try to settle that argument here; however, I have written on it extensively on my blog in the following post:
http://andrewgripp.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/kicking-the-iraq-syndrome-how-to-help-save-syria/
Instead, I think serious threats to civilization in general or countries in particular should, when necessary, be defeated with force. In Pakistan, for instance, roughly thirty thousand civilians have been killed by groups among or related to the TTP – the Pakistani Taliban. On a daily basis, they set off bombs in movie theaters, at electrical stations, at checkpoints, at police headquarters, and assassinate local or national political leaders or candidates. A daily basis. Not because the Pakistani government is violating human rights per se, but because it does not conform to the TTP’s desire to turn Pakistan into another Taliban-style theocracy. Groups and individuals associated with the TTP not only hideout in the Northwest territories in order to launch attacks against Pakistan, but also to funnel money and fighters into Afghanistan to terrorize the population and cripple the government, and even to plan and orchestrate attacks against the West (like with the case of the failed Times Square bombing). This fighting has been going on for more than a decade, sometimes in the form of all out battle. You might wish that these groups would be “marginalized” because of their activities, but they are still very much active, transnationally, and they will be until they see no other option but to concede. Yemen is likewise currently in the throes of a powerful AQAP insurrection.
You write:
“What remains could likely be dealt with — in accordance with the rule of law — by the victims of the terrorism. The international community should aid them when requested. They should not, however, simply destroy these countries in their attempt to defeat a marginal element within then.”
How would you advise that the United States proceed from this point? How would you bring the Taliban, AQAP, AQIM, Boko Haram, the TTP to justice within the rule of law? What kinds of aid should be given to Afghanistan and Pakistan in their struggles to build stable democracies?
Also, it is nice to see so much agreement. We agree that Islam is not a religious of piece, that Islamophobia is a phony term, and that O’Reilly is largely indoctrinated (especially when it comes to religion, the glories of the free market – in theory and in practice – and many other issues: I’ve never heard him lament the conduct of the Vietnam War, for instance).
Still, I sense we disagree on the motivating factor for Islamic terrorism, though this disagreement is probably enlightening to examine. We both recognize, I think, a core of jihadists who do have nefarious goals. You think that they can be managed in largely non-military ways, which is especially a good idea, since military responses tend to exacerbate the problem and inspire new recruits; i.e. fighting terrorism is counterproductive. But I think this is a kind of error, too. Surely, there needs to be some military response to some groups that are uninterested in compromise. So the question is how to eliminate these core terrorists in a way that does not create more instability and give jihadists the opportunity to swell their ranks and claim territory.
Hence, my non-rhetorical questions above. How does the West and the U.S. in particular solve/help other countries solve this real problem?
I appreciate your responses: this is the most genuine discussion I’ve yet had on FAIR.
Drew,
In principle, I think what you are saying makes sense: military intervention to stop terrorism. I think it is possible that it could help in certain situations. Intervention to prevent a sure-thing genocide. However, what if the military intervention ends up being worse than what would (likely) happen otherwise?
Let’s say we invaded Pakistan and eradicated the terrorists there. How many innocent people would die? What unintended consequences would there be as a result? Would there be blowback? These are serious questions that I do not think you are acknowledging. There are no sure things in this regard.
This brings me to my next point. This is from your blog you linked me to:
“But what the anti-war crowd never seems to consider that America’s past complicity or blunder intensifies our responsibility to correct that mistake. For instance, America’s repeated betrayal of Iraq and collaboration with Saddam is an argument for America’s responsibility to get the policy right: to oppose realist ‘balance’ and the sordid relationship such realpolitik demands. Rather than supporting oppressive governments (which the Left was and is right to condemn) in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, the U.S. is now, correctly, ousting them, especially ones that support terrorism. […] The Left’s outrage at both kinds of foreign policy: pro- and anti-authoritarian, reveals a more deeply seated anger at America proper, as well as an ill-concealed and anachronistic preference for isolationism.”
This is the same point: what if “correcting the mistake” causes greater harm than *not* correcting the mistake? If it does not, then it is no longer a moral choice. In regards to Iraq, you are offering up an idealized version of what the motivations were. If the war had been sold on the grounds of:
1. We are responsible for Iraq’s current government and bear some responsibility for their greatest atrocities.
2. We must rectify this by overthrowing their country
3. The Iraqi people were calling for us to do so
Then maybe, MAYBE we can have a discussion about it. But that is not what happened. We were given numerous pretexts. WMDs, freedom, what have you. Ultimately, it was for oil and military bases. But we lost. We (meaning American-British oil companies and the US military, respectively) didn’t get the oil and Iraq kicked us out. We unleashed great atrocities and created a humanitarian disaster.
I would like you to respond to that directly: do you not think the Iraq war was motivated by imperialism? Again, to pre-empt an argument I have seen others make: just because the war aims were not achieved does NOT mean that we then had different war aims.
Now, this moves quickly into my next point. If large scale military operations are acceptable ways to punish terrorists, would other countries be justified in snatching up George W. Bush and giving him the Bin Laden treatment? You can pretty much replace Bush with any President you like. I for one think that is an absurd idea, but I apply it consistently. If you think the idea is wrong because Bush is not as bad as Bin Laden, then I think we will conclude the discussion here.
Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist Islamic country. On the other hand, if we were to attack them in order to bring them “freedom”, we would end up killing an unimaginable number of people.
Lastly, there is no real “anachronistic preference for isolationism”. I opposed our support for Iraq when Saddam was committing his greatest atrocities. I also opposed the Iraq war. Why? It is not because I am reflexively anti-American, as you say. It is because I am trying to make serious moral decisions. Removing Saddam, in the abstract, is a positive thing. But we are not talking about things in the abstract. Your solution is to invade, occupy, and destroy his country. That will have horrific consequences. It’s a safer bet to allow the change to come from within — as it possibly would have without our support.
I feel uncomfortable trying to speak for all of the left here! You know, Chomsky *does* respond to e-mails. You should consider asking him these same questions and I think you’ll find that he does not believe what you think he believes re: Islam. Providing context for Muslim terror is not the same as excusing it. I would also like if you responded to my previous comments about WWII.
@ Howard
Like you, I think the only thing one ought to do in foreign policy decisionmaking is decide what the desired outcome is, and then weigh the costs and benefits (to all sides) before deciding whether to act, and if so, how. For instance, I think the invasion of Afghanistan was justified not only for immediate security purposes, but also because such security interests dovetail(ed) with humanitarian concerns: the replacement of a theocracy with a representative government. As for Saudi Arabia, using the same calculus, there is a marked difference. Surely, Saudi Arabia is repressive, but not as brutal and on the same scale as the Taliban was, whose persecution of the Hazara, for instance, was so intense that Iran almost intervened to protect the Shi’a there. Likewise, to my knowledge, there are no known terrorists using Saudi Arabia as a base to directly plot terror. The Kingdom’s head of intelligence, I believe, was nearly assassinated recently because of the country’s cooperation with the West, sometimes – that is, in capturing and questioning jihadists.
As for Iraq: I too believe that the case for war was poorly made. There was too much credibility given to dubious intelligence. Also, it is clear now that there was an unclear mandate and chain of command, not to mention postwar planning (in my post, you most likely read about the spat between the DoD and DoS regarding how quickly to turn sovereignty over to the Iraqis, and to which ones). I do not, however, believe that the war was primarily waged directly for imperialist reasons, such as to secure oil. Yes, I think this was a secondary rationale, but I don’t believe that lies were concocted towards this immediate end. Also, as you’ll see from my post, my writing is not so much in support of the war per se, but it is a criticism of realpolitik, containment-thinking, a quixotic trust in the United Nations vis-a-vis Iraq, genocide, etc. I believe that the U.S. should have intervened in the 1970s, 80s, or 90s, when Saddam was terrorizing the Kurds or annexing Kuwait. Also, I address the attempted revolution, which was duly and brutally squashed. There was no possibility, I believe, of a successful revolution against Saddam without outside assistance or intervention.
Pakistan: I don’t think the U.S. should invade Pakistan, and I don’t think there is any good way to solve the problem in Pakistan. I think all we can do is encourage whatever actions that will create the conditions for the jihadists to give up. I believe the drone strikes have severely weakened their leadership and operational ability, and that such strikes combined with the Pakistani military’s judicious use of force can and will force that conclusion. But I don’t believe that abstaining from the use of force will lead to peace either. Whenever that happens, the Pakistani Taliban settles and expands to nearby villages and districts. Again, I think the solution is to take on the “core” in a responsible way that minimizes a surge in recruitment. You write:
“How many innocent people would die? What unintended consequences would there be as a result? Would there be blowback? These are serious questions that I do not think you are acknowledging. There are no sure things in this regard.”
I do address these questions, especially in my first blog post: http://andrewgripp.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/drones-terror-and-the-american-left/
If Pakistan does nothing, the Pakistani Taliban was metastasize, but large-scale operations are a humanitarian nightmare. Therefore, I think occasional drone use can be used as leverage to push the TTP to negotiate a permanent resolution: however, the TTP seldom abides by them…
As for the Bush/bin Laden trade: no, I don’t regard bin Laden as the equivalent of Bush. I do, however, believe that some living officials could be put on trial for war crimes, especially Kissinger (Hitchens’ book on the subject is persuasive). Clinton, even, had his criminal moments, such as the bombing of that pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Lastly, I’m not sure which points you want me to address about WWII. Could you specify?
A commenter made note of the long-windedness of some of the replies. I am guilty of that so I brutally cut my original reply to make just three observations in reply to “Drew”.
One: Harris and Hirsi Ali are not merely “critical” of Islam. Harris has, in his book A Letter to A Christian Nation, directly labeled Islam as a belief that is particularly dangerous exactly because of what he called its pathologically hysterical irrationality, and of Islam’s adherents of being particularly impervious to reasoned discourse. Hirsi Ali complains of Western nations’ liberal order as the very thing that not only offends Islam, but is itself a luxury that is proving too costly because its chief features – democracy and social tolerance – leave the west vulnerable to Islam’s negative influence. In an interview referenced in an earlier Fairblog post Hirsi Ali openly calls for the global military “crushing” of Islam. Islam has over 1.5 billion persons as believers. Some of us would call this “crushing” genocide. I don’t know what you would call it. Hirsi Ali believes that Muslims living in west don’t deserve the same rights as others also living there (here) because the threat they represent is simply too great – she openly defends racist practices against them, including barring them at the west’s national borders, or rounding them up and deporting sending them back and so on. Hirsi Ali calls herself a “liberal”; yet she would destroy the liberal social order of the west in order to save it from Muslims.
Two: “Frankenstein” was the obsessed scientist that created the Monster (and he named the creature “Adam”). This adds a nice twist to your call for putting down Frankenstein. Consequently, some of the Earth’s inhabitants would agree with what you wrote, but you may not have meant what it clearly suggests. Correction aside, the west is never going to “put down” jihadism by military means. Jihadists, who have no tanks, no armies, no f-22s, no satellites, no spies, no aircraft carriers, just IEDs and refurbished rifles, are far too committed to their “cause” (whatever that is) to fear western bombs and bullets. (aside: Muslims are far too diverse in their beliefs to be some kind of stock figure in your, Harris’, Hirsi Ali’s, Berman’s etc, neocon fantasies) You don’t understand that and neither do the other neocons of the west. Jihadists don’t fear. Period. The only weapon that will defeat jihadism is political and social justice. When people are not oppressed by oil sheiks or puppet regimes or foreign armies or inequality or poverty or empire – that is, when they are free – they have a stake in the social order that makes that possible. When a Hirsi Ali, or some such, says kill them all unless they can be brought to heel, then they have no such stake. They will fly gladly into a hailstorm of lead. You can’t beat people like that if the facts on the ground don’t change. You profoundly misread who they are, and why they don’t care what you think of them, and ignore the fact that you don’t scare them. You yammer about “threats to civilization” – from the “jihadists” standpoint, it is the west that is the threat, and frankly in many profound cases they have a point. The west has come in and seriously disrupted their societies to the point of choosing their “leaders”, killing civilians by the metric ton and so on. The “west” does not do “humanitarian intervention” by military means. There is NO HISTORY of that ever occurring. ALL WESTERN INTERVENTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST is tied to fossil fuel extraction/control. You are very picky as to which repressors get the western bullet, and which ones do not.
Three: I did not say that “arguing about religion does no good”. YOU WROTE THAT YOURSELF, and tried to attribute it to me. What I wrote was, “insulting the faith of others never works to get them to reconsider it”. Really Big Difference, Drew-boy. I am married to a practicing, churchgoing Christian, and I routinely mock Christianity’s reactionary followers to her face – she hates reactionaries, too. To qualify for being mocked by me, you must first be a reactionary. As for religion itself, I will argue about religion, and I do it all the time. What I DO NOT DO is mock the faith of other persons even as I criticize it. I stand by my own words. I do not stand by YOURS.
@ “Donald”
You are not here to have a discussion, so I’ll make this brief so as not to waste each other’s time.
First, you are clearly putting words in my mouth. Did I ever endorse anything that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has said in terms of discrimination? No. I didn’t. I have never heard or read her say anything so intolerant or discriminatory, so I would appreciate it if you could include some links to validate this. I won’t defend things I did not condone.
As for Harris and Muslim diversity. Of course I know that there is diversity of opinion in Islam. You must have read my remarks very lazily or selectively. I know a great deal more about Islam than you do. I do not think that the world’s Muslims should be “crushed.” I said, quite clearly, that I recognize that there is a core group of jihadists whose goal is the replacement of all governments in the region with rigid theocracies. You clearly don’t seem to recognize this aim with your off-hand “whatever” comment. You say that I don’t understand what motivates that enemy, and that if the U.S. stopped being so mean, then there would be not jihadism. You also imply that religion is not the primary motivating factor, when it certainly is. For instance, when bin Laden denounced Saudi Arabia for allowing troops to be stationed on holy soil, the problem was not “geopolitical” or “imperial,” it was religious, since the prophet declared before he died that infidels must never be allowed on the Arabian Peninsula. That is their worldview. Jihadists view everything through the prism of Islam, just like fundamentalist Christians view natural events like earthquakes and floods as retaliation for sin. The problem with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Afghanistan is not that they are “repressive,” it is that they are not sufficiently theocratic. I have written a great deal about this very topic in the following post on my website: http://andrewgripp.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/on-islamic-terrorism/
You write the following:
“You don’t understand that and neither do the other neocons of the west. Jihadists don’t fear. Period. The only weapon that will defeat jihadism is political and social justice. When people are not oppressed by oil sheiks or puppet regimes or foreign armies or inequality or poverty or empire – that is, when they are free – they have a stake in the social order that makes that possible.”
I would agree that supporting despots is counterproductive. Did you not read me write that over and over again and cheer the Arab Spring? However, I think it is naive to believe that if the U.S. were to retreat from the region, that the jihadists would simply put down their weapons. There is a very strong core of jihadists: AQAP, AQIM, the TTP, etc. that want to convert whole swaths of territories into theocracies, and they are willing to use terror to attack various governments and civilian populations to do so. How would you recommend that these countries and the U.S. deal with this threat? You’re saying “do nothing” because the jihadists won’t give up?
Look, “Donald,” I don’t think you are arguing in good faith. I think it would be more educational for you to read my sane discussion with Howard.
As for your third point, I don’t really understand what you are trying to say. In an earlier post, you wrote:
“insulting the faith of others never works to get them to reconsider it. It sure as hell won’t work with a “jihadist”, no matter what the faith in question.”
Most likely not. That is why indoctrinated and committed jihadists need to be deterred, talked into a ceasefire (which they repeatedly violate), captured, or killed. I don’t expect al-Zawahiri to read Sam Harris’s book and apostasize. I do, however, see a value in criticizing religion in general or individual faiths in particular. Also, I don’t know what you mean by “insulting a faith.” Surely, it is quite insulting to tell someone that they are deluded and in a sense wasting their lives, or at least misleading their lives. So I don’t know how you expect people to be talked out of their faith. This isn’t to say that my first strategy for de-converting someone would be to call them names, but I would say it would involve pointed questions about their fundamental beliefs, which are likely to be personal, sensitive, and probably “insulting.” Anyway, I think this is a moot point.
@ Donald
I’m glad you cleared up that miscommunication.
First, I do believe that you are knowledgeable of religion. Atheists generally are better informed on such matters than religionists themselves. However, could you tell me where I misinterpreted or skewed the various texts I discuss in my blog post?
Also, here are two quotations from al-Qaeda that testify to their motivation, which is explicitly and centrally religious. The first is from bin Laden:
“The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Islamic umma [community], make Shari’a law supreme, and regain Palestine. Our fight against these governments is one with our fight against you.”
And al-Zawahiri has said:
“We also extend our hands to every Muslim zealous over making Islam triumph till they join us in a course of action to save the umma from its painful reality. [This course of action] consists of staying clear of idolatrous tyrants, warfare against infidels, loyalty to the believers, and jihad in the path of Allah. Such is a course of action that all who are vigilant for the triumph of Islam should vie in, giving and sacrificing in the cause of liberating the lands of the Muslims, making Islam supreme in its [own] land, and then spreading it around the world.”
So, I certainly recognize that America’s support for tyrants is a bad idea, and it discredits democracy and makes violence a sensible alternative, i.e. allows jihadist groups to recruit. However, the “core” of jihadists do have these very religious aims.
Anyway, I pulled these quotations from an article from Raymond Ibrahim, who has translated many of al-Qaeda’s documents. I think his analysis is spot-on. http://www.meforum.org/2043/an-analysis-of-al-qaidas-worldview
Bin Laden frequently criticized Saudi Arabia, such as in his Open Letter to King Fahd [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_King_Fahd_on_the_Occasion_of_the_Recent_Cabinet_Reshuffle], in which he writes (after a veryyy lonngg invocation of numerous scholars who agree that only Allah’s law may be followed by Muslims):
“An ordinary individual- let alone a scrutinizing researcher- will have no difficulty in proving that you as well as your regime are legislators and arbitrators of the positive laws, obligating people to abide by their rulings. A quick look at the charts of commercial courts and the laws that allow and authorize bank usurious transactions and others, labor and laborers laws, the law of the Saudi Arabian army, and other godless laws which exemplify to what extent and influence have these arbitrating and blasphemous laws achieved in this country.”
This ought to be evidence enough to support my central contention: religion is the primary motivational factor, and therefore simply retreating from the region will not bring harmony to these regions, let alone lead to the evaporation of jihadist groups.
Drew,
Here is the primary source of our disagreement:
You think that the primary threats to peace are Muslim terrorists and that they should be met with force. I think the primary threat to peace is the United States and its imperialism throughout the world, but do not think it should be met by force. I think Bush et al. should be arrested and prosecuted. I do not, however, advocate that we plant bombs at their weddings (or funerals), or murder their children (and then when asked why, say things like “They should have had better parents”). I do not advocate that position for our criminals and I do not advocate it for theirs.
Now, on to the subject of our first disagreement: who is responsible for most of the terror. You either disingenuously agreed with me or simply misunderstood me. You say: ” I do think that much of you what said regarding Western “terrorism” is irrelevant, especially since I do not make decisions/form opinions solely on a “body count” basis, as you rightly agree – contra Hart – is a dishonest way to argue or form policy.”
But this is not what I said. Hart’s graph is irrelevant. I stand by this. But it is not irrelevant because it compares body counts. It’s irrelevant because it is comparing the deaths from Christianity vs. Islam, instead of Islam vs Imperialism; this is ignoring another problem, which is that it is including things that happened so far back as to be unrelated to this discussion.
If we are trying to determine the major threat to peace in the world, then deaths caused by western imperialism vs. Islamic terrorism are of significant value. If you think Islam is the major threat, but Islam is responsible for a vastly smaller number of deaths than U.S. imperialism, then I do not see how you can continue to argue that Islam is the major threat.
The only way you can continue to maintain that belief is if you can somehow ignore or attribute to humanitarian reasons every single imperialist act with devastating consequences we have done in this era. You have to say Iraq had humanitarian intentions; you have to say the same about Afghanistan; you have to say the same about drone strikes; you have to say the same about sanctions. If you let down your guard on any one of these things, then your argument falls apart instantly because any one of things things has caused more deaths than Islamic terror.
I am not saying Islamic terror does not exist. There are bombings, killings, kidnappings, genital mutilation, denial of education to women. Many awful things. But as evil as those things are, the groups you are talking about are ultimately quite minor -already- and and they would be infinitely more minor if they did not have (legitimate) anti-imperialist rhetoric to fall back on. They are also not very powerful (as Donald mentioned, they have no aircraft carriers or…aircraft for that matter!).
It is not like WWII where you can just wage a war long enough, drop enough bombs, kill enough people and everything will work out. Forget the arguments about national sovereignty. I am talking purely about tactics. Trying to extinguish ideas with war will not work, because the war gives credence to those very ideas you are trying to extinguish.
If I thought that it were possible to exclusively target Muslim terrorists, then I think a case could be made for that (Not sure if I would agree with it, as I think it would still be contrary to the rule of law, but it could be morally defensible). But that is not what is happening. We do regularly kill terrorists; and we regularly kill innocents, fueling further terrorism and ensuring the war will never end.
There is no extremist Muslim in the world who will ever think: “Okay, sure, that government did kill some of my friends and family members. But they do have a point about the insane religion that my entire family and all of my friends practice.” That will not defeat fundamentalist Islam.
@potshot: I wish I had written what you had. I apologize for being late in acknowledging your contribution. It was sorely needed here. It was a pleasure to read. Thank you and thank you again!!
@ Drew. I visited that neocon link you provided. I remember it since in arguing with some “habarista” (who also provided a link to that site) on another website. The site for the link you gave sustains a tagline that reads, “Promoting American Interests”. That does not bode well, given the history of “American Interests”. But I can’t take the time to refute the author’s paranoid racist brutalizing of Islam to respond to it here. It is just too much.
So I will limit myself to your “central contention: religion is the primary motivational factor, and therefore simply retreating from the region will not bring harmony to these regions, let alone lead to the evaporation of jihadist groups.”
And militarily “crushing” the billion-plus of the world’s Muslims will?
Oh, and did you mean that ONLY the Islamic religion as “the primary motivational factor” or do you mean ALL religion? And do you expect we should start with the dozen or so Muslims who work in my Long Island office? Once we are done with the Muslims, who will be next?
I offer this: we DO need to get the living hell out of that region for we have made such a spectacular mess of it all that it is a miracle that jihadism did not start back in the 1950’s, and most historians blame the current situation we have now on the west’s addiction to fossil fuels and the use of violence and repression to get it. We have not even started on the costs to the environment incurred by industrial capitalism (and industrial communism, by the way). Jihadism will be the least of our problems if we don’t address that issue, like, yesterday. Indeed, jihadism will only get worse if fossil fuel burning is not severely curbed, if not stopped cold dead in its tracks, as simply living will itself become increasing difficult on Earth. Thanks, glorious western culture, for THAT legacy. Talk about a REAL threat to “civilization”.
But your statement suggest that you seem to want a program. Fair enough. Here’s mine.
My first strike action: close ALL American military bases around the world.
Second strike: END ALL SUPPORTS – military and economic – for Saudi Arabia and the other Middle East theocracies and cut off Israel (and Columbia [yes, I know it is in South America] and Egypt and all of our other “client regimes”) without a cent.
Third strike: try to make restitution to the peoples of the world we have harmed with our wars and invasions and our environmental violence. In other words, start by doing no harm, then move to remaking our relationship with the rest of humanity. I can guarantee that will go much further to ending jihadism than bombing the shit out of people clad only in rags and the innocent civilian/non-combatants unfortunate enough to be holding weddings in those lands. Jihadism cannot turn you into an enemy if in some concrete sense you are not already one to all of the other people in those regions who are not themselves jihadis and have more than enough cause to hate the jihadis as much as you do – if not more. If the west is truly guilty of nothing other than mere secularism (as you seem to think) the non jihadis (including Muslim non jihadis) the world over will know this and take action against them, as folks who are pushed around always do. Indeed, it is worth noting that the innocent victims of our violence – those lucky enough to survive – are documented in our news accounts of those events as despising the jihadis, but they never defend the west or its liberal social order. They hate the jihadis and say so – but generally won’t go neocon for us. Some even claim to understand why they do what they do some of what they do, even as they disavow much of it as “un-Islamic.” Ever wonder why?
Fourth Strike: re-write our own economy to show that we are serious about ending (or least slowing) anthropogenic global climate change. We have to take fossil fuels out of the dynamic, if stopping jihadism is going to have a chance in the world.
Fifth: pay up our dues to the United Nations, stop using that using that institution as a cover for our dangerous acts (and stop trying to maneuver around them when they won’t support our dangerous acts) and organize a global and non-military response to human rights violations. The weak need a weapon: only a democratic global forum will provide it.
Sixth: shut down the World Bank and the IMF and NATO. I am sure that some out there may have other ideas to add to the list. These are your weapons to defeat jihadism.
But, if all you want to do is kill Muslims, then I cannot argue you out of that.
It is way past time for me to shut the hell up now, as I have gone on long enough. Feel free to take my future non-replies as concessions to the rightness of your arguments.
@ Donald, @ Howard [a combined reply]
Long-term, I agree with some of what you say. Yes, they U.S. should quickly adapt to energy usage that does not rely primarily on oil.
You also completely missed my point, Donald. Again, I did not advocate “crushing” all Muslims. I said the “core” of jihadists in these several groups which are active in committing terrorism. Again, I did not advocate killing all of them off – as if that were even possible or desirable. However, these groups must be persuaded that their goals are not realizable. Thus far, they have not gotten the message. There is unmistakably a need for a military component here. It would be fantastic if these groups would sit down for talks, negotiate a ceasefire, and promise to give up their imperialistic dreams. Unfortunately, they seldom argue in good faith, and they love to assassinate negotiators and violate truces.
How dishonest of you to dismiss these quotations because they came from a certain webpage. Bin Laden and Zawahiri have said these things. If you’d like, you can read them on Wikipedia (one of the links in my previous post). I feel we are talking past each other, and so it is probably best to stop. But, still, I think the following are undeniable:
1. Jihadist terrorism is primarily motivated by religion
2. It seeks to unite all “Muslim” lands and export Islam worldwide
3. A retreat by the U.S. from the region will not cause jihadism to subside (bin Laden: “Our fight against these governments is one with our fight against you.”)
Therefore, I think the U.S. is justified in having some military involvement, directly or indirectly, in creating conditions for the diminishment of this movement. I’m sorry, but I regard all of your suggestions, in the short-term, as quixotic.
Finally, as for WWII, I see some analogy here. The UK and US could have been self-pitying about the war, identified the “root cause” of Germany’s grievances and the “injustice” of the Treaty of Versailles, and turned a blind eye to Poland and the fate of Germany’s neighbors and citizens. As much as WWII is abused as analogy, I think it is a reasonable one in this case. Nazism and jihadism are both anti-Semitic, imperialistic ideologies that only can be stopped by the use of force. You say jihadism cannot be defeated as an idea. Maybe not. There are certainly still skinheads and neo-Nazis to this day. But Nazism as a geopolitical force is extinct, and I think it would have been wrong to refrain from entering the war on the grounds that military involvement would just antagonize the Nazis even more, or that the loss of civilian life would not be worth it. This is not to say that the U.S. and the U.K. conducted the war ethically in all circumstances, and it may have committed war crimes in Dresden and Japan and elsewhere. Those acts are not themselves excusable. But I think the war was just and necessary, and I think the same is true in the fight against jihadism today.
*END*
Fake Drew: The war in Afghanistan was never aboutdemocracy. Our fight there began in October of 2001, when we were able to run Usama out, though we failed to block his escape, probably because we didn’t want to eliminate him, as he served as our causus belli. It is about the poorest country in the world, and has no centralized government as we know it. Outside of Kabul, Afghanistan is pretty much tribal, and the elections there have been shams, as you might expect in a place where there is no agreement as what liberty is and no respect or desire for a binding national law.
Did we have a right to invade a country where Usama happened to be? Or, would we have better served by sticking to police actions to catch the perpetrators instead of trying to occupy a whole country? Keep in mind that only about 1 in 100,000 in Afganistan knew of the 9/11 attacks beforehand and that much of the planning and preparation were carried out in Germany and the USA. Why did we have to shell villagers and make more jihadists by sending hostile troops into those hostile provinces? We killed people there, and in enormous numbers according to US General Stanley McChrystal. Occupiers and occupied begin to hate each other, which just compounds the misery for both. Occupiers see their brethren slain and thus lose all sense of proportion, which in turn feeds the revenge motives of the occupied. We in the US kill Afghan natives based upon their “activity profiles”, not actual proof of terror, and we count as terrorists evey military age male who dies in a strike. In a country where unemployment runs at about 50%, males of every conceivable political bent willl probably be in rather close contact within a village or tribe; as far as terrorism, fighting occupiers is not terrorism. Many is the US who favor national helathcare would yet unite with and fight alongside those who don’t, even if it meant repulsing an invasion by say, a country like Sweden, which offered to export its great healthcare system to this country, where 47,000 yearly die from lack of coverage. But the Swedes are foreign to us, though far less so than we are to the Afghans.
You say you are an agent of democracy, but we don’t have it here. Democracy is the word we use to describe and praise our system, yet our founders wrote a constitution designed to prevent it from occurring. So, Drew should quit trying to export what we don’t have to Afganistan. Here, we have a system where 50% of the country has only 18 of 100 senators, where 9 justices can decide the presidency, where a president can veto a bill that 65% of the people’s representatives want, and where the rich can spend whatever they want to influence legislation, the people who write it, and the elections of the writers. That’s not democracy by the loosest of standards. So Drew perhaps should give up his title of democracy promoter.
@ John Wolfe
Afghanistan is an immensely better off place since 2001. Since then, the population has surged by 5 million, school is enrollment is up eightfold, GDP has ballooned from $2 billion to $20 billion, life expectancy has increased by 17 years for men and 19 years for women, and optimism about the future is higher among Afghans than it is Americans. The voter turnout rate in Afghanistan is higher than in the U.S. That is democracy, and it as an achievement to be proud of.
Often times, people complain that neoconservatives or liberal hawks lump *all* Muslims together as if they were the enemy that needs to be defeated. I, at least, do not make that argument: it would be foolish. Why, then do you make the same kind of error? You write about Afghans monolithically, as if many are not on the side of the Americans who want to squash the Taliban and get a stable and secure democracy running. Thousands of men and women are volunteering to be trained as military or police officers. On my blog, I write about the case of Lt. Bibi Negar, a woman who was killed by an insurgent. She was a high-ranking police officer in Helmand Province who was harassed by her patriarchal family and nearly killed by her brother, and she even tackled suicide bombers to save lives. How would you explain the lives of her and Afghans like her?
I, too, worry about the fate of American democracy. I teach American government and I am a budding journalist, and my goal is to bring attention, in my own way, to the importance of civic duty, being informed, getting involved, and appreciating what makes this country great and why it is worth salvaging and improving. I want there to be greater representation, more direct democracy, a severe curtailment of corporate power in politics and the media, etc. But these problems ought not make us cynical and resigned, and that does not require that we make the perfect the enemy of the good in our foreign policy.
And I view your belief that the Americans purposefully let bin Laden slip over the mountains to justify a prolonged occupation as yet another symptom of your cynicism and your willingness to believe anything to prop up your impervious ‘America-always-acts-as-an-empire-no matter-what’ worldview.
Fake Brent: Well, your example of 1939 Poland as a high water-mark of Allied benevolence is sorely misplaced; again, the beginning of WW Two occurred when England and France decided to declare war on Germany for its September 1, 1939 invasion of Poland. The invasion itself did not make for a world war, but when England and France decided to back the anti-Semitic and dictatorial jaunta that ruled Poland, they broadened the conflict to truly wordlwide proportions
What is more interesting is that England and France did nothing to help Poland in the tense 6 month interlude before the war. Troops and arms, though requested, were not sent. England had no history of defending the integrity of any Eastern European state, and Poland had just been recreated in 1919, having not been a country from 1793.; all the Allies did in 1939 was to give Poland a blank check and verbal support. The Allies, then, were using Poland as a litmus test of German power. If those Germans took that extra step eastwards, then the Allies must crush the “too powerful Hun”, as Churchill said. After all, Germany’s iron and steel production was outpacing the rest of the West’s, and .its vibrant post-Depression economy shamed those of the Allies. The Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland, also carried out in 1939, met with no similar declaration of war. The Sovets were insular and economicaly downscale and at that time, in a state of clear military inferiority.
The Nazis, of course, deserved their ultimate defeat, having committed genocide and waged a war of unparalled aggression and brutality against the USSR, both a reflection of Hitler’s racism.which is why the Louvre and many famous French cathedrals stand while Warsaw and the rest of Poland were systematically decimated, nearly block by block.
Just as England never cared about Polish democracy, the US cares nothing about Afgan democracy. If we did, we would have left the country alone in 1979 and not tried to undermine the mildly socialist and pro-USSR government that existed in 1978. Then, the country was more at peace, with the fundamentalist controlling the small villages and the more educated and secular classes safe in the areas around Kabul, whcih actually featured disco and dancing in the 70″s. But in our obsession with Communism, like Churchill’s obsession with German power, we couldn’t let well enugh alone. Brezezinski himself admits to visiting and hiring the Islamic fanatics to fight the USSR by means of border raids into the USSR itiself, all carried out to provoke an invasion and “bleed the Soviets dry” on the plains of Afghanistan. You can see and hear Brezezinski on YouTube telling these guys that God is on their side.
Of course, we didn’t learn about these truths until 1997, having been long since fooled into believing that Soviet aggression justified tour boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics and the interruption of some fine athletic careers. Why couldn’t we just let 1978 Afghanistan be, just as the USSR let Mexico and Canada be? Again, it’s not benevolence on our part, but our tendency to use natives as pawns in these big power chess matches. Churchill, who ordered the gassing of Iraqis in 1920, would certainly have approved. He did the same to Indian tribes when he wasn’t ordering them gunned down in Delhi’s imperial courtyards.
So, as you see, it is the drive for regional hegemony over competing powers that propels the West onwards. It’s the West relentless and remorseless drives to control the resources of the world that has provoked jihadism Islamic Wars of vengence. Without our bullet-backed greed, jihadism would be just an abstraction fueled by nothing but fantasy. But we penetrate, we take, and we rule. We beleive that what we say goes. They’re not buying it.
@ John Wolfe
All that history is well and good, but it completely sidesteps the central issue. We are not arguing about whether the U.S. was right to supply the mujahideen with weaponry to repel the Soviet invasion. We are arguing, or at least I am arguing, that now the U.S. *is* committed to a flourishing Afghan democracy. The U.S. wants it for humanitarian and for security purposes, and the Afghans want it, too. Would resources do you believe the U.S. trying to extract from Afghanistan, i.e. what is your alleged belief regarding the *real* rationale of this particular war?
@ Donald
I am familiar with the website: Centre for Research on Globalisation. It is a disgusting website, on which one can also find paeans to North Korea:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/north-korea-a-land-of-human-achievement-love-and-joy/5344960
But, the source it in and of itself does not discredit your “argument.” However, you made no argument. You slapped down a URL address of an article full of innuendos. All the article says is that it has long been known that Afghanistan possesses mineral and gas deposits. You have to make an argument, if you care to, that the U.S. was motivated to fight the war to secure these resources. What next? Are you going to point to some “scholarly article” suggesting that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen so that it could plunder these resources?
Afghanistan possessing these resources is a good thing. The country could certainly benefit from converting its assets into wealth. The people surely need it. Like you, I am making an assumption here, this wealth belongs largely to the Afghans, and should not be simply siphoned out of the country. Your implication here is that the U.S. always wanted to – and now is – plundering these resources without benefit to the Afghans. That is the argument you have to make.
FAKE DREW can simply look to King David Patraeus for his answer. Patraeus has already stated before the US Congress that Afghanistan has about 1 Trillion Dollars worth of untapped minerals, some of them rare and of strategic importance. Patraeus also testified that the US task in the Mideast, at least the military one, has been made more difficult by our unwavering and apparently unconditional support of Israel. So, there you have your answer to the Western interests and US motive, provided by Top Dog himself. And wee are exploiting that interest now, contrary to what you say, because if you didn’t already know, there is a 3 Billion Dollar copper mine just Notheast of Kabul, which we and the Chinese jointly operate, with the US Marines providing (have the “shores of Tripoli” become the mines of Kabul?). The generals on Armed Forces Day are at least honest. I have heard them speak on this occasion for years in our little Southern military city, and they annually brag about how their forces are indispensable to preserving trade routes, critical resources, and our “American way of life”. It would be asking Drew too much to read the writings of Smedley Butler, the Marine general who was the first in the armed forces hierarchy to admit that the Pentagon is just a working arm of the Chamber of Commerce.
Now, more on Afghanistan. The occupation is linked to US dominance of a country at the crossroads to everywhere. That’s one explanation for why it interested the Russians and English before it interested us. Of course, controlling the minerals is as good for us as our exploiting them, as it gives us the right to regulate the when, where, and who of their exploitation. We did the same in Iraq, a classic counterexample to the FRAUDULENT DREW. There, we violated the 1912 Hague Convention by failing, as occupiers, to respect the form of the Iraqi economy. Instead, we privatized the production through fiat and then divvied up the spoils among different Western companies. See, FAKE DREW, that ‘s not democracy, that’s corporatism at the end of a US gun. The same thing is happening in Libya, though there oil production has fallen because of there is no longer a strong central government to protect and assure the continuity mineral production in that country. As to Afghan politics, there are still tribal customs and such that trump any national law, especially with regard to the treatment of women and things such as rape. Trying to impose national standards upon those who prefer rule by village elders isn’t working well, and the attempt itself, done with gun-barrels, is far from democratic. As in Vietnam, we will move villagers from their ancestral homes and isolate them elsewhere if we feel the village is too friendly to the Taliban. Remember how democratic the Strategic Hamlet Initiative was in 1965? That is what we are doing now, and we are killing many people just for their political support of the Taliban, just as we did through Operation Phoenix in Vietnam. We will brook no resistance to our occupation, just as in Iraq, where we still help their dictator jail and imprison and torture pamphleteers, the knowledge of which sparked Bradley Manning’s outrage and next his revelations to Wiki-Leaks of the many sordid actions the US has taken around the world to protect its interests.
Lastly, just look at how we tried to construct IRAQ, using expensive and politically connected US NGO groups when the Iraqi’s had long had the expertise to do wall construction and other project at about 20% of the cost. Instead, we subsidized our own and kept Iraqi unemployment high. This further angered the people and destabilized the country, as Naomi Klein has documented. And in Haiti stands the most compelling counterargument to Fake Drew’s argument of the US as the disinterested and altruistic occupier, for that small half of an island has been dominated by the US since 1825 and remains today about the world’s poorest country. We protected it elite for decades through countless interventions and provided them the arms to keep its poor citizenry under a military thumb. We landed Marines on its shores countless times to protect US economic interests, and we still use our influence to keep its politics and money flowing our way. In 2012, for instance, the US State Department, under Hillary, ordered the Haitian election commissions to keep Fanmi Lavales, the most popular political party, off the ballots in every district. Our puppet s obliged, and we made sure Aristide, their real elected leader, remained exiled in Africa, where he couldn’t threaten US investments in Haiti. Next, Hillary had the Haitian Parliament rescind its law that raised the minimum wage from $3.50 to $5.00 per day, and yes, I did say per day. She did this because US apparel manufacturers demanded it be done, and their interests superseded those of the natives, as has been par for the course since 1825, when we controlled their imports, exports, and trade receipts.
Now, Fake Drew, tell us how truly interested the US is in making the Afghans prosper when the US 200 year association with poor and pliable Haiti consigned Haiti to its current status, that of the poorest country in our hemisphere.
@ Drew.
Here is my argument.
The United States particularly, and the western powers generally, did not now and did not ever undertake its military activity in the Middle East, beginning in the years after 9/11 with invading Afghanistan, for humanitarian purposes and nor did it do so for democracy promotion. Your insistence that this time is different is as false now as it was when the Bush Administration used it when the Iraq WMD lie began to fall apart. Please take of note the sources cited in the writing posted to this link: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/SilkRoad.html?q=SilkRoad.html
How about this: http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/092006/OilyFootprints.shtml
It also names names.
Now you have my argument. The US did it for resource control/extraction. The primary purpose for our entry into Afghanistan is that the US had a pre-existing policy to control the resources of that region as a means to control the development capacity of certain nations – particularly Russia, China, and Iran, and to prevent them from becoming regional powers that could counter American hegemony over the global economy and international relations. If the American hand is on the spigot, so to speak, then other nation’s economies are at risk unless they concede to American hegemonic interests and thus do so at the cost of their own interests. We are not in Afghanistan to protect their resources (from whom, exactly?) or to help them benefit from them. Far from it. As other commenters here have noted, a nation’s patrimony means nothing in face of US covetousness and imperial ambition. We can say the resources belong to the Afghans, but that don’t mean they get to control those resources if we have other ideas and have the means of acting on them. That is my argument more fully stated. Whether or not that larger project by US planners has succeeded is another story, as there is debate there. I am not an expert on geopolitics, but the understanding I have outlined is standard among serious historians and scholars of the post WWII era. The late Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA analyst and professor of history, has written three best sellers on the subject and I take my argument from his thesis. It is worth noting that observers of American actions that take the neocon line tend to be American mostly, but support for it gets real scarce once you go outside of American borders.
That leads me to this. As you must know, polls taken in nations around the world (in the nations the US has invaded, and in those of our allies both democratic and not) and referenced in the American corporate press regularly cite the United States as the greatest threat to global peace in the world – far greater than Iran, say – and as the greatest barrier to any serious action to slow/end/reverse global warming. There’s gotta be a reason for that. Why is the US not universally loved? Why are the oppressed the world over not begging for the 82nd Airborne to just, you know, drop in for a visit? Could it be jihadist/communist propaganda?
As for our presence in Afghanistan, I notice that you did not bother to actually refute the documented thesis of Professor Chussodofsky’s, except to call the website “disgusting” because you found a fawning pro NK piece written by someone who claims zero expertise in international relations. That piece is an opinion/travelogue; the Professor’s is a scholarly and supported thesis – that kind of work is his regular paid gig. Nice try of yours, though. By the way, the New York Times publishes both Paul Krugman and David Brooks, and has pro-war propagandists masquerading as journalists receiving paychecks alongside its real journalists. So what is your point?
By the way, I have visited your site repeatedly and I must say that I am actually impressed by SOME of what you write there. What baffles the heck out of me is how someone of your evident smarts can uncritically accept the neocon claim of American good intentions when history – and world opinion – shows, without a break, that such intentions are without evidence in any way, shape or form.
Oh, there I go again, being long-winded in my replies – after I said I’d stop.
@ john wolfe
Afghanistan is an immensely better off place since 2001. Since then, the population has surged by 5 million, school is enrollment is up eightfold, GDP has ballooned from $2 billion to $20 billion, life expectancy has increased by 17 years for men and 19 years for women, and optimism about the future is higher among Afghans than it is Americans. The voter turnout rate in Afghanistan is higher than in the U.S. That is democracy, and it as an achievement to be proud of.
I’ll repeat it so it starts to sink in.
Also, I do not know much about the mines of Kabul. What would you recommend be done with these vast Afghan resources? What would you recommend be done to prevent the Taliban from destroying attempts at commerce, development, etc?
Donald,
First off, I did hedge and say that the source of the article you originally posted was not a reason to reject it out right. However, that website does regularly post defenses of North Korea and other monsters. As for the professor, I repeat: His article was nothing but innuendo, as are the articles you submitted thereafter. Either they hammer away at the idea that the U.S. and Soviets had decades-long knowledge of Afghanistan’s geology, or they vaguely refer to some pipeline deals, which, of course, were scuttled before the invasion began. I see no evidence that the war was waged in order to capture resources. Surely, if this were the plan all along, there would be taped discussions at the highest levels about how democracy or security were smokescreens for an invasion and occupation. There would presumably be reports every year showing the wealth that has been captured and extracted. Instead, we see that the U.S. and NATO have been taking on great losses in order to build up an Afghan police force and military, as well as to oversee an election with greater voter turnout than the U.S.’s election. The population has surged in the country, life expectancy and literacy are way up, as is access to education and healthcare – not to mention democratic participation. How do you interpret these facts? Do they really leave your view of the war unchafed?
So, my fundamental disagreement with you is not simply that of substance; it is epistemological. You operate the same way as Michael Moore does, who always assumes there is always a hidden cabal of financial interests behind American foreign policy. This kind of thinking was rightly rebuked by that great socialist Irving Howe, who wrote that the
“quick reduction of ideas to ideology and its glib ascription of ideology to interest, has become the mental habit of lazy and half-educated people throughout the world.”
It’s the same kind of thinking that blends nicely with Chalmers Johnson’s “blowback” theorizing. I have read some of his works – though years ago, when I was in my “America can do no right” phase. Blowback theory is just as convenient as the ascription of ideology to interest. They are both simplistic mental habits that come at a high intellectual cost, namely, the rejection of very plain facts: al-Qaeda and its allies really are religious jihadist groups with an imperialistic ideology, and they mean what they say when they say it. Now, I know that you think I am just naively parroting official statements (“lies”) and blindly trusting the leaders of these wars. Well, I’m not – at least, I try not to.
As you can tell from my webpage, I am as diligent as I can be. I do my best to be an independent thinker and analyze and scrutinize. I seriously do believe that the U.S. has legitimate national security concerns in several countries, and that these concerns necessitate the use of force. I also think that the U.S. should promote democracy in all places, since it is the best guarantor of peace and security in the long-run. These are the values I want to see put in practice in American foreign policy. For too long, it has made allegiances of convenience with autocrats and dictators or outright permitted genocide or cancelled democracies in other countries. Since, 9/11, it has, with some success and reliability, changed course – in my view – and so I applaud those changes.
Anyway, I am getting long-winded myself, and you can read my opinions on my webpage.
Afghan voting proves nothing about a democracy in their midst. Democracy, to us in the US, is the process, and our engagement in it is ritualistic because it doesn’t amount to our having control over one’s life or even a fair say in it. In fact, the process itself often blocks substantive change, but it does serve to make people think they are having some say or input. In Afghanistan, most of the prosperity you refer to came about because the value of that country’s trade in poppy and opium based narcotics has increased twelve fold since the US invasion. What the Taliban had nearly eliminate has flourished under the puppet Hamid Karzai, and that huge increase accounts for most of the GDP growth. The US troops tolerate it because they know how much more desperate the economy would become without this infusion of cash, however illicit its source. Drew is probably paid, since his announce trade is democracy promotion, to put a kind and gentle spin on a cruel occupation. The CIA and the NEI pay many to spread disinformation, and do it here as well as they do it in Cuba and Venezuela, or whatever country has reservations about letting US private capital rule their roost.
To say that Afghanistan is a democracy is Orwellian in the extreme inasmuch as the people are just engaging at best in republican type voting, electing a leader or two in the hopes that he will do right by your agenda. Democracy is what you have when you get to order what you want straight off the menu, but what we and they have is a republic, where you elect a cook and hope, mostly in vain, that he’ll being out the fixings in good order. For Afghanistan to be a democracy, they would have to have a referendum on first principles, like whether the majority wants US troops here, whether the Karzai family and their associates should continue to own much of the wealth, whether and to what degree women rights and Islamic law should be enshrined into the nation’s laws, and whether what operating capital there is should be wholly or just partially owned by foreign capital. The US will never agree to put these issues to the test because it knows the outcomes would be entirely against US liking. Fake Drew should reveal himself and for whom he is paid to shill. Using his real face would be a good start, rather than the current “aw shucks” face that is meant to hide a mean and dishonest agenda.
* john wolfe
Screw you. I’m done arguing with you. First off, there is nothing fake about me, and I am paid by nobody. If you have to resort to ad hominems, then you are showing your desperation. I am paid by a community college, where I teach; I am no “shill.” Honestly, do you think a shill would waste his time arguing with a single, cynical person whom he knows he won’t convert? You are really showing your paranoia here, john.
Of course, I use the word “democracy” in a generic, not-totalitarian, not-authoritarian sense. In fact, democracy IS quite robust in Afghanistan, given the provinciality of many districts.
You are what Hegel called a “beautiful soul.” You sit back and criticize every action in a messy world. Even when Americans put their money and bodies behind a truly remarkable effort – the replacement of a terrorism-supporting theocracy with a functional and representative government (I assume an outcome you would champion – maybe just in the abstract?), you revert to cynicism and well-it-isn’t-good-enough type arguments. Good news: you are powerless, and in ten years, when the Afghans are all trained and acculturated to living in a republic that has squashed the Taliban and is truly starting to thrive, then we can look back at these comments and then see who is right.
*END*
John Wolfe, debate winner by twelfth round knockout and still debate champion! Fake Drew can go to Afghanistan and enjoy its favorite export and thereby help its economy. If he can get past the “democratic” midnight raids by US soldiers and the US “democratic” village relocation projects, then Fake Drew will have an extra good time in his new democracy!