Centerfield

Great post Marc!

Mark, being angry is not a justification for violence. There is nothing in the quote you provide to indicate the author believes it is. Yet, somehow you conclude that saying something "feeds anger" equates to saying the reaction is justified.

The logic is flawed.

You say you disagree with the policy of reacting to terrorism, yet the Iraqi invasion is justified because 9/11 "changed everything".

Who doesn't get it?

I echo, great post Marc!

I think there is a certain philosophical trap that many (though not all) on the Left fall into.
It's taking tolerance for other cultures (an admirable trait) to such an extreme that it becomes taboo to condem them even when they are engaged in reprehensible practices and transgressions against yourself.

I think there is also a psychological element in fear avoidance at play here too. It provides greater security to blame yourself (or an inanimate object) for a particular threat then to blame an outside force. Ostensibly, if you are to blame for a threat then you have it entirely within your own power to remove the threat with entirely predictable success because you can always control your own actions. There is no assurance about controling the actions of an outside force.... thus it is a far more frightening prospect to believe the reason for the threat is external.

For instance, if one can blame guns as the root cause for violence in our society then all one has to do to be insulated against such violence is to outlaw guns.... which is (ostensibly) within our power to do. If, on the other hand, you accept that certain indiviuals are prone to violence regardless of ready access to firearms.... that is a much more frightening proposition, because you don't have any assured control over the actions of such an individual.... you might get hurt REGARDLESS of any actions you take.

Likewise with the terrorists. If one believes that our Middle East policies are entirely to blame for terrorism then all we need to do to be completely safe from terrorism is change our policies.... something which is entirely within our own power to do with no chance of failure.
If however, you accept the fact that terrorists might be willing to target us no matter how reasonable our policies were.... that's a much more frightening proposition. Under those assumptions, you have to confront the terrorist
and there is no assurance that you'll be 100% successfull in doing so.....in fact, there is a likelihood that you will suffer some harm in the effort no matter how well you perform.

In other words, it's far easier to believe that the world is an entirely secure, predictible and reasonable place where your fate is entirely within your own control.... then to believe that the world is an unsafe, unpredictable, and partialy unreasonable place...... where your fate, at least in part, is beyond your ability to control.

I thought your post was pretty darn clear, Marc, and I concur. Short's statement does indeed imply that we are responsible for terrorism because we anger the terrorists by following self-interest and not accomodating them. But as Tony Blair said about her when she discussed confidential British intelligence matters in public, on the air, "I really do regard what Clare Short has said this morning as totally irresponsible, and entirely consistent [with Short's character]."

Short also resigned in protest as Labour Party spokesperson in 1991 when the party backed the first Gulf War. She's a bit of a flake and always has been, and that's giving her the best of the benefit of the doubt.

Beautiful post, Marc, and agree with your comments, Cengel. It's easier to think we can control everything- which we can't. I think our policies have been a contributing factor, but that does not excuse terrorism- which I have heard, and makes me wince every time. Some of it is under our control- not only by changing policies over in the middle east, but some here at home (like closing the borders, and limiting immigration from those areas). And also, yes, directly attacking the terrorists, as they have directly attacked us.

Familiar territory for us. Few here seem willing to defend grotesque overstatement by the reflexively anti-war elements of the left who place all the blame upon us. But all this amounts to is that we can add another name to the list of idiotarians, right?

I sure don't old myself blameless when it comes to indulging the temptation to slam an idiot, but this game can be tiring and not especially satisfactory as time goes by. OPerhpas we'd be better served by avoiding the temptation to anoint one idiot as a proxy for "the left." Or the right.

It's taking tolerance for other cultures (an admirable trait) to such an extreme that it becomes taboo to condem them even when they are engaged in reprehensible practices and transgressions against yourself.
This is a good point in that it focuses on what I see as a common point of overreach in leftist thought. Only a flawed model of tolerance holds that tolerance is open-ended and virtually without limits. Consider tolerance in its industrial application. In this sense it's about the appropriate balance. Loose enough to foster free movement and prevent overheating, tight enough so that things don't wobble, function poorly, and break down.

People, people, people.

The sad truth is that both sides have blinders, and pretty big ones at that, the problem is that if your blinders are well adjusted you can only see the other sides. The idea that all the actions of the US and their allies are, no matter how provocative, short sighted, or mendacious are completely and wholly trumped by the brutal violence of the tactic of terrorism is every bit as foolish as those who cannot ever see the infinite good that the US tries every day to help people in under developed nations, often to our own detriment.

The problem is that both views have an element of truth on some level and to assert that one side or another has some kind of monopoly on counter productive views is at best obtuse. Personally if I hear people spout off simplistic rhetoric that only serves to widen the gap between factions here in the US (regardless of which side is doing it) I just turn off. There is no reason to listen to any screed which contains the phrase, "it so typical of the [insert party or political leaning] …."

The fact is until we come to an understanding that both sides have legitimate points to make we are never going to rise above petty factional point scoring. Frankly I think one could make a compelling argument that 9/11 didn’t change dick, all it changed is how the various political factions seek to obtain and hold power.

I am of the opinion that all 9/11 did was give those in power an excuse to invade an oil producing state, and before you all want to pin the tin foil hat on my head let me explain that in August of 2001 I was at a conference with a very close friend who has worked for the last 20 years on energy policy. At that conference he stated, in no uncertain terms, that in the next three years the US will invade a Middle Eastern country, either Iraq or Saudi Arabia, and the excuse will be terrorism, most likely in the wake of some kind of terrorists attack (though not necessarily on US soil). At the time I told him to his face that he was completely full of shit. He had been saying this for some time whenever he spoke at energy conferences and most people told him the same thing; even left-leaning environmentalists were appalled at the notion. So you will all excuse me if my cynicism has been in over drive for the last three years. Having said that it is also true that we are embroiled in a culture clash the likes of which we haven't seen since the crusades. The problem is that both sides tend to take the view that if one thing is true, the other can’t be and this is non-sense.

The fact is that on some level those who "blame" the US are right, and at the exact same time, but on another level, those who say that the US is one of the most generous and helpful nations on the face of the earth are right as well. The problem lies exclusively in those who don’t understand that both things can be true at the same time and this is the crux of this moronic binary tribalism that has surfaced over the last few decides of which those in the blogosphear (and myself personally) cannot seem to come to terms with.

We are addicted to the tribal infighting, it's our crack and it won’t go away as long as we are more enamored with tearing down our political opponents rather then face the common enemy. And please, the fist one who says, "well yeah but the other side does it so much more" is not worthy of any serious consideration because they refuse to acknowledge that their world view is built on the same shifting sand as their political rivals.

Rick DeMent is dead on correct. That may be the best analysis of this issue I've ever read.

You Centerfielders should stick that comment on your front page as a blog post. It's excellent.

Rick, I largely agree with the general substance of your main point, although it's not my sense that we fail be aware of it. For example, it's not my sense that the posters here think that all the actions of the US and their allies are, no matter how provocative, short sighted, or mendacious are completely and wholly trumped by the brutal violence of the tactic of terrorism. So I'm going to assume you're speaking generally, and not accusing us in particular. My sense is that Short deserves criticism, but that we should refrain from declaring her a proxy for all liberal thought.

But I'm more interested in clarifying whatever point you were trying to make in your anecdote about your energy policy friend. Are you implying that he was speaking based on genuine high-level insider info, so that now you're willing to assume that it was all a done deal? After all, lots of people predicted we'd invade Iraq, and their stories varied. Are we to anoint them all prophets because they got this outcome right? And them to assume that because he got the outcome right, he got the causal chain right? How much more is this than after, therefore because of?

Around here, our policy is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In the absense of this, we tend to look at "this is about oil" as at best plausible but entirely unconfirmed.

The fact is that on some level those who "blame" the US are right, and at the exact same time, but on another level, those who say that the US is one of the most generous and helpful nations on the face of the earth are right as well. The problem lies exclusively in those who don’t understand that both things can be true at the same time and this is the crux of this moronic binary tribalism that has surfaced over the last few decides of which those in the blogosphear (and myself personally) cannot seem to come to terms with.

Around here, I think we're generally not satisified with such vague eqivalency for very long, although I agree with the point that I believe you are trying to make. We'd rather go on to details, and look for chapter and verse on exactly how and in what ways each of these ideas is and isn't true. So I think a large part of the problem lies in a unwillingness to go past the vague stasis you suggest on to the hard facts. If you describe this point as the place where the rubber meets the road, I disagree. In other words, this acknowledgement is at best the end of the beginning. But it's sure a place you have to go through.

Rick and Tom seem to be reading my post tendentiously and making certain assumptions about my views that are not true.

Tom,

First of all, if you have read any of my previous posts and comments, you would know that I did not and do not support the Iraq War. So if you are assuming that I think 9/11 justified the invasion you are wrong. My point is, rather, that neither do western policies justify flying planes into buildings and blowing up subways.

I don't know how you can read Short's comments and not conclude that it is, to some extent, an apologia for the terrorist attacks. I never said that she is condoning the attacks, but but by attributing it to "anger" she is in, IMO, saying that it is understandable, which is one step short of justifying it.
Rick,

I never said that all of our actions are right and justified and I never said that our mideast policy did not contribute to the mindset that created terrorism. What I did say is that our policies do not justify mass murder and that, IMO, Short's comments imply that they do. I think that's outrageous.

Do you include "moronic binary tribablism" to include condemnations of political violence? Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that the only rational position to take is that each side is equally to blame; therefore, we can't condemn terrorism. I simply disagree with that.

And, Cengel, I entirely agree with you. It's frightening to think that there are people out there that hate you and that want to kill you. It's much more comforting to think that you can control their behavior through your own actions. IMO, both left and right fall prey to this--the right thinks that we can make the world safe by deposing dictators and bringing democracy; the left thinks we can defuse terrorism by just "stopping" whatever it is they don't like.

What bothers me the most about a lot of leftist thinking is that, while the left condemns the right for simplistic thinking, leftist thinking is often just as simplistic. Terrorism is not a single variate phenomenon; there are a lot of dimensions, including a psychological dimension. It's probably true that a lot of the terrorism has been TRIGGERED by western policies and actions, but, I think, as the NYT article that I poster earlier indicates, the causes of terrorism are much deeper and not so simple to address. Unless, of course, your solution is to simply eliminate all western influences from the ME entirely (and perhaps places like Spain as well), abandon all support for Israel, and encourage a caliphate over the entire Muslim world. Because, in fact, that's about what it would take to satisfy the extremists.

I don't think even that would satisfy the extremists, Marc. Radical Islam is an expansionist movement. And as militantly evangelical as Islam itself was for centuries, or Christianity for that matter.

Marc, mea culpa and you make a fair call. I intended to restrict my comment to the quote included in your post. By choosing the example I did of 9/11 reaction, I indeed ascribed to a position you don't hold. Please excuse my wandering flame, as I know it can be counter-productive.

Tom,

Thanks. I appreciate that.

I've heard many times the connection/explanation/excuse of the bombings related to Iraq. I can certainly see how Iraq has increased anger BUT how does that explain 9/11, or USS Cole or the Embassy bombings or WTC attack #1.

I can only conclude that Iraq is an excuse or that the core issue is "we hate the infidel West". It's as lame an excuse as the "flushing of the Koran" is a legitimate reason for lethal riots.

MWS,

First of all I want to point out that everyone here seems to be making valid points and I want to make sure that everyone understands I'm not trying to call anyone out. My only point about your post is that, in my view, worrying about who is or is not sufficnetly condemning terrorism is pointless and irrelevant. First of all most people, when they really get down to brass tacks, can't even define "terrorism" other then vague illusions to violent actions of groups who we don’t like. Was the US committing "terrorism" when they fire bombed Tokyo? Curtis LaMay, the WWII General who was in charge of killing 100's of thousands of innocent civilians in Japan thought so and said that had we not won the war, he would he would have been charged with war crimes, but we rationalized that action by saying more of are people would have been killed if we didn't.

The "moronic binary tribalism" is the mere fact that we are even discussing irrelevancies such as who is and isn’t condemning terrorism. Whether or not we think our policies justify terrorism is irrelevant. People don’t just strap bombs on to themselves for giggles, what we think about it doesn't matter, there is only one reality that that is that there are enough people in the Islamic world that feel that it is justified, and on some level they are right. In my mind it doesn't excuse terrorism but then again I don't see our secular way of life as particularly destructive.

But there are those, many in this country, particularly hard core social conservatives that feel that our secular society means that we are quite literally going down a road to eventual extinction. The ironic thing is that this is exactly what fundamentalist Muslims fear about the west; cultural contamination. But before we dismiss the Jihadists as the loony ravings of power mad psychopaths it might be useful to compare and contrast their views with traditional conservatives in this country. People like Bill Bennett or David Horowitz have been making the case that "leftist culture" will lead to the inevitable destruction of the fabric of our society. But at the same time they denounce the Islamic Jihadists as lunatic nihilist bent on destroying western culture for no other reason then, "They hate our freedom". The ironic thing is that, under that definition, culture warriors hate our freedom too.

The culture warriors would tell you that from a socio-biological perspective, our secular western culture means death. A slow extinction of our DNA from below replacement reproduction that is occurring in this country especially among the better educated (this BTW is a fact, White Anglo Saxon Protestants are becoming extinct in America demographically they will be a minority in a few generations). Of course feminists and homosexuals get the lion's share of the blame for this phenomenon. This idea is what has lead to the home schooling fad being practiced by people like Todd Akin, a (former?) Republican congressmen from Missouri, Mr. Akin once told a friend that his wife home schools their children. Why home schooling? So they won't be exposed to kids immersed in America's corrosive popular culture! So his daughters won't be going to their 7th grade classes in jeans cut so low that they have to shave in front so their pubic hair won't stick out their waistbands. And it is this seculer culture that is causing us to forgo having enough children due to the pressures of maintaining our lifestyles in our mindless quest to "achieve success" in our peculiar brand of consumer driven capitalism.

So for traditional conservatives the culture war is not just an ideological construct, it is a fight for their very existence. What people fail to realize about the Jihadists, and what the Jihadists are simply not lucid enough to articulate, is that they are driven to conflict with the west by the danger, or if you believe people like Bennett and Akin the absolute certainty, that contact with our completely degenerate, but incredibly seductive culture, will lead to cultural genocide. So really the only difference between the Jihadists and American traditionalists conservatives is that the Jihadists * know * that unless he destroys America, his descendants will be wearing thong bikinis, using birth control, and indulging in sex, drugs and Rock-n-Roll. Their very existence will be wiped out by America's culture. To the Jihadists, democracy, whiskey, and sexy is the personification of the Visigoth at the gates of the city.

Now I'm not saying that traditional conservatives are wrong in their view, frankly they have a darn good point (but to explain that would take another page or two), I am also not saying that this makes them "aligned with the terrorists" or that they condone terrorism. What I'm saying that that the motivations of the terrorists are not that hard to understand because many in this country believe the same thing, a very tiny minority of those people have come to the same conclusion about the need to resort to terrorism (no different then the violent fringe leftists in the 70's like the Move and Weather Underground).

So while we blithely argue over who is not suitably "outraged" at the terrorism of the Jihadists, or whether or not some in the west are not sufficiently steadfast in the opposition to terrorism, the Jihadists are engaged in what they see as a struggle for their very survival because that is what their religious leaders tell them (and if you believe social conservatives in this country, is fact). Oppose the infidels or your entire culture, your faith, the very thing that gives you an identity and a reason to live is being threatened. To them secularism = death. In that context terrorism is hardly a vice. Just like the fringe in this country who considers homosexuality, euthanasia, and abortion as a "Culture of Death" (although they understand the term much differently then the political sloganisum that it has become when uttered by mainstream politicos on the right). We are lucky that they don’t go around bombing abortion clinics and gay bars (at least not many of them).

I would just like to know that if any one here really believed that their existence, everything that they believe, and their entire way of life was seriously threatened, that they would not use any means at their disposal to fight against those who would wipe them out including terrorism? The reason I condemn political violence is because I live in a place and time that gives me the luxury to do so, but as I said before, what I think is hardly relevant.

What is relevant, and what is a much harder question to answer is what do we resolve the conflict, or maybe we need to come to terms with the fact that the conflict can’t be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. What I am sure of is that this political right - left spitball fight does nothing to help the situation.

ohhhh, sorry about the long screed, i got a bit carried away...

Two great posts, Rick; lots to reflect about.

For what it's worth, I think society would eventually be best suited by a synthesis of the best virtues of secularism and traditional religion. Combine the freedom, tolerance, and open-mindedness of secularism with the commitment to virtue and higher purpose of religion. A metaphysical centrism if you will, a more vibrant version of the spiritual-but-not-religious sentiment.

I certainly echo MWS and Tully's elaboration of what appeasement would actually entail. The extremists want us and our culture wiped off the face of the earth and it is important that we recognize that. However, that doesn't free us from the obligation of meeting that threat wisely; it just means it cannot be ignored or appeased.

Rick;
I don't think Bill Bennett has ever suggested strapping on some bombs to save our country or culture. the argument is really a stretch. What I hear say in essence is "anyone who suggests there is a deterioration in our culture is saying the same thing as the jihadists, without the bombs". C'mon

c3,

I don't think Bill Bennett has ever suggested strapping on some bombs to save our country or culture.

Your right and if that is what you got out of what I wrote then I didn't make myself very clear, I'll take the blame for that.

What I got was:

That, without assigning any moral or factual equivalences between the actions or beliefs of the two, you believe that the motivations of the American religious right are grounded in much the same type of phenomenon as what drives the radical Islamists. Namely, the perception of cultural erosion threatening their religious/social value systems.

That you make this observation with no intention to assign value judgements as to the relative merits of the religious/social values being espoused, or the actions of the groups cited.

Is that correct? I would completely agree with that premise, as stated.

Rick,

A lot of what you say makes sense and I appreciate your engagement on this interesting issue but let's take a counter example. With respect to your comments about the anger and fear that many of the terrorists feel toward western culture, couldn't you say the exact same thing about the people that murdered Mathew Shepherd for being gay? Couldn't you say that these people's identities and cultures were being threatened by the acceptance of gay people in the culture? What would be your reaction if someone made the comment that his murder was understandable because these people feel threatened? I suspect you and most others would be outraged and rightly so. Because it would suggest that there was some justification for it.

I am not saying we should get into a contest of who is more outraged about terrorism. As I indicated in the post, I get tired of the endless moralizing by politicians about evil and their simplifying the world into black and white. But some things are wrong and to try to relativize it by saying that its just a matter of the culture you live in does a grave disservice to the vast majority of Muslims that oppose violence (even though they likely also strongly oppose US policies in the Mideast).

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to understand the motivation of the terrorists. Obviously, we need to do that in order to confront it. But I resent the implication that, since they feel threatened, we just have to accept that blowing up subways is something that's going to happen. Short's comments, to me, implied that political violence is a legitimate tool for anyone who has grievances. Aside from being simplistic with respect to the causes of the suicide bombers, it does create a moral equivalency that I find outrageous.

Moreover, as I said before, terrorism is largely the work of a fringe in the Muslim world. I think it's dangerous to imply that terrorism is the only or most effective way for Muslims to communicate political points.
I also take issue strongly with your comments about the American fundamentalist right. I certainly am not a fan of them, but it's only a small minority that would even contemplate the kind of actions that Eric Rudolph took. Yet, if you follow Short's line of reasoning, then why isn't Rudolph's action an understandable reaction to the anger he felt over abortion?

I too apologize for being long-winded, but my point is that, while I agree we shouldn't engage in discussions over who is most anti-terrorism, words do mean something. I think it's extremely dangerous to imply that the motivations of individuals somehow legitmate violence IN OUR OWN EYES. Obviously, what we say is not going to affect how the terrorists act, but what we say is going to affect how we behave. If you implicitly legitimize violence as a solution to anger, how do you condemn violence by an angry British population against Muslims?

One other thing, sort of on a different level. I disagree with Adam that the jihadists want our culture wiped off the face of the earth. Certainly, they would like that, but I don't think that is their real goal. It's probably a quibble, but I think one of the dangers in the current way we are approaching terrorism is the assumption that the jihadists are an existential threat to western civilization that justifies virtually any means to stop it. (I'm not saying that Adam and Tully are advocating that, but there is a strain of thought that suggests that.)

I think we made a mistake during the Cold War by inflating the Soviet threat (which was certainly real enough) into more than it actually was; this led us to justify actions (such as overthrowing ostensibly communist governments) that were both unwise and immoral.

I think we face the same problem with millenial terrorism. Certainly, the dangers of a WMD attack from terrorists is real and we face constant dangers of "conventional" attacks. I am not downplaying the threat at all. (By the way, for a truly chilling perspective on the terrorist threat in Europe (and to America), there is an article by Robert Leiken in the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs. I would link to it, but I think you need a subscription.) Still, I think we need to put this into perspective. Al Quaid is a world wide movement, but it doesn't command the allegiance of even most Muslims; it has never been able to install an Islamist government; western culture continues to expand in at least parts of the Middle East, and it has been singularly unsuccessful in throwing the west out of the Middle East. There is no doubt that Al Quaida is a threat and I fear that we will see another major attack in the US (possibly WMD) at some point.

But we need to be prudent in evaluating the threat and take measured actions to fight the threat. First, I really don't think Al Quaida gives a damn about what we do in the United States. (Some of the places in Europe, such as Spain, might be different.) It's not trying to "take away our freedom." What it is trying to do is eliminate what it considers the contamination of our culture from the Muslim world. Now, Al Quaida's idea of what this entails is radically extreme, of course, and I am not suggesting that what they want is reasonable or that we should accede to it. But I am suggesting that seeing Al Quaida as an existential threat to our way of life is overblown and dangerous. For example, it can lead us to unduly restrict our civil liberties. I'm not one of the ACLU types that wants to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no threat, but I think that this fear of Al Quaida as an all encompassing, existential threat is leading us to downplay the dangers of giving the government too much police power. (I'm not trying to specifically debate the Patriot Act, just to make the general point that the accretion of power has occurred.)

Rick,

It is true that social conservatives in this country view aspects of our culture as corrosive (and to a certain extent, I agree with them)..... and that this view is also held by Islamic Fundementalists (although I would also argue there is an important difference in degree of scale there). However, that's as far as the similarity holds.....and it seems to me that is, by far, the LEAST important aspect of the equation. It's not really so important what culture a particular person chooses to adopt..... what's important is what they believe is justified in pursuit of that culture.

Social Conservatives are largely content to wage battle in the market-place of ideas. To CONVINCE others of the merit of such ideas and the wisdom of adopting them of thier OWN FREE WILL. Not so different from what is being done on this very board, I think. The minute fraction of social conservatives who cross that line (i.e. abortion clinic bombers, gay bahers, etc) are ROUNDLY CONDEMED by the vast majority of thier bretherin.
If radical Islam was willing to restrict itself to such methods, I (and I suspect the VAST majority of the country) would have little problem with them.

Radical Islam, however, believes in the principle of conversion by the sword. They believe it is justified to use physical force and violence to subjugate others to thier world view, REGARDLESS of those peoples wishes. They believe that those who are unwilling to convert must be destroyed. That is the essence of thier philosophy of Jihad.
They don't even just want to be insulated from our "corrosive" culture.... they want to impose thiers upon us. If you look at the content they produce for thier own internal consumption (rather then content specificaly tailored for Western consumption) that is exactly what they preach.

Note, that Christianity DID indeed go through such a phase itself, less then a thousand years ago with the various Crusades. However, it abandoned such practices long ago.

I think that the jihadis want to convert us or kill us because they have said so repeatedly. I believe that they want to resume the aggressive expansion of Islam that the Christian West interrupted and reversed in the wake of the Crusades with their own aggressive expansion. Because they have said so repeatedly.

I don't confuse that desire with the ability to accomplish it, but I do believe that it will take a change in mainstream Islamic thought to control the attempts. And I believe it is something that will be a long-term historical event, not something that can be done in a few years or even a few decades.

MWS,

A couple of small points of disagreement. The Soviet threat was NOT overinflated.... at least not in the early years. My dad served in Stalins millitary.....and I had other relatives behind the Iron Curtain. World Domination was definitely an overt goal of the Soviet Union (at least during the Stalin era, it may have gradualy tapered off to some degree afterward) and it had VERY serious millitary resources to commit to it.

I think you are wrong in your belief that Al Quaida does not want to violently export radical islam beyond the areas traditionaly inhabited by Muslims. The world (including America) living under Sharia law is very much a long term goal for them and they say as much explicitly in thier own literature. It's only the stuff that they produce explicitly for our consumption which purports the more limited goal of expelling Western influences from the Middle East. That's thier version of telling us that they only want the Sudetenland.

I think you are correct in your belief that Al Quaida and radical islam represents a very small fraction of the overall Islamic community...and that while they do present a very real threat, their capability to achieve thier stated goals are limited.

I agree with the premise as Tully stated it. Further I think we'd have less trouble communicating with each other if we were vigilant in our recognition that saying something is understandable does not in any sense necessarily imply that it is therefore also forgiveable, or

So while I agree with Cengel's notion (if I can be allowed to speak in shorthand) that Christianity seems to have moved past its "jihad stage," I feel obligated to add the small caveat that I'm not convinced that regress is utterly impossible. Conservative religious proseltization sits, in my view, at a relative high water mark. I have no doubt that some small minority of such conservatives really does wish to impose their values upon other Americans, although the vast majority seeks to do so by legal democratic means. (A huge point there, one we all should take care to acknowledge in the comparative context here)

And it seems to me that this conservative religious minority seems prone to leaving the public stage to its noisiest and least thoughful zealots, which is another obvious parallel. Anyway, I think it's worth noting to similarities because insight ensues. And i thin k you can argue that it may in somes sense be productive to needle thoughful religious and sociual conservatives by saying things like "Mullah Moore," because I think its important to challenge the American right to disassociate themselves from their fringe zealots. And the American left, too.

Yes, exactly. I'm noting that the motives can be somewhat discerned (as I believe Rick was) not that they make the actions justifiable. And Rick was noting that the motivations driving the far religious right and the jihadis are of a similar nature. That does not require endorsement of either group, or any actions associated with them.

The noisiest and most radical fringe elements are the ones that make the news. I don't want to be misunderstood as saying the jihadis represent mainstream Islamic thought, just as I have often protested that the far right does not represent mainstream Republican thought, and that these folks don't represent mainstream Democratic thought.

Though from listening to the news or visiting the echo chambers, I can understand how someone could get that impression.

Cengel,

I don't think we disagree too much about the Cold War. Certainly, the Soviet threat was real, but it obviously was not unmanageable. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Stalin was ever seriously contemplating a military takeover of western Europe. Obviously, our possession of the atomic bomb had something to do with that, but the historical record suggests that he was much more concerned about consolidating his hold on eastern Europe than he was in starting a war with the West. I did not mean to suggest that the Soviet Union was not a real geopolitical and ideological threat to the West. I believe our policies in Europe were generally appropriate. But my point was that our assumption that the Soviets were stronger than they really were and more dedicated to world domination led to an overreaction in some cases. For example, while subversion was a problem, the fear of communism inflated it to the point where we thought there was a communist under every bed. This led to some unnecessary curtailments of civil liberties. Similarly, the perceived need to stop any movement that we thought had communist backing led us to undertaking policies (such as CIA-led coups in Iran and Guatemala) that had very unfortunate consequences.

I think this goes along with your final point. Whether Al Quaida does or does not want to establish a caliphate over the entire world, it does not mean that we react as if they had the capability to do so. We shouldn't act as if Al Quaida is omnipotent.

Tully,

Yes with the addendum that we have no way of knowing what people in this country would resort to if they actually felt that their entire way of life was being threatened. The Armey of God types in this country were actually at that point, thankfully they were a tiny, miniscule number (but as you sort of pointed out, bombs attract a lot of attention, far more then their numbers would warrant). They are wacky, because they felt persecution that needed to be answered with violence where so many of their ideological brethren didn't, however the reverse is true with Islam. The Jihadists on the other hand have concluded (probably correctly) that there is no way to stem the tide of the cultural contamination that they see as the Visigoth coming over the hill.

I have a friend that would argue that Jews and Arabs were living in Palestine for centuries, but it wasn't until the creation of the state of Israel that things got personal. Why? Because Israel was not just a Jewish state, but a secularized western state and all of a sudden it was plopped right in their backyard and they have been saying WTF ever since. Why is it that we seem to such a bad case of cultural value myopia when it comes to figuring out what is motivating the Jihadists to strap bombs on to themselves.

We have a hard time imagining what we would do if our way of life was being threatened because the possibility is so completely remote. It's like this; we used to have this debate about whether or not we would eat the flesh of our dead friends if we were starving after crash landing on a mountain. The problem with this exercise is that it's real easy to say, "I would starve first" when you belly is full and you have never had to face death. It's the same thing; it's easy for us to renounce violence because we are not faced with having our culture exterminated. They are, if we get our way their entire way of life, their religion, their identity will be snuffed out, gone forever drowned in a sea of reality TV and thong bikinis.

But the larger point in Marc's post was about "the left" and how they "just don’t get it". He was saying that about "leftists" apologizing for the attacks by blaming US policy. And if you were to take the narrow view, he's right, but I think that the narrow view is irrelevant. The larger view is that it's useless to judge the Jihadists in the context of our secular western culture. And the political hand wringing over who is sufficiently opposed to terrorism is a huge waist of time and irrelevant to addressing the issue of how best to change the hearts and minds of those who would seek to do us harm.

I think Tully's an optimist in the amount of time it will take to change those hearts and minds, I think it will take generations.

Wow, it's not often I get called an optimist!

I was formulating a long and thoughtful reply when I ran across this article in the (UK) Guardian. So rather than bore everyone with many paragraphs on why cultural relativism is a meaningless argument in this case, why the problem is an inevitable clash of cultures, both within Islam itself and between Islam and the modern world, a clash that won't change regardless of our political policies, I offer these paragraphs from that story, as they are more direct to the point.

It needs to be seen and said clearly: there are, among us, apologists for what the killers do. They make more difficult the fight to defeat them. The plea will be - it always is - that these are not apologists, they are merely honest Joes and Joanies endeavouring to understand the world in which we live. What could be wrong with that? What indeed? Nothing is wrong with genuine efforts at understanding; on these we all depend. But the genuine article is one thing, and root-causes advocacy seeking to dissipate responsibility for atrocity, mass murder, crime against humanity, especially in the immediate aftermath of their occurrence, is something else.

Note the selectivity in the way root-causes arguments function. Purporting to be about causal explanation rather than excuse-making, they are invariably deployed on behalf of movements or actions for which their proponent wants to engage our indulgence, and in order to direct blame towards some party towards whom he or she is unsympathetic....

....If causes and explanation are indeed a serious enterprise and not merely a convenient partisan game, then it needs to be recognised that causality is one thing and moral responsibility another, though the two are related. The fact that something someone else does contributes causally to a crime or atrocity doesn't show that they, as well as the direct agents, are morally responsible for that crime or atrocity, if what they have contributed causally is not itself wrong and doesn't serve to justify it. Furthermore, even when what someone else has contributed causally to the occurrence of the criminal or atrocious act is wrong, this won't necessarily show they bear any of the blame for it....

....Ever on the lookout for damning causes, the root-causers never go for the most obvious of these. This is the cause, indeed, which shows, by its absence, why most critics of the Iraq war or of anything else don't murder people when they are angry. It is the fanatical, fundamentalist belief system which teaches hatred and justifies these acts of murder. That cause somehow gets a free pass from the hunters-out of causes.

They are, if we get our way their entire way of life, their religion, their identity will be snuffed out, gone forever drowned in a sea of reality TV and thong bikinis.

Rick I think you've overstated this case several times now. Notice that it doesn't account for the fact that many diverse subcultures, including a variety of culturally conservative ones, survive and even thrive within the borders of the Great Satan. What is possibly to be lost is the pre-eminent position of their culture as the dominant mainstream. And notice further that places like Turkey, Pakistan, and even Iraq with its nascent muslim democracy suggest a culture that, while it may over time be akin to the west, is likely to be substantially different.

Tully, I think the last paragraph of those you cite is poorly written for its overbroad generalization. What troubles me is that it feels like the writer is trying to sum up by giving people renewed permission to keep dismissing the views of all those who employ causal reasoning, instead of just those who would serve as apologists. This is troublesome to me because, in my view, any positive evolution of the people's thinking about such issues relies in large part upon the willingness of people to keeping making the distinction mentioned earlier:

Nothing is wrong with genuine efforts at understanding; on these we all depend. But the genuine article is one thing, and root-causes advocacy seeking to dissipate responsibility for atrocity, mass murder, crime against humanity, especially in the immediate aftermath of their occurrence, is something else.

In other words, not all root causes advocacy is misguided, only that which advocates such reasoning for the purpose of obscuring the responsibility of the actors for heinous acts. Understanding yes, apologists no. I think it's crucial for us here to be better than broad-brush smearing of those would "have the temerity" to discuss root causes. I don't doubt that you agree with the notion that people who have a valid point to make deserve to be engaged if there's reason to think they wish to join us in good-willed exploration.

An aside, last night I caught 2 minutes of the Michael Savage show. (Yeah, I know, but he's on the same station as the Red Sox. It keeps happening. He aired an excerpt from some British mayor as an attempt to rouse the rabble. The guy went on about how western governments had (i'm paraphrasing here) acted selfishly and capriciously for decades in the middle east, and pointed out how we once funded OBL. So I'm sitting there waiting for the non-factual outrageous part, and the excerpt just ends, at which point savage reliably goes off on a rant about how, yeah, for the liberals it's all about blaming America. blah, blah, blah.

My point? Nothing about savage, who is beyond the pale. But if we can't look at our role in fostering a messed up situation, and take some responsibility for reaping what we've sown, terrorism is bound to be even more of a chronic problem than it already threatens to be. So in re this last sentence:

It is the fanatical, fundamentalist belief system which teaches hatred and justifies these acts of murder. That cause somehow gets a free pass from the hunters-out of causes.

I say, let's not give out passes, and let's also not assume that people seeking understanding are granting them. Let's be unafraid to look at our role in the harsh light of day, but let's not suggest that our sins make those of the terrorists forgivable in any meaningful way. Muslims and indeed all everyday middle easterners have my apologetic sympathy for all the messed up things we've done while engaged in our narrow self-interest, and my pledge that we're committed to doing much better in the future. But once they become transgressors, slaughtering civilians without even the regard for innocent children, they've cast their die as my permanent enemy.

Notice that it doesn't account for the fact that many diverse subcultures, including a variety of culturally conservative ones, survive and even thrive within the borders of the Great Satan.

And I was not trying to develop a "grand unification theory" of all Islamic thought. I was talking about the Jihadists. You're absolutely correct that not all Muslims are Jihadists; in fact most of them aren't, just like the overwhelming majority of Social Conservatives are not violent.

I'll try not to contribute to my case over stating but this analysis betrays a fundamental misunderstanding if it. You seem to be under the impression that there is one objective "reality" though which all actions and behaviors can ultimately be understood, or that all of Islam is made up of a shared culture (I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting this but I'm trying to understand why pointing this out is relevant other then to try and paint the Jihadists as crazy, nihilistic barbarians who are sub-human). I would argue that each culture sees the world refracted though a prism made up of their religion, heritage, folkways and experiences.

This is why I took great pains to talk about the social conservatives and the tiny minority of their violent adherents. I could have just as easily talked about violent left wing groups in the 70's or the IRA. Those who felt, probably very sincerely, that violence was necessary were living in a world where most saw absolutely no reason for drastic measures.

But rather then get into a long screed again let me bottom line it here. The danger is that we end up treating these people like crazy, nihilistic barbarians who are sub-human rather then treating them as rational actor who, for many reasons too numerous to put on a bumper sticker, have decided that violence is their only choice. Now we can treat them as crazy, nihilistic barbarians who are sub-human and loudly denounce those who won't in our little political pissing contests, or we can treat the Jihadists as, more or less rational actors (although extremely dangerous ones) and use that understanding in our fight to make them less dangerous or to defeat them outright.

But look, if it makes you all sleep better at night please continue the counter-productive discussion of whether or not the left (or the right) "just doesn't get it" when the fact is none of us really do (apologies if that came off as snarky).

Tully,

RE: the last paragraph of the block quote, I don't give anyone a free pass but again here we have someone who only gets it half right and refuses to look at the whole picture (IMO), it's just more political tribalism which on some level, underscores the larger more violent struggle we find ourselves in. We don’t really know what this war is about and every time someone tries to like for the answer someone paint them as an apologist or and appeaser. Rather then me repeating for the zillionth time why I think this is totally useless and irrelevant perhaps you could suggest a reason why (outside of political point scoring), this is relevant and helpful?t

Tully, oops, my bad for note reading the whole thing. The very last paragraph of the actual article, which you left out, concisely re-states the point that its only the apologists whose feet deserve to be held to the fire.

Rick, re:

The danger is that we end up treating these people like crazy, nihilistic barbarians who are sub-human rather then treating them as rational actor who, for many reasons too numerous to put on a bumper sticker, have decided that violence is their only choice. Now we can treat them as crazy, nihilistic barbarians who are sub-human and loudly denounce those who won't in our little political pissing contests, or we can treat the Jihadists as, more or less rational actors (although extremely dangerous ones) and use that understanding in our fight to make them less dangerous or to defeat them outright.

Rick, It's not the case that I want to treat the jihadists as crazy, nihilistic barbarians. I am happy to treat them as rational actors. In my view, we should treat them as rational actors and hold them responsible for the choice they have made to target all westerners as soldiers in the battle as they construe it. IMO, we should do this regardless of the validity of the notion that they feel that it was their only choice. The jihadists are all entitled to their opinion and to their world view, but they're not entitled to target everyday people as soldiers, to kill them, and for me to feel sorry for them when they do it, because "they felt it was their only choice."

So be clear here and now for the sake of all of us. Do you think we should accept the jihadist point of view that all westerners are de facto soldiers, and feel so much shame that we'd not be outraged by suicide bombings targeting civilians? If so, I'd say that you're pretty objectively an apologist for the jihadists. If this is your viewpoint, I reject the notion that it leads the way to a superior solution space than a committment to forcefully physically oppose terrorist bombers.

Rick DeMent,

To use an oft too used quote "There you go again". I'm sorry, but we are just going to have to agree to disagree that people who strap explosives onto thier back, walk onto a bus full of school-children and detonate it are "rational actors". Likewise for people who think that they will win battles because Allah will start swatting F-16's out of the sky with his mighty hand. Likewise for people who publish in thier national newspapers that Matzah is made from the blood of innocent Muslim children. Likewise with people who believe they have a mandate from God to slay all who refuse to subscribe to thier world-view. I would NOT call these the positions of people who were "rational actors".

Now, there may be real factors which have contributed to the Jihadists particular psychosis.... and we WOULD be well served to recognize and understand such factors... which is about as far as it goes. There are also factors which are entirely imagined or purposefully manufactured..... and we would do equaly well to understand those. However, at the end of the day, I (for one) am willing to call a spade a spade .....these people ARE crazy, nihilistic barbarians who are acting in a fashion completely devoid of humanity....and there is simply no room for tolerance of such behavior. If that makes me guilty of political incorrectness.... then I say...HUZZAH!

Ah, the perils of quoting to avoid writing....you really do need to read the whole article, I was hoping to sucker that in by quoting the more strident rhetoric. It was the point about individual responsibility that I wanted to get through--the people responsible for bombing subways and ramming planes into office towers are the people bombing subways and ramming planes into office towers, not the people they kill. Joe Serial Killer may have had an abused childhood, he may be sexually twisted as a result of that abuse and too much American Idol watching, but when he starts killing random women because they don't wear burkhas it's still his responsibility, not that of the women he kills. "Root causing" pushes the blame into the past, instead of placing it on the criminal.

The Mayor you heard was probably "Red Ken," Bryan, mayor of London. He's known for his radical views. I'll give you a pass for the Michael Savage listening but you gotta take that stuff in really small doses, brother, or it'll rot your mind.

I would say that viewing the jihadis as "rational actors" is helpful only to the extent necessary to find them and stop them. Relativistic "root cause" arguments claiming that we must assume some responsibility for them being murderous lunatics are bankrupt, IMHO. The problem is culture clash, and no change in our political policies will change that. Understanding their motivations is not to excuse their motivations. You can use "root cause" arguments to excuse or shift the responsibility for anything, by anyone, but it is the individual who performs the acts who is responsible for their actions.

The jihadis are a small fraction of Islam, but much of the rest of Islam gives them a pass. We are a convenient way for the "modernists" and entrenched rulers of Islam to avoid having to deal with their internal culture clash. We ar the "Other," the scapegoat. They tried using the Jews/Israelis, were unable to defeat them, so we became the next rung in the blame ladder.

Until Modernist Islam can come to some kind of grips with militant fundamentalist Islam, the problem will continue no matter what we do. We are the Great Satan, after all. In a world of modern technology and transportation and free information flow, we simply can not stop what we do to piss off the jihadis, which is mainly having a culture they revile that they can't get away from without sealing their borders and killing all their electronics. That stimulus is not going to abate.

"To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Stalin was ever seriously contemplating a military takeover of western Europe. Obviously, our possession of the atomic bomb had something to do with that, but the historical record suggests that he was much more concerned about consolidating his hold on eastern Europe than he was in starting a war with the West. "

I'd say that the Red Army's training, doctrine and equipment was entirely centered around offensive operations in Western Europe rather then defensive operations in the East was a pretty good indication. Of course, I'll be happy to entertain any historical evidence you have to the contrary.

There is no doubt in my mind that Stalin's goal was conquest of Western Europe. He had all neccesary preperations in place to do so, he just wasn't afforded a good opportunity to take advantage of to put those preperations to use.... and thus settled for maintaining hedgemony over Eastern Europe.

I also think it's WAY too easy years after winning the Cold War to go back and guess which measures we could have done without. Firstly, I don't have alot of confidence that we can predict with accuracy what would have happaned had we pursued different hypothetical courses of action. Secondly, even if we could, certainly the decision makers of the day didn't have the same luxuray of knowledge that we have now.

None, of that is meant, however, to subtract from the arguement that it behooves us to be realistic about the scale and nature of the threat that confronts us today.

Cengel,

I have read extensively in this area and, while I can't off the top of my head cite specific sources, I can confidently say that, based on my reading anyway, the consensus of most historians is that Stalin was not planning to invade Western Europe. Obviously, we are going to disagree on that. But that's not to say that Stalin was not a threat to Western Europe.

As for questioning our particular measures, I agree it is too easy to play armchair quarterback and secondguess policymakers years later. On the other hand, how do you learn anything if you don't critique it? You seem unwilling to acknowledge that any action taken could be usefully critiqued. I agree it's unfair to criticize based on knowledge the policy makers don't have, but I don't think it's unfair to argue that inappropriate actions were taken based on incorrect perceptions. And even if we can't accurately predict what would have happened if we pursued another course, we can say what happened as a result of the course we followed--and in some cases, it's not very good.

Tully,

That article was EXACTLY what I was trying to say. (By the way, it's Red Ken LIVINGSTON who is the mayor of London.) I'm not for a minute saying we should not recognize the causes of the bombers or even their perceptions. And it's not a matter of seeing who is more anti-terrorist. But it's absolutely unacceptable in my mind to excuse bombings because of the bomber's world view.

Rick,

It seems like you are hung up on my "The Left Doesn't Get it" phrase. That's really not the point. And, yes it may be counterproductive. But I don't see how equating bombing with political activity is any more productive. I recognize this is how the bombers perceive the world--but why do we have to accept it as a legitimate view?

In a nutshell, "understanding" the motivation of the terrorist is not at all the same thing as granting the terrorist's actions the status of "understandable," i.e., reasonably justified. And that's what Short (and so many others) seem to be doing.

Cengel,

I'm really perplexed by the notion that anyone who bombs a bus full of children must be irrational and psychotic.

In my view, a cold-blooded radical zealot need be neither irrational nor psychotic in order to committ atrocities. That's what's so scary.

But then, I have a pretty narrow and particular view of what it means to be psychotic based on personal experience. My sense is that if you've ever seen and interacted with even a handful of people who are genuinely classed as psychotic by mental health professionals, you'd toss this around less lightly. Psychotic people have not lost touch with reality only in a philosophical way that alters their relative valuations, they've profoundly lost touch on a moment-to-moment basis.

My view that terrorists can often be rational actors is one that suggests to me how very seriously we must take them. In a sense, classing them as irrational feels to me like it frees us to not take them as seriously, and I think that's a mistake. Their world view is based upon reason, it's just that it's based on reason as this reasoning follows from unquestioned belief in one particular highest good over all others. Given that terrorists can engage in lengthy and sophisticated chains of causal reasoning as it flows from the original valuation based on the initial true belief, i think it's a mistake to call such people irrational. They can reason, and are reasoning from moment to moment. They just value things differently than you. If it helps you to think of that initial valuation as irrational, go ahead. but at least consider that your differing initial valuations are likely based on faith as well.

MWS,

but why do we have to accept it as a legitimate view?

Explain to me what relevance the discussion of whether or not we should or should not "accept" terrorism as a legitimate tactic has at all?

The question of whether or not terrorism as a legitimate tactic, or not, is on the same philosophical plane as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Yes, you're correct that I am "hung up" on the "Left Doesn't Get it" phrase because every time I seek to have an intelligent discussion with someone about the practical realities of US policy I have to wade though a waist deep swamp of rhetorical sludge of which I consider this a perfect example. I have to explain why "they hate our freedom" is illogical sloganisum passing as serious commentary. I have to fend off the countless attacks from political opportunists who do nothing all day except play moronic "gotcha" games against the other side to the point where the public debate is so thoroughly poisoned with irrelevancy that most people don’t know whether to shit or go sailing (which is exactly what some political operatives try to do, it's an old technique that I learned in Debate 30 years ago)

It doesn't matter if it's the Dick Durban comment, or Rick Santorum comment or any of the other utterances that have sparked the latest political dick slamming contests, these debates are not about policy, they are not about addressing the issue, all that serve to do is whack us all up into our own little camps so we can take some imaginary moral high ground and dismiss our critics as illogical, obtuse, or insane.

Look at this thread (and I do get the irony that I am now part of the very thing I have been arguing as counter productive). We cannot even agree on what constitutes a productive discussion.

Tully's last post does hit on a salient point "Until Modernist Islam can come to some kind of grips with militant fundamentalist Islam, the problem will continue no matter what we do". On one level this is correct, but if this were the whole story then why exactly are we wasting blood and treasure in Iraq knowing that that policy simply give the Modernists cover to continue to do nothing. Both Tully and I know that it's a bit more complex then that but I understand what he is saying.

Look Marc I am guilty of the same thing, its fun to cast ideological opponents in unflattering light and to pretend they "just don’t get it". My challenge to you is rather then point out why your opponents are wrong, try this exercise, try and figure out, in what context they are absolutely correct (and I'm not talking about a superficial understanding, I mean understand it to the point where you could own it and argue persuasively on behalf of that viewpoint), and if you find you can't come up with one logical answer then I would suggest that you never understood their argument at all.

Rick, at some point are you planning on getting around to telling us what you think our policy should be in response to suicide bombings that target civilians, including children?

I know that you dislike the notion of demonizing the left by saying "they just don't understand." I share your dislike for what you term "d!ck $lamming contests. However, be charitable and assume that Marc is only suggesting that its a problem that some subset of our population believes that the current conflict is not at root a conflict between differing cultural valuations.

Again, do you have some sort of prescription to offer here?One option, as I've repeatedly suggested, is to embrace western values at least enough to adamantly oppose the attacking of the civilian population, while trying to improve conditions in the midddle east enough to minimze the number of middle easterners who feel that terrorism is their only choice. If that's not your preferred polict tack, please describe your other option, because you seem to be implying to me that it exists, yet it's no clearer to me now than it was 40 posts ago.

BK,

BK,

Your point is well taken, we do need to embrace our western values; perhaps a lot more then we have. I say we actually live up to our ideals and not just pay them lip service. But that is just sloganisum [grin].

The first thing we have to do is admit something, and this will be very controversial but it is the 50,000 gorilla in the living room, the only reason we really have any thing to do with the Middle East, the only reason the governments of the Middle East countries have money to funnel to (or rather bribe off) their trouble makers, the only reason George Bush is photographed holding hands with a Saudi Prince, the only reason we seem to be able to make the suffering, brutality and killing of Africa back page news while we spend 300 billion and 2000 lives to invade Iraq (After leaving Afghanistan half finished), is because those countries are sitting on the biggest oil reserves in the world. Until everyone is comfortable with the idea that we are fighting a resource war here there is no reason to even start the conversation.

Right about now I can hear many give a collective grown and I wish I could convince you all that I'm not some left wing reactionary, "no blood for oil" wacko, but there is no other choice. Either we go on kidding ourselves that our thirst for oil is the only roadblock that makes the (relative to what we now face) simple solutions to the problems of terrorism possible (and it is a problem) or we continue the way we are, muddling thought the problem.

This doesn't mean that I am invalidating the entire spectrum of causes for this conflict, nor do I deny that the root of the problem is essentially a culture clash, but our need to have access to the oil (not to steal it, not to control it, not to do anything other then insure the free flow at market prices), is what is preventing us from developing effective solutions. I'll make this my last post here because when I start talking like this it turns a lot of people off because they either haven’t taken the time to look at our energy situation critically or because the very idea seems irreconcilable with our western sense of justice (and it's really not).

I will now done my flame retardent suit so feel free to dismiss me out of hand.

Rick,

I agree with a lot of what you said. As I noted in the original post (so long ago), I think the rhetoric about "they hate our freedom" and so forth is nonsense and a waste of time. I see no need to spend time showing your bona fides by bloviating about how evil this is. Much of this, as you point out, becomes an obstacle to understanding and action, ie, if they are simply "evil" we are blameless and have no responsibility for any action. I also agree with you that it is important to "understand" the "other's" point of view and, more importantly, to understand how our actions appear to others. I have criticized the Bush Administration frequently for its failure to do this.

But rhetoric is important in setting the tone of debate and analysis. I think that the bloviating about the Axis of Evil and so forth created a complacency on the part of people by implying that it's all because they hate us and all we have to do is kill the bastards. By the same token, the reactions of many on the left to 9/11, for example, created an equal sense of complacency; ie, if the attacks were motivated purely by American policies, then all we have to do is change the policies and everything will be all right. Never mind that these groups represent the most reactionary forces imaginable and that their actions do, in part, represent a reaction to a liberal culture that they find intolerable.

The point is, how you define an issue has a lot to do with how you respond to it. That doesn't mean you can't be rational about how you respond. But if you accept that terrorism is simply another way of making a political point, how can you ever criticize any kind of extremist activity? Look, I understand that the terrorists see westernization as encroaching on their culture and I certainly recognize that the war in Iraq has an obvious connection to the bombings (despite Tony Blair's ridiculous denials). I also recognize that the bombers don't see themselves as "evil" which is one reason why all the political pontificating makes no sense. Calling them evil is not going to help us find solutions. But, by the same token, equating it to normal political activity is not going to help us either.

Maybe this is more a philsophical point than a political point. Maybe, Rick, you are correct that engaging in this discussion distracts us from the need to find solutions. It's certainly not going to affect the terrorists themselves. But I think it does affect us (and by that I mean all westerners who are potential targets of terrorists) how we characterize terrorism. Is it simply a political act to which we respond simply by changing our policies? If so, why shouldn't everyone with a grievance resort to terrorism?

More than that, if, as you seem to imply, these acts are a response to the spread of western culture, do we retrench? Do we simply decide that western culture isn't worth defending because it offends a lot of people?

I'm all for rational debate and analysis of terrorism. And in a historical context, terrorism does have a long history that we can profitably discuss dispassionately. Understand the causes? Yes. Recognize the contribution that our policies have to it? Yes. But acknowledging it as simply another form of political activity? No.

Rick, I hope you recognize that I agree with a lot of what you said. I'm not sure our disagreements are as great as they appear.

As long as westermers think that their dead are somehow worth a lot more than all the Muslim dead then these events will continue to occur. What's simply sickening is all the people who don't see that what was done in Iraq involved a hell of a lot more dead people than either 9/11 or 7/7, but somehow think it doesn't matter and that Muslims should just take it. What's sickening is all the people who think that Israelis killing ten times as many Palestinians with conventional military means is worse than Palestinians killing 1/10th that number with "terrorism".

If nothing justifies the killing of civilians, then the hands of Britain and the US are covered in much more innocent blood than those of their enemies.

As for changing your policies - yeah, maybe if you don't support nations who are bantustaning Muslims (Israel and the near 50% of their population which can't vote and are systematically driven into desperation), don't engage in embargoes that kill hundreds of thousands, and don't invade countries based on lies. Maybe if you don't do those things, there'll be less terrorism.

You're really trying to defend doing the wrong thing because someoene is attacking you for it? I mean when Bin Laden promised to stop attacking any European nations if they withdrew from an ILLEGAL war in Iraq, you refused, right?

By all means, keep doing the right things - but don't pretend murder is one of them and you can't give it up because then the "terrorists" will win.

Once you've given up war crimes, if there are still terrorist attacks, you can say, "they're evil - we do nothing to them, yet they still attack us."

Until then, well, reap what you sow.

Q.E.D.--I believe it's the cherry-flavored today.

Side note: about 20% Israeli citizens are Muslim, and all citizens 18 and over may vote.

I believe it's the cherry-flavored today. Huh?

Blacklist, my understanding of the wrongs as perceived by the Muslim world are (1)support of Israel (2)support of corrupt and oppressive regimes so we can guarantee free-flow of oil (3)sanctions against Iraq.

(1) First, we are trying to support a popularly elected Palestinian leader, maybe not enough, but far more substantially than in the past.
(2) We have apologized for our support of corrupt and oppressive regimes and now are strongly encouraging democratization of the middle east.
(3) We could have just traded with Saddam and got his oil if that's all we cared about. Furthermore, we have ended sanctions against Iraq and are now expending great amounts of blood and treasure to help the nascent Iraqi government. The people killing Muslims today are primarily other Muslims. I know some claim that we kill more Iraqis than do the terrorists, but if we were that evil why does not the popularly elected government of Iraq tell us to go? Or do you think the elections were just a farce? We may have been grossly negligent in our planning but I think the main people screwing up Iraq today are the insurgents, not us. Should we have just lifted sanctions, and let Saddam go on with his oppressive goverment? Wouldn't we then be blamed for supporting corrupt and oppressive regimes?

As for the Israelis, well I'm not well-informed enough to assess their brutality, but I would imagine that if terrorism ceased then they wouldn't feel the need to use harsh measures. I think the fact that Sharon is willing to take on the thousands of Israeli radicals to move the peace process forward now that Arafat is dead suggests that maybe a lot of the problem were with Arafat and not the Israelis.

I think we've probably done a lot of bad things, but I think our current policies are attempting to rectify our past misdeeds. We pressed for Syria to leave Lebanon, we're pressing the Egyptians and the Saudis to democratize if just a little, we're helping to stablize two popularly elected Muslim governments, and we've expressed our support for a viable Palestinian State. I don't see what else we can do. We can't just abandon the Middle East to the jihadis, and the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan still want us there. So I can see evil in the past, but I don't see much of it in the present.

Q.E.D. = Quod erat demonstrandum

Cherry-flavored: KoolAid.

Adam, take blacklist at his word. He's sown a flame, why let him harvest a serious response?

I saw that the most recent estimate of Iraqi casualties was pegged at 25k, and "over a third" were attributed to us. I wonder who the other two thirds were attributed to...it makes me wonder why muslim terroists themselves think that other muslims should, in blacklist's words, "just take it."

Isn't this kind of tit for tat crap just a joy? So much more fun than serious dialogue. OK back to the crap. Since blacklist wanted to ramp up the poo fight, I have anothert turdblossom to fling:

I also wonder how many more Iraqis would be dead if we hadn't invaded. there's no way to know to be sure, but notice that the likes of blacklist will do no calculus that accounts for the costs of the path not taken. Surely in his view it would have been paradise. (BTW, that last one's called putting words in someone else's mouth, it's a real blast.)

There's also Australian Prime Minister John Howard's head slap today of a moronic reporter making much the same claims. And Glenn Reynold's translation of same as regards reporters:

You're idiots, cowards, and political hacks. Yes! The preening, point-scoring irresponsibility of the press, which is if anything worse in Britain than in America, is one of the most striking things about this war, and it will be decades before it recovers. If it does.

And The Anchoress' admittedly incomplete list of all that came before Iraq, with pictures. But that's piling on.

Maybe I'm just naive, but I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt that an honest response might cause them to engage in sensible dialogue. I think it is true that Americans are viscerally disturbed by the deaths of our own and our allies than we are other countries'. I think we also are more willing to sacrifice the lives of others to meet our goals than our own lives. But that is true of most societies.

To add something else, when blacklist spoke of capitulating to the requests of OBL to pull out, one cannot forget that the Iraqi people do not want to be delivered into the hands of this guy. They don't support him. After all, isn't it true that Al-Qaeda hates Shia and has no problem killing them?

I responded seriously because I feel that blacklist's kind of thinking is likely to predominate in the Muslim world and, hell, even elsewhere. Don't egyptians have a 99% unfavorable impression of the US and a moderately postive view of OBL? And don't australians think that we're the biggest threat to peace in the world? I mean, man, if western english speaking countries don't like us, it's kind of a problem. So although I consider blacklist's views seriously misguided, they are likely held by a significant number of people, which poses a seriously problem to the United States.

I suggest reading the linked piece on John Howard today, Adam. And remember that truth is not run by poll.

Great piece on Howard, Tully. I don't doubt that "truth is not run by poll," but I guess the whole purpose of this thread was to point out the worst tendencies of the left. I would venture that the worst tendencies of the right are overconfidence and oversimplification, but the left scares me more on this one. And to return to Rick's issue, it is important that westerners conceptualize this correctly for that will affect who they elect and their policies.

Marc,

Thanks for the kind response, I look forward to engaging this topic in the future. And to Tully and the rest for the invective free discussion.

Anytime, Rick. I suspect we agree more than is apparent, that we're just having some cross-definitional misunderstandings in spots.

I would venture that the worst tendencies of the right are overconfidence and oversimplification

One of the better capsule decripts of the vocal wings that I've seen, left or right. Being oversimple is a base requirement for being overcertain. I'd add that when your maps don't agree and you're still not certain where you are, then rather than arguing about whose map will get you more lost you should work on better maps. No?

And there's an excellent related op/ed in the New York Times today by Olivier Roy. Highly recommended. As the saying goes, read the whole thing.