A Nation of Victims -- Part Deux
This week, the President offered another justification for the invasion of Iraq:
"The lack of freedom in [the Middle East] created conditions where anger and resentment grew, radicalism thrived, and terrorists found willing recruits. We saw the consequences on September the 11th, 2001, when terrorists brought death and destruction to our country, killing nearly 3,000 innocent Americans ... "
So September 11 was the result of the lack of freedom in the Middle East. Hence, if we bring something called freedom to the Middle East all will be well. This is a flawed utopian analysis on three levels.
First, the statement ignores that many of the dictatorial regimes in the area (Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the disputed territories held by Israel, arguably Egypt) that created such a "lack of freedom," were client states of the U.S, not pawns of Al Queda. As Pat Buchanan, (of all people) has mentioned, Al Queda did not target us on a whim. They did not stumble across a copy of the Constitution and decide to eliminate us. We have been in their backyard for years. We have exercised an incredible amount of influence over events in the Middle East, at times even replacing governments we did not like, taking sides in regional wars, and providing aid and weapons to favored nations. Given the history of the Middle East, it is not surprising that many Arabs identify the U.S. as the muscle behind their situation.
Second, the folks we are most concerned about in the Middle East are not freedom lovers. They are radical Islamists dedicated to the creation of a Muslim theocracy. They are not upset because they are not free. In fact, they are upset when democracy or anything else Western creeps into their corner of the world. Given the well documented world view of jihadists such as Osama Bin Laden, it seems questionable to attach the growth of his movement to the fact that freedom has been thwarted in the Middle East. It seems even more questionable to suggest that democracy, particularly the kind imposed at gun point, will do much to alleviate the situation.
Third with regard to Iraq, "resentment" did not grow in Iraq, radicalism did not "thrive" in Iraq, and Iraq had no hand in bringing "death and destruction to our country." Iraq was an authoritarian secular state, whose military pretensions had been cut off at the knees by U.N sanctions. They had a pitiful standing army and no store of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was hostile to the goals of Al Queda and other Muslim radicals. In short, even if you are willing to buy the idea that jihadist's anger at the lack of freedom in their countries led to an attack on the U.S. that provides no justification for an invasion of Iraq.
Lastly, one cannot help but note the irony in the President's portrayal of the U.S. as a helpless and innocent victim of Muslim extremism. The U.S. is the most powerful nation on Earth. We are many things, but rarely victims. We author our own destiny on a level other countries envy. In short, we are a hard sell in the victim role.
More interesting though is another irony. Conservatives and Republicans hate it when anyone claims to be a passive victim. They do not believe in societal victims of poverty or racism, and instead preach "personal responsibility," "personal accountability" and "self reliance." However, when it comes to foreign affairs, we like to think of ourselves as the proverbial damsel in distress, threatened by events beyond our control, and acting only to repel the unprovoked aggression of others. There are people around the globe, in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, who may find that a little hard to swallow.
"The lack of freedom in [the Middle East] created conditions where anger and resentment grew, radicalism thrived, and terrorists found willing recruits. We saw the consequences on September the 11th, 2001, when terrorists brought death and destruction to our country, killing nearly 3,000 innocent Americans ... "
So September 11 was the result of the lack of freedom in the Middle East. Hence, if we bring something called freedom to the Middle East all will be well. This is a flawed utopian analysis on three levels.
First, the statement ignores that many of the dictatorial regimes in the area (Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the disputed territories held by Israel, arguably Egypt) that created such a "lack of freedom," were client states of the U.S, not pawns of Al Queda. As Pat Buchanan, (of all people) has mentioned, Al Queda did not target us on a whim. They did not stumble across a copy of the Constitution and decide to eliminate us. We have been in their backyard for years. We have exercised an incredible amount of influence over events in the Middle East, at times even replacing governments we did not like, taking sides in regional wars, and providing aid and weapons to favored nations. Given the history of the Middle East, it is not surprising that many Arabs identify the U.S. as the muscle behind their situation.
Second, the folks we are most concerned about in the Middle East are not freedom lovers. They are radical Islamists dedicated to the creation of a Muslim theocracy. They are not upset because they are not free. In fact, they are upset when democracy or anything else Western creeps into their corner of the world. Given the well documented world view of jihadists such as Osama Bin Laden, it seems questionable to attach the growth of his movement to the fact that freedom has been thwarted in the Middle East. It seems even more questionable to suggest that democracy, particularly the kind imposed at gun point, will do much to alleviate the situation.
Third with regard to Iraq, "resentment" did not grow in Iraq, radicalism did not "thrive" in Iraq, and Iraq had no hand in bringing "death and destruction to our country." Iraq was an authoritarian secular state, whose military pretensions had been cut off at the knees by U.N sanctions. They had a pitiful standing army and no store of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was hostile to the goals of Al Queda and other Muslim radicals. In short, even if you are willing to buy the idea that jihadist's anger at the lack of freedom in their countries led to an attack on the U.S. that provides no justification for an invasion of Iraq.
Lastly, one cannot help but note the irony in the President's portrayal of the U.S. as a helpless and innocent victim of Muslim extremism. The U.S. is the most powerful nation on Earth. We are many things, but rarely victims. We author our own destiny on a level other countries envy. In short, we are a hard sell in the victim role.
More interesting though is another irony. Conservatives and Republicans hate it when anyone claims to be a passive victim. They do not believe in societal victims of poverty or racism, and instead preach "personal responsibility," "personal accountability" and "self reliance." However, when it comes to foreign affairs, we like to think of ourselves as the proverbial damsel in distress, threatened by events beyond our control, and acting only to repel the unprovoked aggression of others. There are people around the globe, in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, who may find that a little hard to swallow.
posted by Jack Reed at 4:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home