So much killing, so much hatred… The BBC is reporting that at least 88 people were killed in the multiple bombings in Sharm al-Shaikh, Egypt, yesterday, and at least 22 have been killed today by a truck bomb in the east-Baghdad district of Mashtal (which means a nursery for young plants, or saplings).
This after the well-known series of other large-scale killings of civilians we’ve witnessed in recent weeks, in Iraq and London.
Each one of those lives snuffed out is equally precious… We should remember, too, that the “point” of terrorists who kills civilians is not just to carry on killing until everyone is dead, though sometimes it does almost feel that way. Their “point” is to leave everyone else so terrified that they accede to the demands of the terrorists. And along they way, they often hope to provoke an over-reaction from the targeted society. Llike, for example, the serious mistake the British police made when they shot to kill a fleeing “suspect” who turned out to be a Brazilian unconnected with the Qaeda-style terrorists the police were seeking.
That kind of an over-reaction helps to polarize important portions of society against the police, and thus poses a huge obstacle to the kind of very thorough and principled police work that– in Britain as internationally– remains the best answer for how to incapacitate the Qaeda-style terrorists.
Already, several prominent British Muslims have said that if the British police have a “shoot to kill” policy, that will make it much harder for the police to win cooperation in the Muslim communities.
… Well, if we think that the British police shooting to kill one fleeing individual was a dangerous and potentially self-defeating form of over-reaction, then what do we think about the Bush administration– “in response to” the threat from an Afghanistan/Pakistan-based Al-Qaeda– launching a war to invade and control a whole different country, Iraq?
In Britain, I hope and expect that the Rules of Engagement that last friday apparently allowed a small London police squad to shoot to kill a fleeing suspect have since been changed. And also, hopefully, that the whole incident will be rigorously investigated and any officer who exceeded the rules of engagement in place at the time would be disciplined.
Of course, the British police and government should also apologise profusely to the family of the slain Brazilian, and make some meaningful form of amends to them.
But what about the Bushites’ extreme form of over-reaction in Iraq?
When will we see that policy reversed?
When will see a thorough investigation into the whole affair, and those responsible for that dangerous over-reaction brought to justice and disciplined?
When will we see a US apology to the affected Iraqis, and serious efforts to make amends to them?
Soon, I hope.
And at that point, everyone in the world who actually, in practice, recognizes that solving longstanding political differences through dialogue and discussion is a far better way of doing things than through any applications of violence, can start to come together and make the case for a far smarter, more focused, response to the terrorists.
This response would be based on:
- (1) solid, international investigative and police work;
(2) building strong political alliances based on a commitment to nonviolent values rather than a reliance on militarism; and
(3) a commitment to hearing everyone’s existing political claims and grievances with an equally sympathetic ear, and a commitment to equality-based outcomes.
There are many ways to respond to terrorism without getting sucked into the terrorists’ games and paradigms of relying on violence to solve problems. Pleae God, let’s be smart enough, and concerned enough about the kind of world we’ll bequeath to our children and grandchildren, that we commit to using those ways.
I agree with the people who say that better police work will not solve the problem of terrorism. It should be obvious to anyone by now that military action provokes terrorism in response, and cannot be considered a solution.
We shouldn’t be so focused on finding a better response to terrorism, which is itself a response to much larger political and economic forces. 500 years of European and American expansion has been fueled by the increasingly sophisticated exploitation of the human and natural resources of the rest of the world. But this exploitation has its limits. We are now in a phase of diminishing returns. The first reaction to this new reality is a predictably “conservative” attempt to shore up the old system by going on the offensive. Of course this is failing, and the current waive of terrorism is just a reminder of that failure.
Can’t we all just get along? No, we can’t. There are much greater upheavals ahead of us. If we survive, a new world order will emerge. Since our survival will depend on an unprecedented degree of cooperation, there is some reason to be optimistic about the likely contours of that new order. If we survive.
Within the confines of our ignorance and limited experience we all have our views of what works and what doesn’t work in fighting terrorism. Even in our disagreements we should all acknowledge a few elements in judging the mertis of our strategies and opinions:
1) Terrorism is our adversary
2) The adversary also plays. Any illusion that a static response from us solves the problem is naive. The adversary will adapt and respond, and that does not mean that our response was flawed or futile, it just means it is time for our next move.
3) Talk is cheap. We cannot accept pretentious lectures from actors with no skin in the game. We must hold people accountable to outcomes and specifically to the risk and actions they take. Unsolicited paternalistic advice from parties that do not share the terrorism problem (by luck or by cowardice) is salt in the increasingly larger wounds being cause by terrorists.
David
The soot to kill policy, against Helena’s prediction, stays in effect the same way that the US has a policy to down suspicious civilian airliners after 9/11. Unfortunately these are complex dilemmas with no good solutions. The only certainty we have is that we know who to thank.
from the BBC:
Sir Ian told Sky News:
He acknowledged “somebody else could be shot” as the hunt continued, but added “everything is done to make it right”. But he said the “shoot to kill” policy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers would remain in force.
Lord Stevens, the former Met police chief who brought in the policy, insists the principle remains correct.
Repeat after me: We know who to thank.
Yesterday, David wrote: “And so far britons are standing up well, even though their right to criticize the US response is fading fast in light of their killing a poor brazilian with little due process. See, when it hits you things are a bit harder than the white gloves criticism of others.”
Today he is getting bolder, pontificating to the world from his US standpoint as the one who is experienced in terrorism, entitled to condescend and to patronise. He is only revealing his ignorance.
Sometimes it seems appropriate to relate personal experience. It seems appropriate now, in the face of this pompous ass’s sermons.
Many generations of Londoners have known the terrorism of bombers. I lived in London for years and many of my close family are there now including my two sons.
I don’t know any of the London dead personally, or I don’t think I do. When it comes to South Africa, I do. Let me use initials. There is JG, journalist, killed by a bomb in Harare. RF, academic and mother of three, killed by a letter bomb in Maputo. DS, woman diplomat, shot in a streets in Paris. SK, a young woman, member of the finally legal ANC, killed in the Bree Street bomb in Johannesburg just before the 1994 election (which the ANC won).
Others survived. I seem to remember Helena writing of a meeting with Albie Sachs, lawyer, now a Supreme Court Judge here, one of whose arms was blown off by a bomb in his car in Maputo. Rev. Michael Lapsley, Anglican priest, had both hands blown off by a letter bomb in Botswana.
These are just a very few of the people killed and maimed, not by those fingered by David with his “we know who to thank” smear. This terrorism was done by people who called their ideology “Christian National”.
The last time they killed with one of their bombs was in Soweto about three years ago. A woman died. Good police work (not “shoot-to kill”) broke that ring and now there is a trial going on in Pretoria.
The answer to terrorism is not a puerile return to the Wild West. It is not the ejaculatory response of aerial bombing of a faraway country like Afghanistan, or the grotesque, unprepared, irresponsible “cakewalk” behaviour in Iraq. The US has done everything wrong since the Twin Towers demolition. No US person has any standing from which to preach about terrorism. The US itself is a terrorist.
“The answer to terrorism is not a puerile return to the Wild West.”
I with You in this
David,
Your first statement is already wrong. Terrorism isn’t an adversary. Terrorism is a mean, a mean of fight, which is used by the weakest party in asymetrical fights.
Then there isn’t only one adversary using terrorism, as you seem to imply. There are many different kinds of terrorisms, whose goals, targets and forms vary greatly.
Since you are lecturing us about military strategy against terrorism, then don’t forget the first military rule : it’s not “shoot to kill”, it’s “know your ennemy”.
Aka : don’t confuse means and adversary, don’t make of multiple movements a single huge by unexplained threat, don’t use fear in order to justify measures which aren’t up to the standard of a democracy.
From Gary Younge, in the Guardian (London):
“The dominant mood that we are better safe than sorry is understandable. But after Friday’s incident we are left with one man dead, nobody safe and everybody sorry. If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the past two years, it’s that a pre-emptive strike with no evidence causes more problems than it solves.”
Full article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1535624,00.html
You missed one crucial element of an adequate response to terrorism: an intellectual war on extremist ideologies — a “war” that would include not only forbidding the teaching of extremist, violence-prone ideologies, but the promotion of thoroughly secular education that would apply critical thinking, philosophical/scientific/historical reasoning in the rebuttal of religious/ideological claims, and yet would teach tolerance of all beliefs and (benign) practice. Not that secularists don’t often commit terrorist acts, but many (maybe most?) terrorist acts would never occur if it weren’t for some extremist ideology.
In Robert Pape’s new book, “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” (Random
House), based on analysis of all 315 suicide terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2003, he concludes that your view is the wrong view.
The common factor in suicide bombings is concern or despair at the occupation of cherished lands by foreigners, and not ideology, extremist or otherwise, or religion. Pape is completely convincing.
I share your concern for the restoration of secular humanism, but you would do better to direct your efforts towards the regressive anti-humanism of the USA and the anti-humanist “post-modernism” of Europe, in that regard.
Islam, by the way, is thoroughly compatible with humanism. Islam has a fair claim to being one of the main sources of modern humanism.
The common factor in suicide bombings is concern or despair at the occupation of cherished lands by foreigners, and not ideology, extremist or otherwise, or religion
completely insane. dominic tells us suicide factions calling themselves “martyr’s brigades” and “Muslim brotherhood” and “Islamic Jihad” are not essentially religious in character. worse he imagines their political ambitions are worthy of critical consideration.
the US has occupied neither saudi arabia, lebanon, the UAE nor egypt. from these countries came the 9/11 hijackers. The US has had no influence over saudi internal affairs nor controlled its mineral resources (remember, ARAMCO nationalised US built platforms and implemented a famous embargo not so long ago). its history vis a vis egypt has been anti-colonial nb the suez crisis, this during the very birth of qutbism.
Islam, by the way, is thoroughly compatible with humanism. obviously correct, though that species of Islam is not what is under discussion, and pretending that it is merely clouds the issue. islamic fundamentalists could care less about your notions of colonialism dominic. they don’t share any of your humanist values which you would know if you bothered to read any of their own statements.
No US person has any standing from which to preach about terrorism.
except robert pape and helena cobban, of course and others who agree with comrade dominic’s analysis.
Re. the poor man murdered by London police–many people seem to miss the important detail that the police were in plainclothes, carrying guns, and chasing the poor guy. Even if they were yelling “stop police!” their appearance could well scare any innocent citizen into running away. Plainclothed officers might make sense during an investigation, but not to conduct armed chases.
For a real fright, got to:
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery07252005.html
and read “Silence of the Sheep in Israel, The March of the Orange Shirts”, by Uru Avnery.
Mike L.,
The Tamil Tigers were making extensive use of suicide bombings among other forms of terrorism for over a decade before the first Palestinian suicide bomber. They are not only not Muslims, they are in no way driven by religious ideology of any kind. In fact, from what I have been able to discern directly and indirectly from Tamil themselves they are largely secular.
Kurds have also used suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism as part of their national struggle, and once again, were not motivated by religious or any other “ideology”.
In addition to the fact that it in no way addresses the grievances that lead to terrorism, what you are suggesting is, among other things, a giant step along the very slippery slope of abridging religious freedom, which is a basic human rights.
and once again, were not motivated by religious or any other “ideology”.
Of course nationalism is itself an ideology, along with communism, islamism, capitalism etc.
Tamil guerrillas’ first suicide bombings were in 1987 — whereas Lebanese proto-hezbollahi blew up the US and French marine barracks in 1983 via suicide bomb. of course kamikazes predate both groups considerably. but the LTTE invented the use of the now ubiquitous ‘suicide vest.’
But what distinguishes the LTTE from Islamist groups is that religious fanaticism of the latter
(esp al qaeda and other deobandi/salafi movements) unlike the tamil movement knows no regional boundaries. Any political program with religious underpinnings (as theirs is rooted in a perverted form of Islam) will have longer reaching ambitions than mere nationalism. No tamil guerrillas are likely to attack targets beyond the subcontinent. they arent discussed much in the west because they arent perceived as a global threat.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21973.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2455845.stm
the ‘grievances that lead to terrorism’ include the liberation of East Timor according to Osama Bin Laden. The war in Afghanistan (a police action with international support) was cited alongside Iraq as motivating recent london attacks. it’s unreasonable to sympathise a la carte from among these demands, the most noble of which are totally irrelevant to the barbarism of suicide warfare on civilians.
Thanks Dominic for your personal angle, I am sure there is much to learn from it. As a part time Londoner maybe you are discovering that three decades of run of the mill IRA terrorism have not prepared London to deal with one or two Al Qaeda incidents. I read the second attack as a “we can do it again every week until you give in”. And except for the mistake of the aging of the explosives, I believe they can.
I didn’t advocate a shoot to kill, all I pointed out is that there are no easy answers, and that I resent outsiders lecturing victims. The Brazilians have climbed now into the high horse of lecturing the British when they themselves have a mini Afghanistan brewing in the lawless tri-border region between Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay (Ciudad del Este).
Christiane I have no problem excluding you if you like, but terrorism is my adversary.
David
It’s ridiculous to suggest that in MANY (not all, maybe not even most) instances of terrorism, some type of EXTREMIST IDEOLOGY (not just religious ideology) does not play a necessary (not sufficient) role.
I may never have done a study of it, but I don’t need to. I know that in nearly every news report about terrorist attacks I’ve heard since I began paying attention to the news, that some type of rigid, fanatical ideology was involved — whether Islamist, Christian fundamentalist (Oklahoma bombing, the bombing during the Olympic games in Atlanta, violence over abortion, for example), nationalistic, philosophical (Marxist, e.g.), etc.
Does anyone honestly believe that some type of fanatical, uncompromising belief system does not often play a major role in producing terrorists? It matters not that you can point to some instances, perhaps, where no ideology was involved; the remaining instances fully justify an attempt to prevent such ideologies from taking root and spreading.
“you would do better to direct your efforts towards the regressive anti-humanism of the USA and the anti-humanist “post-modernism” of Europe, in that regard.”
Let me be clearer: any teaching of any kind, any intellectual content, including “anti-humanism” and “post-modernism,” that results in unjustified violence against human beings (or any sentient creature for that matter), should not be allowed to be taught/promoted.
“Islam, by the way, is thoroughly compatible with humanism. Islam has a fair claim to being one of the main sources of modern humanism.”
I never even mentioned Islam in my previous post.
“what you are suggesting is, among other things, a giant step along the very slippery slope of abridging religious freedom, which is a basic human right”
It is debatable how slippery the slope is, and whether what I’m suggesting is a slope at all. My previous post reads: “…teach tolerance of all beliefs and (benign) practice.” I would only make one small correction to that to make it consistent with what I just said: I would add “benign” to “beliefs,” as well.
And as for the basic human right of religious freedom, it has its limits as do most other rights. My right to not be wrongfully blown to bits trumps your right to a religious belief that promotes my being blown to bits. How morally absurd it would be to watch passively as children are taught and then carry out injunctions to commit terrorist attacks, simply because you don’t want to violate their right of religious freedom.
So David, since terrorism is your adversary, and you don’t like other people (“outsiders” or “actors with no skin in the game”) offering suggestions about how to deal with it, please tell us exactly what program you advocate. Or would that be giving away top secret information?
Mike L– In response to your first comment, I would say you’re right, the “educational” part of the broad counter-terrorist strategy can’t be forgotten. However, I would not specify that this needs to be a “thoroughly secular” education. After all, sSecularizing absolutists– Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, to name a few– have been just as much of a threat to humanity as purportedly “religious” ones.
I think the key is to try to teach everyone, whatever the nature of their theological beliefs (if any) and their spiritual practice (if any) the value of tolerance, non-absolutism, and non-violence.
I used to say to my kids, “You’ll learn a lot more in life if you keep your ears and mind open than if you keep your mouth open and running.” I think the same is true for everyone.
I happen to be a convinced Quaker. My spouse happens to be a convinced agnostic. We certainly listen to each other and to different friends of many religious belief or none. I can learn from all of them.
I have friends who are Muslims, friends who are Jewish, friends who are deeply convinced Christians, friends who are Buddhists, friends who follow traditional African belief systems, friends who are agnostics or atheists… friends with all kinds of beliefs; and I feel blessed to have the friendship of such a variety of different kinds of people.
I can’t tell you that I gain wisdom from some of them but not from others based only on the existence (or otherwise) or the form of their religious belief and practice. Luckily, my Quaker practice actively encourages me to listen for “that of God” in every individual. (Yes, even in the non-believing husband…)
David is a good little messenger boy, isn’t he? See the way he slips in a little commercial for the new US imperialist military base in Paraguay, by calling it a “mini-Afghanistan”.
Peace activists take note.
US out of Paraguay, now!
See the way Dominic uses US involvement in Afghanistan as an example of imperialism, despite its total absence of natural resources and bare minimal US commercial presence.
Pavlovians take note.
the US has occupied neither saudi arabia, lebanon, the UAE nor egypt.
This is partly misleading and partly downright wrong. The US has strongly supported autocratic regimes across the Middle East, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. We had until recently tens of thousands of troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. The fact that we did so was one of OBL’s rallying cries.
Afghanistan is a resource of geostrategic importance.
The US has strongly supported autocratic regimes across the Middle East…one of OBL’s rallying cries
no preference, the us has been offered no alternative to the autocratic regimes in those nations and in each instance has had absolutely nothing to do with putting those governments into power. ‘support for’ saudi arabia has been limited to buying its oil (which oil would have found its way to the US anyway through intermediaries.) . the ‘occupation’ of saudi arabia was at the explicit behest of its government and in defense of its borders; no US checkpoints existed at any p;oint nor did US personnel even mingle with the saudi population– hardly an ‘occupation’ in the sense suggested by dominic. unless you favor embargoing SA I don’t understand what policy this criticism is meant to advance. al qaeda considers ALL mideast governments infidel. and bin laden certainly isnt calling for democracy himself, nor lamenting the absence of human rights. have you even bothered to read any of his proclamations?
Helena: I agree with your proposed amendment to my original comment. If you remove the words “thoroughly secular,” I stand by everything else, including the application of rigorous scholarship/critical thinking to religious/ideological claims. Loosen the bonds of dogmatism or prevent them from ever fettering young minds in the first place.
I can’t help but think that if the young man shot at turned out to be Pakistani, or Palestian, Algerian, Moroccan, etc…. there would have been attempts, the bend over backwards kind, to somehow PROVE that he was part of some dormant cell of terrorists.
John C, thanks for asking. I will try to ignore the sarcasm and respond candidly. I advocate empathy with the victims, unity, and cooperation. Just as Machiavelli thought that neutrality was not wise, neutrality in this case is immoral.
You know what empathy is John, not the token gestures like Arafat donating blood on September 11 (Arafat died of a blood disease, so fortunately we didn’t accept his gesture), but the sincere acts that reflect common values and fate.
And the most important thing when passengers face airport screenings, when hard working Mexicans are caught in the post 9/11 US immigration dragnet and repatriated, when a Brazilian is shot in the tube, when a Cuban taxi driver in Miami tells me how he lost his livelihood on 9/11, when Egyptian fishermen see tourists stampede out of their beautiful resort, when Israeli parents stop going out together to make sure one of them survives to raise the children, the most important thing is to have the presence of mind to say to ourselves: We know who to thank.
And why not, when we express that mantra enough times to the communities among us that hide, support, and glorify these perps, they might modify their behavior over time and join us.
Repeat after me, we know who to thank…
David
vadim, your whole response is a slippery evasion of the point that the US has indeed supported supported monarchies and dictators across the Middle East.
no preference, the us has been offered no alternative to the autocratic regimes in those nations. in each instance has had absolutely nothing to do with putting those governments into power.
Iran had an alternative in the democratically elected Mossadegh government. In 1954 the CIA organized a coup which replaced him with the Shah.
While it’s true that the British installed the current monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, the US has guaranteed their survival. Particularly that of the House of Saud.
‘support for’ saudi arabia has been limited to buying its oil
No, the US has guaranteed the survival of the House of Saud. (which oil would have found its way to the US anyway through intermediaries.)
It’s true that the British, not the US, installed the current monarchies in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. But the US has guaranteed the survival of those monarchies.
The US has done almost nothing over the decades to encourage democracy in those countries, or Egypt. We have, however, given hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and training to the security services of Jordan and Egypt, which are employed in stamping out dissent.
the ‘occupation’ of saudi arabia was at the explicit behest of its government and in defense of its borders;
The Saudis didn’t particularly want the US to stick around and expand our enormous bases following the defeat of Saddam in 1991. That was our idea.
Finally, you end with the false dichotomy that opposition to kings and dictators makes one a supporter of bin Laden. Bin Laden might want people to believe that, but I do not.
I don’t get it, David. Your plan for reducing terrorism is . . . more empathy for the victims?
Too bad your empathy is limited to certain ethnic groups, and you like making snide little hate-filled references to other ones, such as “we know who to thank.”
I think your approach has approximately a 0% chance of leading to increased peace and security. But you might be able to make some money, if you have the right connections.
John C,
My empathy is not limited to ethnic groups as there are various ethnicities within the victims. My reminder on “who to thank” is not ethnically focused, as the terrorists have a common religious denominator but no ethnical commonality. You may not know John that Pakistanis and Iranians are not ethnically Arabs. Similarly for the Bali bombers, Richard Reid, the African London perps, etc. You are peeing way outside the jar John. I can take sarcasm and arrogance, but save them for when you know what you are talking about.
I don’t get the remark about making money. Do you care to explain?
David
vadim, your whole response is a slippery evasion of the point that the US has indeed supported supported monarchies and dictators across the Middle East.
Not an evasion, a point blank denial validated completely by historical fact. It’s also irrelevant to my point (re: terrorism, the subject of this thread), which is that terrorism is not caused by colonialism. [Iran has produced few home grown terrorists, and its current autocratic government is entirely home-grown.] Saudi Arabia has never been colonised by any Western power. “the UK …installed the current monarchies in Saudi Arabia” is a lie. Ibn Saud wasn’t installed by any foreign power, nor were the contours of Saudi Arabia imposed by the UK, France or Halliburton. But ‘supporting dictators’ by buying their nations’ oil [those days when they choose to sell it] is not colonialism!!
Again: not Saudi Arabia nor Egypt nor Lebanon nor UAE [the birthplaces of the 9/11 hijackers] have ever been colonised by the United States.
“We have, however, given hundreds of millions of dollars in aid”
US aid to both Egypt and Jordan was guaranteed as part of each countries US-brokered peace treaty with Israel. Perhaps you think those peace treaties were a bad idea. I disagree. The US State department has issued elaborate criticism of the human rights record of all Mideast countries (including Israel) for over 20 years. But the US cannot be held responsible for internal policies it does not implement (for the very reason that these nations are autonomous and not colonies!)
Finally, you end with the false dichotomy that opposition to kings and dictators makes one a supporter of bin Laden.
Where!? I made no such ridiculous comment!
We survived Nazism and Communism…doubtlessly we will survive Jihadism as well. There was no Thousand Year Reich…no Dictatorship of the Proletariat…and neither will we be ruled by a Global Shariate. Modernism, female rights and freedom of artistic expression may be threatening to some who would transport us to some mythical 7th century caliphate but it is a nihilistic, rearguard movement that celebrates death and offers nothing positive or humanistic…altho, sadly, it may claim innocent lives in Bali, Beslan, Turkey, Amsterdam, Madrid, London, etc.
vadim, US support for the Saudi monarchy, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the Hashemites in Jordan, and the Gulf states goes far beyond simply buying their oil. CIA assistance to Jordan has been a major prop for that regime for decades. A succession of American presidents, including Ronald Reagan, guaranteed the survival of the House of Saud.
The largest support the US has provided those regimes is the fact that although the US is supposedly in favor of democracy, and not one of those regimes is regarded as legitimate by its people, the US has never supported privately or publicly any movement towards truly representative governments in those states. In what other part of the world does the US support monarchies? Nowhere. Yet the US does not just tolerate, but actively and warmly befriends, the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia and “President for Life” Mubarak.
We don’t support Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States “by buying their oil”. We support them because we buy their oil. We support them because those regimes have managed the flow of oil in a manner that fits our needs, with Saudi Arabia acting as swing producer to keep prices down when necessary.
If you didn’t mean to imply that opposition to autocracies meant support for bin Laden, why did you drag him into the discussion?
If you didn’t mean to imply that opposition to autocracies meant support for bin Laden, why did you drag him into the discussion?
Well before it concerned Mubarak, the discussion concerned terrorism. Bin Laden is a terrorist. Before this idiotic irrelevant sidebar addressing US’ supposedly antidemocratic policies, we were discussing Bin Laden’s motives. These motives are germane to the conversation (title:‘terrorism and responses to it’), whereas nebulous US ‘support for dictatorships’ is not.
Of course, in dragging “support for dictatorships” into the discussion, you seem to be identifying your own political program with his (for what reason god only knows, as he’s a complete psychopath.) Luckily I know (even if you don’t) that your political program is quite clearly different from his, as binladen is not calling for democracy or human rights. Bin laden is not a democrat. His beef with the Saudi government certainly isnt that they’re unelected autocrats. His motives are not yours, and explaining his motives in terms you find sympathetic does you no credit.
not one of those regimes is regarded as legitimate by its people
A rather neoconservative [if not colonial] thing to say, if you don’t mind me saying so. Care to share your evidence with us? What makes you think the ruler of Jordan is not popular among his subjects? What policy would this questionable judgment recommend even were it to be accurate?? Expulsion of diplomats? Embargo?
Re: Saudi Arabia: as noted the US has had nothing whatsoever to do with installing the Saudi royal family or with ‘keeping them in power’ much less any of its policies.
We support them because those regimes have managed the flow of oil in a manner that fits our needs
Errr — you seem to be forgetting the 1973 OPEC embargo, instigated chiefly by Saudi Arabia and Jordan; I suppose you imagine that was also on the say-so of the US government. I suppose you think the US has some secret hand in OPEC’s current quota system (and decades-old Saudi hawkishness therein). I suppose you imagne the US to have instigated the nationalisation of ARAMCO. Overall you seem totally ignorant of US-Saudi relations (no surprise since you also seem to think the UK installed the al-saud as rulers!)
In what other part of the world does the US support monarchies? Nowhere.
I assume here you mean non-constitutional monarchies, otherwise this comment is complete nonsense [Jordan fyi is in the same category here as Morocco, Monaco and Liechtenstein.] Unfortunately, the only place in the world where absolute and near-absolute monarchies predominate is the middle east, so there are few ways to test your theory.
As for Brunei, Swaziland, Nepal and Vatican City, they each are on good terms with the US. And as far as I know none of these countries has produced any suicide bombers.
David –
I used the word “ethnic” too loosely, but we both understood what I meant. As for the money, there are many well-funded right-wing media groups and think tanks in the U.S. that are always ready to pay good money for useful propaganda. This has made the careers of a number of talking heads and media personalities. The best part is, you don’t need any real qualifications to get in on this – just a sort of brash self-confidence and the ability to stay relentlessly on message. Attention-grabbing physical features are a plus, but not required.
By the way, I am not in the least offended by your sometimes colorful language. In fact, I’m glad you are here. It might get boring just talking to people who agree with me.
Cheers.
vadim, it is completely nihilistic to say that the sources of terrorism don’t matter, or that it’s “idiotic” to discuss how our own behavior might have contributed to this struggle.
Bin Laden broke with the House of Saud when Saudia Arabia allowed the US military to remain in the country after the end of the first Gulf War, breaking the pledge they had made to the Saudi people. I have very little sympathy with bin Laden as a person, but there is no question that the complaints he makes about the US resonate very widely in the region. We must be concerned with that.
If the ruler of Jordan were really confident of his popularity among his subjects, he would at long last permit some genuine democracy. If the US was serious about spreading democracy in the Middle East it would say publicly that while the Hashemites have been our allies for 50 years, they have made only tiny steps towards democratization in Jordan, and we want that to change. We should say the same to Mubarak. But we don’t really care about instituting democracy in those countries, so we support a monarchy where the King has the last say, and a “president for life” in Egypt.
BTW, Jordan is a “constitutional monarchy” where the King has the final say on everything. Not quite like Great Britain, is it? Your comparison of Saudi Arabia and Jordan to Monaco and Lichtenstein is a joke.
You are correct in saying that the US did not install the Saudi monarchy, which came to power rather with British support. We did, however, guarantee their survival. Between British advisors, ARAMCO, and the CIA, the West basically ran Saudi foreign policy for 50 years.
The 1973 Arab oil embargo notwithstanding, the House of Saud has for decades vitally supported US interests by acting to keep oil prices stable and relatively low.
Everything posted here is a matter of historical fact. It does not help anyone to pretend otherwise. Your presentation is extraordinarily selective. Who are you protecting?