Yet the present Western apology to all this is often to deal piecemeal with these perceived Muslim grievances: India, after all, is in Kashmir; Russia is in Chechnya; America is in Iraq, Canada is in Afghanistan; Spain was in Iraq (or rather, still is in Al Andalus); or Israel was in Gaza and Lebanon. Therefore we are to believe that “freedom fighters” commit terror for political purposes of “liberation.” At the most extreme, some think there is absolutely no pattern to global terrorism, and the mere suggestion that there is constitutes “Islamaphobia.” ~Victor Davis Hanson
This is a clever rhetorical move by Hanson, since it would make it seem as if anyone who would cite occupation as a cause of terrorism also can have no grasp of the Islamic nature of the terrorists fighting occupation. That would be a good point, if he weren’t as horribly wrong as he usually he is. There may be wine-and-cheese liberals who will never say a bad word about Islam and who also tut-tut about the Occupied Territories (the neocons really don’t like it when you call them that, because it reminds everyone that this is exactly what they have been), but they are hardly the only ones making the argument the occupation breeds terrorism. There are those of us perfectly willing to recognise the violent inheritance of Islam, its ready justifications for violence and the use of outrageous tactics shared by all Islamic terrorist groups who at the same time also are capable of seeing that occupations do contribute to the rise and success of these groups by giving them grist for their mill and creating real grievances that they can exploit. Only an idiot or a child would presume to speak on this subject and be unaware of the gruesome crimes that have been committed against civilian populations in Kashmir or Chechnya in the name of counterinsurgency and antiterrorism. That does not mean that we, like some of Hanson’s political allies, start rooting for the Chechens and hoping for Russian humiliation in some insane burst of Russophobic prejudice mixed with old Cold War obsessions, but that we do acknowledge that the Russian war there, while it is certainly their internal business, is counterproductive in bringing an end to Chechen terrorism. The abuses in Kashmir were mostly many years in the past, but the memory of these abuses and the continued dissatisfaction with Indian rule (regardless of the fact that most Kashmiris would not prefer Pakistani or jihadi rule) stoke support for Islamic and Kashmiri separatist terrorists.
Consider that there was nary an incident of Islamic, anti-American terrorism before Americans intervened in a Near Eastern conflict. The supporters of the current Israeli campaign are quick to remind everyone of the terrible 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. Hizbullah killed 241 (corrected) Marines with that bombing. Everyone knows that, and everyone deplores the evil of it. Relatively few talk about the colossal stupidity of putting the Marines there in the first place. What we don’t get into is why those Marines were there in the first place (as a ’stabilisation’ force following the previous and definitely aggressive Israeli invasion of Lebanon), or that our Navy earlier shelled Lebanon in support of the Israeli campaign–these things may have created some dissatisfaction with our presence. Until our soldiers were stationed in large numbers over there, America was not attacked by Islamic terrorists of any kind. Yet what has Washington done in the last 23 years? It has become more and more entangled in the Near East, sending more and more soldiers to be stationed in Muslim countries, gradually provoking horrific terrorist responses. The response to that? Become even more embroiled in the Near East and establish a full-on occupation of at least one Muslim country. But, no, occupation can have nothing to do with any of it.
Yes, Islam is part of the problem, and a significant part, but Islam and the United States coexisted in the world for 194 years without much incident (with the notable exception of the Tripolitanian War) and only became locked in mortal conflict when American armies started deploying to the center of the Islamic world. You don’t have to be a genius to make the connection, but apparently it helps to not be a neocon.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 4th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Roach
What do you make of the fact that our invited occupations, of Saudi Arabia for instance, seem to have caused so much disatisfaction? One would think it would be minor in comparison to earlier events (such as when Osama was our buddy in the 1980s) but apparently not.
And don’t forget the 1958 Marine intervention in Lebanon. That doesn’t seem to have spawned much anger, but perhaps that’s because Lebanon is so fractured. The Shiites even showered the Israelis with flowers in 1982 when they chased out the hated PLO . . . but that didn’t last long. Talk about an historical analogy someone in the Bush administration should have taken note of.
August 5th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Daniel Larison
The chief thing about our invitation into Saudi Arabia was that it was made by the monarchy; I expect that most of the inhabitants of Saudi Arabia did not want us there, or at least did not want us there for a prolonged period of time. A sizeable group of Saudis believed our presence there to be sacrilegious, a profaning of their sacred space. The identity of Saudi Arabia as the country with the two holiest cities of Islam certainly added an edge to what would have normally been a natural local resentment against the presence of foreign troops; further, any Muslim people that takes pride in its country will find it offensive to be told that they need the help of a foreign, non-Muslim force to defend their own land. If the shoe were on the other foot, we would likely not have a very good attitude towards such a foreign army (whether there would be anyone so extreme in his hatred of the foreign presence that he would attack their country is another question). If they see the foreign force as intruding on sacred space, in terms of proximity to the holy cities, as some of them evidently did (or claimed that they did) this will aggravate things significantly.
I don’t forget the intervention in Lebanon under Ike. Unlike 1982-83, our intervention in 1958 came in response to a Lebanese request for help during the tumultuous period after the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq had been overthrown. As an explicitly temporary force coming to the assistance of the Lebanese, and being seen as such, the presence of U.S. forces there did not prompt violent reaction or resentment. Here is part of Ike’s statement on sending the troops:
“Yesterday morning, I received from President Chamoun of Lebanon an urgent plea that some United States forces be stationed Lebanon to help maintain security and to evidencence the concern of the United States for the integrity and independence of Lebanon. President Chamoun’s appeal was made with the concurrence of all the members of the Lebanese Cabinet. President Chamoun made clear that he considered an immediate United States response imperative if Lebanon’s independence, already menaced from without, were to be preserved in the face of the grave developments which occurred yesterday in Baghdad whereby the lawful government was violently overthrown and many of its members martyred. In response to this appeal from the government of Lebanon, the United States has dispatched a contingent of United States forces to Lebanon to protect American lives and by their presence there to encourage the Lebanese government in defense of Lebanese sovereignty and integrity. These forces have not been sent as any act of war. They will demonstrate the concern of the United States for the independence and integrity of Lebanon, which we deem vital to the national interest and world peace.”
http://www.historycentral.com/Documents/Lebanon.html
In 1982-83, the internal situation in Lebanon was much more tense and the perception was that our forces were biased in favour of Israel and were there to support their goals, and this was not an entirely unreasonable view given our recent support of the Israeli invasion. Of course, the attack on the Marine barracks was abhorrent, but putting our soldiers in that position was an act of amazing irresponsibility, and one that will tar my view of Reagan forever.
Furthermore, coming in after an invasion that we had supported, and one that had sparked civil war in the country, was very different from coming in as a defensive force designed to secure Lebanese independence; the entire dynamic was different, and the nature of the response of the Shi’ite population and Hizbullah was accordingly very different.
September 4th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Old Dad
Daniel,
The elephant in the livingroom is, of course, Israel, the ultimate occupier from the jihadi perspective. It’s certainly silly to think that American intervention has not exacerbated the jihadi response. On the other hand, it’s equally naive to think that our withdrawal will magically soothe the savage jihadi breast. (I know that’s not your position.)
It’s clear that the various jihadi elements are far from monolithic, but the most dangerous appear to share a hatred of Israel, a strategically critical US ally in my view. Moreover, Iran’s nuclear ambitions potentially make any jihadi faction a very dangerous enemy.
What is your solution?
P.S. Love your blog–just found it today via Steve Sailer