Saturday, May 17, 2008
Oct 15, 2001 | Read the letter.
Like many who blame U.S. foreign policy for the events of Sept. 11, David Alford's spirited if misguided criticism of Gary Kamiya's "War Without End" contains many false assumptions that do his own cause disservice. This is a pity, as Alford makes some valid points about the great chasm that separates how America behaves and how it should behave on the world stage. He should also be commended for lamenting how contrary views on U.S. action are, at least for now, being ignored or silenced. Nevertheless, the hip cynicism, weak arguments and lack of understanding of world politics on display in Alford's article make it all too easy to dismiss his call for the U.S. to review its foreign policy. The world has changed after Sept. 11, and so must the debate.
It is clear that the events of Sept. 11 have proven the failure of U.S. foreign policy in the region. It is also clear, as Kamiya suggests, that the threat of more attacks will create an opportunity for the U.S. to change how the U.S. interacts with other nations. What makes it a significant opportunity is the seriousness of the threat and the increased level of public scrutiny now directed at U.S. foreign policy. Still, whatever changes that will be made won't be guided by moral principle, but by the simply necessity to implement policies that will reduce the likelihood of another catastrophe such as we saw on Sept. 11. Forcing the U.S. to act more responsibly will ultimately be up to Americans.
Still, U.S. foreign policy didn't get us into this mess. In fact, the view that the U.S. is responsible for the sorrow and grief in the Middle East is, to use Alford's own words, "ethnocentric and self-indulgent in the extreme." Those who hold this view are suggesting, in effect, that the people in the region can only see themselves in relationship to U.S. foreign policy and therefore cannot be held responsible for how they feel or how they act. This would come as a surprise to the founders who form the basis of the Islamic movement, spanning from the radical 18th-century cleric Ibn Abdul Wahhab to the controversial 20th-century scholar Sayyid Qtub. Other forces, including the state-controlled press in Saudi Arabia who actively encourage anti-U.S. sentiment to deflect attention from their brutal and incompetent regimes and the radical clerics who use anti-U.S. propaganda to recruit martyrs to further their cause, may feel they haven't been given enough credit.
Bin Laden also may feel left out. Bin Laden's stated objective, shared by the Taliban, is to create a fundamentalist Islamic state, based on rigid interpretations of Islamic law, stretching across Central Asia to the Gulf States. Three forces stand in his way: the U.S., the oligarchies that control the Gulf States and, to a lesser extent, Israel. To succeed, he must chase the U.S. out of the region. As he learned from the Gulf War, no one can defeat U.S. armed forces in the field, so he must resort to terrorism. By staging a horrific terrorist attack, he knows the U.S. will retaliate in the battle field of his choice -- Afghanistan. This will serve two purposes: First, he hopes to inflict casualties to weaken support for the war in the U.S.. Second, he hopes that retaliation will so enrage Muslims the world over that they will rise up -- starting in Pakistan.
If he is successful in drawing the U.S. into defending Musharraf in a civil war in Pakistan, he hopes America will tire of the war and, bit by bit, withdraw from the region. And once he's rid of the U.S., he can turn on Israel, and finally, overthrow the Gulf State oligarchies, leaving him in control of the global oil supply, and enough nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to defend it. Seen in this light, the U.S. is a pawn in his game for domination of the region. His mission isn't strictly anti-U.S., it's pro-Islam. Bin Laden is simply using hatred of the U.S. to unite the millions of disaffected Muslims around the world to rise up to form an Islamic state. Surely, U.S. foreign policy in the region has made this effort easier, but a "kinder, gentler America" in the Middle East won't deter him from his ultimate objectives.
In short, to ignore the intellectual and reasoning capacities of Muslims while at the same time accusing the U.S. of being arrogant and ethnocentric is a neat trick. Indeed, to argue that bad U.S. foreign policy in the region created this mess is as simplistic and misleading as holding bad European economic policy after WWI accountable for Hitler and the Holocaust. Remember, our foreign policy has been every bit as bad, if not worse, in Central and South America (see: Pinochet, Noriega), yet we enjoy cordial, if not warm, relations with the people and governments in these regions.
As Alford's essay contains many false assumptions shared by those who hold U.S. foreign policy to blame for the events of Sept. 11, it is useful to address them point-by-point.
Alford writes, "But these lofty ideals are almost always used as camouflage for oil interests and other corporate access to resources and labor markets, strategic national interests, support for regimes that further these interests and the destabilization of regimes that oppose them." Quite by accident, Alford has stumbled upon a fairly cogent summary that, with a few slight adjustments, could accurately describe how all nations throughout history have conducted their foreign policy. Wars, all wars, are fought to expand or defend strategic interests. Ideas, whether or not they are notions of freedom and liberty, Islam or jihad, may form the basis of any given civilization, but in warfare, they are used as war rhetoric to mobilize populations for war.
In addition, it should be noted that the U.S. didn't invent the rules of the international power game, which are particularly harsh in the Middle East (for example, Syria's 1982 leveling of the town of Hama, an alleged fundamentalist Islamic rebel stronghold, where, according to Amnesty International, between 10,000 to 25,000 civilians were slaughtered). Clearly, these rules are contrary to the ideas on which America was established, but these ideas aren't universally embraced or adhered to throughout the world. And while I agree America should take a leadership role in changing how nations resolve conflicts, we cannot do it alone.
Alford is right to point out that America has behaved poorly overseas. But the mere fact that the U.S. at least pays lip service to "lofty ideals" should be acknowledged. After all, what other country even tries to align its foreign policy with ideals or morality? And sometimes, the U.S. is successful in marrying a good cause with its strategic interests. Whatever nefarious motives her critics may assign to America, it should be noted that the U.S. played a major role in defeating some of the most murderous regimes the world has ever known (e.g., Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union). Today, many may be enraged by how the U.S. behaves, but on balance, most would agree that living in a world dominated by an "arrogant imperialist bully" is better than living with Hitler. I would argue the same is true of living with bin Laden.
Alford writes, "So let's drop the cloak that justifies waging war against Afghanistan as somehow a justifiable cleansing that prepares the way for a more humane world." No, let's keep that cloak on. Before I explain why, it is important to clarify some points. First, we are not waging war against Afghanistan, but against the al-Qaida network and those that support it. Second, America is waging war to protect its national interests (i.e., reducing the likelihood of another Sept. 11), not to seek vengeance on what Alford calls "nervy attackers."
The U.S. and its allies will attempt to destroy bin Laden and al-Qaida because they are a threat to global stability, not, as Alford suggests, to sate the American public's blood lust. Besides, whatever Alford's suspicions regarding America's motivations in the region, bringing a measure of stability to Afghanistan, even via a "puppet regime," can only be an improvement over the Taliban. As for the "cloak that justifies waging war," let's keep it wrapped tightly around our shoulders. For if the U.S. fails to convince moderate Muslims that we are indeed "preparing the way for a more humane world," the U.S. risks losing what little support it has in the Arab world. And without that support, chaos will certainly follow.
Alford may argue that a war on terrorism is actually a war to preserve the status quo (as in a world dominated by the U.S.), and because such a war fails to account for alternate cultures and forms of government, it is not justifiable. To be fair, why shouldn't the region be controlled by Muslims free to choose their own form of government instead of living under the heel of brutal, U.S.-supported dictators? Why should the U.S. profit from Gulf oil reserves while most Muslims live in poverty? These are vital questions that should have been addressed years ago and must be addressed in the future.
But before these issues can be addressed, America must act to eliminate the immediate threat. For if we do nothing, no amount of diplomacy or aid will save the region from violent conflict. Consider that, even if the U.S. were willing to surrender access to Gulf oil and withdrew from the region, there is the matter of Israel, which would have no place in bin Laden's harsh vision of the Middle East, to say nothing of all the moderate Muslims who would suffer under a fundamentalist Islamic rule, as they have under the Taliban. Once you remove the U.S. from the Middle East equation, you are left with a genuine threat of violent conflict, as the twin forces of Islam, with Israel in the middle, battle for the future of the region. The U.S. must remain engaged, fight the radical elements of Islamic fundamentalism and provide stability, if only for a chance to encourage peaceful settlement of the larger issues.
Alford writes, "The only justification for such a policy [i.e., replacing the Taliban to install a Western-style government in Afghanistan] is retribution. It is certainly not justice." I am not sure exactly how encouraging representational government that will surely include elements of the Taliban and organizing massive relief aid in Afghanistan can be perceived as retribution, but I agree with Alford that it is not justice. Rather, it is an effort to both reduce the likelihood of another Sept. 11 and to stabilize a region torn by 20 years of war. It may not be successful, but when one considers the alternatives, it is worth a determined effort.
Alford writes, "The Taliban regime in Afghanistan, however unenlightened that regime may seem by Western liberal standards ..." Alford should be aware that Muslims and Afghans share the view of Westerners that the Taliban regime is unenlightened. In fact, save for the Taliban and its few sympathizers, I would challenge Alford to find anyone who would argue that their regime is anything but brutal and repressive. The U.S. and "Western liberal standards" may well be guilty of cultural arrogance and imperialism, but that wrong doesn't vindicate the Taliban.
In a similar vein, Alford writes, "The hegemonic mentality sees the Chinese as, in Gary Kamiya's word, 'ominous,' and the Arabic/Muslim as pre-modern or worse. How dare anybody not share the worldview of the U.S. and the West. Certainly how dare anybody lift a hand actively to resist the U.S. vision of the world." First, I would argue that Kamiya is right: China, or at least its rulers, are "ominous." I refer to China's threats on the emerging separatist movement in Taiwan, treatment of Buddhists in Tibet, the jailing and summary execution of religious and political figures that "dare to resist" China's "vision" of the world. Does respect for Chinese culture and sovereignty mean these acts should be forgiven or ignored? And if so, can we forgive and ignore the crimes of U.S. foreign policy?
Second, Alford suggest that a tenet of our hegemonic mentality holds that Arabic/Muslims are pre-modern. I'm not sure who he's been talking to, but anyone who believes this can safely be ignored. By contrast, it is safe to say that the Taliban are pre-modern. In fact, you don't have to have a hegemonic mentality to believe that the Taliban are pre-modern -- they will volunteer that point themselves.
Finally, I would describe piloting passenger jets into the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania as more than actively "lifting a hand" to resist the U.S. vision of the world. In an effort to explain bin Laden's motivation, Alford uses the following analogy: "A husband beats his wife, denies her dignity. She rebels and hurts him. He kills her. Can we say that justice was done, that somehow she deserved it? Of course not." If I follow him correctly, Alford is saying that the U.S. (the husband) "beats" Islam (his wife) and "denies her dignity," so Islam (bin Laden) "rebels and hurts him" (the events of Sept. 11), leading the husband to "kill her" (the U.S. bombs al-Qaida/Taliban targets in Afghanistan).
Analogies can be useful to clarify complex issues, but in this case, the analogy is misleading. Even if one accepts that U.S. policy in the Middle East is directly responsible for death and sorrow in the Middle East and Central Asia, comparing our involvement in the Middle East to spousal abuse requires that we ignore the complexity of the region. To make a fair or useful analogy, Alford would have to find room in his domestic drama for Palestinian terrorist groups, the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and the sincere efforts made by every administration since Nixon to work out a peace agreement in the Middle East.
In the end, the "U.S. foreign policy is to blame" argument absolves the perpetrators of their moral responsibility. To quote Salman Rushdie in the Oct. 6 issue of the Guardian, "Let's be clear about why this bien-pensant anti-American onslaught is such appalling rubbish. Terrorism is the murder of the innocent; this time, it was mass murder. To excuse such an atrocity by blaming U.S. government policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their actions."
What is most remarkable about Alford's critique, and many who share his views, is how angry he is at the U.S. Upon reflection, I would suggest that his moral outrage is not so much a display of anti-U.S. sentiment, but genuine patriotism. By heaping contempt on the U.S., Alford has shown how dearly he holds the ideals and values on which the country was founded. Furthermore, Alford quite rightly believes these principles have been betrayed by our actions overseas. And like a doting father who learns his son is not the loving child he once knew, but a criminal and a bully, it breaks his heart. I admire Alford's passion, and encourage him to remain engaged and to continue sharing his views. However, contrary views such as his can only be valuable if they are fair and make sense.
Finally, I hope Alford, and all those who lay the blame for the events of Sept. 11 on a pattern of bad U.S. foreign policy decisions, will do their homework and realize that we live in a complex and dangerous world. And the rest of us, who may share his criticism of U.S. foreign policy but are not willing to accept that America is to blame for such an outrageous attack, should remember that what makes America great is not her military or economic power, but the revolutionary ideas that are so marvelously laid out in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. These ideas form America's greatest contribution to the world, and as Alford suggests, should find more expression in our foreign policy.
-- Alexander Wardwell
Get Salon in your mailbox!