War On Terror: “Resentment of The West”
Patrick Cockburn, the award-winning journalist and author, has reported extensively from Iraq, Afghanistan and Jordan. Here, he explains how the ‘war on terror’ has fuelled resentment of the West and brought new levels of death and destruction.
“Yesterday was another black day in the “war on terror”. Across the Middle East, wave upon wave of violence engulfed the region and paid testament to the new, bloody reality five years on from 11 September.
The focus of some of the violence yesterday, the victims of attacks in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Jordan, were Britons. Be they military or civilian, British citizens are increasingly at risk everywhere in the area because Britain is seen as the closest political and military ally of the US.
A group of tourists were looking at the remains of a Roman amphitheatre in the heart of Amman, the capital of Jordan, yesterday morning when a lone gunman approached them, shouting “Allahu Akbar” – ” God is Great” – and opening fire. One Briton was killed and six other people, including two UK nationals, were wounded. A Jordanian man was arrested for the shooting. Hundreds of miles away across the great stony desert dividing Jordan from Iraq, a British military unit came under attack at Ad Diyar, north of Basra. A roadside bomb tore apart their vehicle, killing two British soldiers and severely wounding a third. The deaths bring the total number of British dead in Iraq to 117. Still further east in Kabul, Afghanistan, a suicide bomber in a car blew himself up beside a British convoy, killing one British soldier and wounding three others, one of them seriously. Four Afghans were also killed.
It may be egocentric to write only of British dead. They are but a small percentage of the casualties in the multiple crises which are now cross-infecting each other in the Middle East.
Abdul Rahman Imran, a Palestinian I met in Nablus in the West Bank yesterday, spoke with anger of the plight of his people while the world looks away. In July and August, 251 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli army. Half of them were civilians, including women, children and the elderly, the Israeli daily Haaretz said.
It may soon become uncommon for a day to pass without a Briton, soldier or tourist, to be killed somewhere in the Middle East. It is dangerous to be a foreigner in any part of Iraq but I noticed last year that my Iraqi translator had started stressing to anybody we met that I was Irish rather than British. He claimed that The Independent was a well-known Scandinavian publication. Mr Imran is just one of many in the region whose outrage at the British and US governments is growing every day. “I want to kill Bush and Blair because of what they have done to us,” he said. “They are against Islam whether it is in Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan.”
To Tony Blair, due to visit Israel next weekend, the problem is very straightforward. Speaking in Los Angeles last month he produced a terrifyingly over- simple view of the Middle East saying “the Iraqi and Afghan fight for democracy is our fight. Same values. Same enemy.” He claimed that “we have to empower Moderate, Mainstream Islam to defeat Reactionary Islam”.
The American and British governments will apparently decide in future just who belongs to the latter strand of Islam and go to war with them. They will have their work cut out. The Britons who were killed yesterday in attacks across the Middle East died at the hands of very different people. The suicide bomber in Kabul was almost certainly sent on his mission by the Taliban, who are fundamentalist Sunni Muslims……
I have spent most of my time since 2001 in Afghanistan and Iraq. The reason for the rise of radical Islam is foreign occupation. Iraq had a secular tradition. Fanatical Islamic groups made little headway under Saddam Hussein not only because he persecuted them but because they had little popular support.
One of the most extraordinary aspects of Tony Blair’s analysis of militant Islam is his blindness to the extent to which foreign invasion and occupation has radicalised the region and legitimised militant Islam.“
30 Responses to “War On Terror: “Resentment of The West””
In Afghanistan, plenty of radical Islamists were already there.
Holly,
And our country gave them all the assistance, money, and weapons they needed to fight the Soviets. In the words of Cypress Hill:
C Prez,
If the US policy was wrong or shortsided in arming the mujahideen, does that nullify the fact that there are, in fact a group of people whose sole intent is to destroy the US? And that they existed with this mindset prior to the US reaction to 9/11?
Swaraaj,
In my opinion, one of the greatest men who ever lived was one of your countrymen, Mahatma Gandhi. I’m wondering if you see a parallel in that he saw oppression, aggression and imperialism but he fought it with peaceful resistance.
For example, I think the following quote from him:
shows that he recognized the need to work from within his own society. I think he understood the futility of trying to convince powerful nations to stop aggressive behavior without simultaneously correcting the wrongs in his own culture, refusing to become that which he criticized (the aggressor), and also, at the same time, having the effect of showing the aggressor that there was no need for that kind of behavior.
My point in comparing this to today’s situation is that the West doesn’t see any Gahndi in the Middle East. So, for self-interest, self-preservation, and yes, idealism as well (perhaps arrogance but even so, an idealistic notion that our system of governance would benefit people there), America feels it has to intervene.
I’m not sure if I’ve made the point and the parallel might not immediately be clear, but I’d like to hear your thoughts on it.
Since when have the US or Britain been loved by the Arabs? Maybe they hate us “even more” now, but their low levels of hate in the past never stopped them from regularly trying to kill us in the past.
C Stanley,
Not in the least. We knew what we were dealing w/ but purposely overlooked it just to get by in the short-term. Also, look at all the right-wing dictatorships we set up. When those break down we have to deal w/ the reaction to it, which is not at all friendly to this country. We reap what we’ve sewn, and you know what? It’s our own fault and we’re paying the price for past eff ups in foreign policy over the past 60 years.
One random attack and another in a series of skirmishes with troops who happen to be British in Basra and you think Brits are being singled out?
OK. If you say so.
Are you suggesting we appease the terrorists????
Elrod,
Who was that question directed toward?
We may have been wrong or shortsighted in arming the muhjahdeen, but that is because we only seem able to focus on one foreign policy goal at a time. In the 80′s Reagan’s focus was still on the Cold War and bringing down the Soviet’s evil empire. We knew a prolonged, unproductive effort in Afghanistan would strain their resources, an I’m sure he never imagined the weapons and training he was providing for the resistance would be one day used to defeat our forces.
History is full of unintended consequences-WWI came out of military build-up and European alliances, WWII out of isolationism, and a desire for nations to live in peace at any cost. But the biggest factor leading to WWII was the Treaty of Versailles which left Germany disarmed and disgraced, and forced to pay humiliating reparations. At the time the international community saw this as a just solution.
I don’t think overanalyzing every action can keep us from repeating history’s mistakes-especially since US foreign policy IS so short-sighted and focussed on narrow goals that change with each administration. We just have to deal with what exists at the moment-try to preserve our national interest without setting up these timebombs.
“short-sighted and focussed on narrow goals that change with each administration. ”
because, you know, bringing down the Soviet Union and liberating central europe, was sucha narrow goal.
I mean really, if we could destroy Al Qaeeda (but not all Islamic radicalism, which was developing before Afghanistan, and killed Sadat without benefit of an Afghan base) at the cost of giving up all that has changed in Poland, Hungary, Czecho, the Baltics, – the free emigration of Soviet Jews – the end to the US-Soviet arms race – etc, etc – would we?
It was no more “narrow minded” than the decision to ally with the Soviet Union in WW2. That wasnt narrowmindedness, it was a recognition of reality.
BTW, not everybody we supported against the Soviets went on to become an AQnik. Shah Massoud, who was really the leader of the Afghan resistance, was in fact murdered by AQ on September 10, 2001, the day before the attack on the WTC, in a closely connected act. The identification of the Afghan resistance with AQ is convenient to AQ, and to the Communists who insist that all resistance to them was radical Islamist terrorist, but it is a false equation.
Liberal Hawk- It was narrow in the sense that all our resources and intelligence was focussed on ending the Cold War. When it ended we did not have an effective means of dealing with a totally new kind of enemy. That has greatly hindered our efforts in this conflict.
Short-sighted in this sense- we supported many right-wing dictators if they were anti-Communist, without thinking of the long-term consequences. We supported the Shah in Iran, then had to face the anti-American sentiment that flowed out of that country after the revolution.
I am not judging these efforts as bad or good-just stating that for every action there is a reaction, and since we are in such a bind internationally now, I find it worth looking back at the reasons for it.
Thank you Kim, I couldn’t've put it better myself.
Thanks, C.Prez!
Liberal Hawk- I also believe that sometimes there are necessary choices between bad and worse options-i.e. our alliance with Stalin in WWII. It was necessary in order to defeat Hitler, but then we were unable to stop him from taking over Eastern Europe at the war’s end.
To tell you the truth- if I had the choice between ending the Cold War and eliminating the threat of Islamic Jihad, I don’t really know which I’d pick. That is another terrible choice, that I’m glad I don’t have to make.
Personally, I felt safer during the Cold War because both superpowers always had to be careful to avoid assured mutual destruction through the use of nuclear weapons. Our allies were clearly visible and the enemy was clearly visible. And innocent civilians have been hurt in both situations.
Kim is dropping knowledge on all of y’all right now. Take heed and listen. And I agree, Kim…I miss M.A.D. and the Cold War.
C. Prez,
Please tell me if you can. What foreign policy you would have done different over the past 60 years – as you said we reaped what we sowed – i.e. 9/11.
C Stanley,
It was directed at the Swaraj of course!
Liberalhawk is largely right about Afghanistan. It’s a bit convenient to assume now that the entire Mujahadeen was filled with future Al Qaeda. That said, the real crime was not in supporting the Mujahadeen but in failing to follow up Najibullah’s (Afghan Communist) ouster with support for stability. It was the 1989-1996 era that led to the Taliban and AQ’s rise within Afghanistan, not the resistance between 1984-1989. By abandoning Afghanistan to civil war, we helped create the environment for the Taliban. I worry that we are doing that again in Afghanistan.
Where do I begin:
1945: Not “Allow” the Soviets to occupy Eastern Europe
1946: Extended the Marshall Plan to Korea, China, and the rest of Eastern Europe. Work with Ho-Chi-Minh who was at the time an ally instead of drop support of the region in which the Soviets gladly supplied the man with aid.
1948: Find some other way to establish Israel or a Joint Palestinian state WITHOUT kicking those living there out. I’m sure there would’ve been a way to figure this one out.
1950s: Stop support of the Batista Dictatorship in Cuba, Support someone OTHER than the Shah of Iran who wouldn’t've used dictatorship to rule and be Pro-American at the same time. Direct opposition to the Right-Wing dictatorship in Argentina (where a lot of ex-Nazis ended up).
1960s: Vietnam wouldn’t've really happened if we took steps right after WWII to prevent it.
1970s: During the Energy Crisis, develop alternative energy to the fullest like Brazil did. Introduce fuel-efficiency into daily life and make it stick. Just because Allende in Chile (after he was freely elected) leaned a little to the left doesn’t mean install a Right-Wing dictatorship in that country.
1980s/1990s: Keep the domestic manufacturing base instead of sending it out to all the rest of the world. We wouldn’t have $1 trillion on our Bank of China credit card if we kept it all here.
That’s what I can think of right now. I’ll add more later when I think of it.
z”Liberal Hawk- It was narrow in the sense that all our resources and intelligence was focussed on ending the Cold War. When it ended we did not have an effective means of dealing with a totally new kind of enemy. That has greatly hindered our efforts in this conflict. ”
Er, during the cold war we advanced international free trade, fought the war on poverty, etc, etc. I daresay not all our resources were focused on the CW. Im not privy to our intell spending, but i suspect at least some of it was spent on threats other than the USSR.
“Short-sighted in this sense- we supported many right-wing dictators if they were anti-Communist, without thinking of the long-term consequences. We supported the Shah in Iran, then had to face the anti-American sentiment that flowed out of that country after the revolution. ”
We engaged in both shortsighted and long sighted policies (like the Marshall Plan). Thats human nature.
“I am not judging these efforts as bad or good-just stating that for every action there is a reaction, and since we are in such a bind internationally now, I find it worth looking back at the reasons for it.”
My sense, again, is that Islamic radicalism had deeper roots than that – the deobandi – salafi approach to dealing with modernity, and the failure of secular arab (and, Pakistani) nationalism.
Whose foreign policy was to blame for the sacking of Medina? Whose foreign policy was to blame for the militarized dawah given to Persia? What about Byzantine?
“We may have been wrong or shortsighted in arming the muhjahdeen, but that is because we only seem able to focus on one foreign policy goal at a time.”
Nonsense. The Mujahideen armed during the 1970s and 1980s (it started under Carter people) are not the mufsidun of today. Many of the old Mujahideen live in Egypt and Britain and speak out against OBL and others of his ilk.
Some Muslims feel the West is in a war against Islam, and it’s not Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s a global economy because the M.E. is so riddles with conspiracy theory talk there is a fairly widespread belief the introduction of Coca-Cola is a prelude to war and U.S. domination in the region. Is it the U.S. foreign policy to push soda upon others?
Liberal Hawk- I meant our intelligence resources that were used to determine foreign policy- sorry if I did not make that clear.
Those may not be the only factors leading to what we are facing today, but they are major ones. I’m not sure how many of the decisions we made could have been avoided, but its interesting to think about.
Since you mention the Marshall Plan and its successful implementation in Europe, I will say that it laid the groundwork for our strong alliances with Europe through the second half of the 20th century, and should have been used as the model in rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.
Instead, many of the funds were lacking, many projects (such as planned health clinics for Iraqis) were not completed, and many contractors were guily of fraud. There was little accountability or efficiency as with much of Bush’s initiatives. I believe there will be another type of consequence we will have to deal with for these failures.
If you support a brutal dictator whatever his claimed ideology and when the people who know that you supported him can finally vote someone else into power why be surprised that it’s someone who hates you?
And Kim is completely correct about the failure of follow through with reconstruction. It’s a basic part of the beliefs of Rumsfeld and Cheney and therefore a policy of the Bush administration that as little as possible should really be done to help rebuild. Lots of talk about it, mind you, but little action. Most of it needs to go to the profit margins of American businessmen who will pay back the Republicans with fund raising after all.
C Prez.
With certainty the United States should have and could have done things differently as time progressed. However you certainly seem to be saying that the United States deserved 9/11 as we were simply reaping what we were sowing. No country deserves to have it’s population be a victim of terrorism. Europe and other parts of the world have faced terrorism much longer than we have, they certainly did not and do not deserve it either.
You list some things that are quite right – of course some people excel in monday morning quarterbacking. And indeed much of what you are saying would be considered as forcing America’s will on other countries – more so than we are currently accused of doing.
Interested- I don’t think anyone here believes we deserved 9/11. I think C Prez was trying to show the root cause of the some of the anger that has built up against the U.S., and that our actions abroad don’t always match the democratic values we espouse at home. I get tired of the argument that anyone who has the temerity to suggest we should have done something differently believes in blaming America first, and that we deserve whatever the terrorists choose to do to us.
How do you see what C. Prez suggested as forcing America’s will on others -more so than we are doing now?
Kim,
Did you read what he put? When I asked.
He answered, starting with.
It’s not the first time I’ve gotten this impression from C. Prez. You don’t have to like it, but he’s giving the impression.
To answer your second question. Doing any of the items he mentioned would have increased our presence and involvement in those countries – perhaps not VN, but then again perhaps so. And all would have forced America’s will on others.
I get tired of people thinking the US has done more wrong in the world than right. Just sit back and imagine a world without the US, Not just today, go back in time. Each and every time the US went into isolationist mode it neither helped the US nor the world.
No we’re not the answer to the worlds problems, but we are also not the cause of the problem all of the time. Throughout time our elected officials did what they thought was right at the time. All some like to do is Monday morning quarterback what happened years, decades, half centuries ago. When given the time and place and the world’s dynamics – it was the right choice then.
Yeah we have a lot of smears on our nations history, we also have a lot of bright spots. As a sum of all of our actions from the time this nation was born, we tip to the side of doing good. Does anyone doubt what the Soviet Union would have been like as the only superpower?
Well the Marshall Plan was definitely a bright spot, as was our entry into both world wars to help our European allies. We have given a lot of foreign aid, and helped to free Eastern Europe in the ’80′s. Clinton tried to help in the Balkans out of a purely humanitarian motivation.
But, I don’t see our policies now in the same light. We are well-intentioned- but idealistic and naive if we think we can remake the ME into a democratic region. Those values are not compatible with a lot of their religion, which is why so many have radicalized and are fighting it so hard. I want to believe that we are doing the right thing for the right reason, but right now I can’t.
I agree, and what your saying is correct. Except I do think that we are doing the right thing for the right reason.
But we’re going about it the wrong way. Maybe better to say right reason with the right intentions but the wrong thing. One thing we have been supremely guilty of in the past is thinking the world wants our style of democracy and our American Dream. That works for us, and obviously we’re not such a bad place with our immigration problem.
And to a large extent, it was relatively close in the cold war era. I saw the Berlin wall, walked a length reading what everyone wrote. I toured the museum dedicated to how people escaped. Wanting out of such a terrible situation not of their own doing. And right now Germany has a great Democracy, they are free. But on their own terms and own wishes.
Maybe we thought they did because the world seemed to like our jeans and our rock and roll. Freedom is part of the human spirit, but freedom does not equal the American dream or the American sense of values.
But we are far from the major source of the worlds historical and total problems.
All that is very much right.
Hear, hear, interested. Great post.
Interested-
One thing we have been supremely guilty of in
the past is thinking the world wants our style
democracy and our American dream…
Isn’t that still what we think? Or think the world should want it or would want it if they tried it? I happen to think its the greatest type of government in the world-but it is threatening to the values and culture of fundamentalist muslims. They don’t want our democracy with its corresponding freedoms any more than we want to kneel down 7 times a day and pray towards Mecca. Their religion is the most important aspect of their lives and they believe our system threatens it. They believe Islam is the morally superior religion to Christianity or Judaism, and believe that women were created on an unequal level by God than men. Yes, it is barbaric to us, but thats the culture clash.
And I’m not blaming all of the problems of the world on America- we’ve done many things right, others in our own self-interest like other countries. But we are facing a lot of anger from the ME from the result of previous policies and the anger has boiled over there and in South America. Even Bush admits that,which is why he and Wolfowitz decided to “spread democracy” in the first place.
If it is so urgent that we win over there, we will have to rely on a political solution and an economic one. The military has already told us that they can’t provide a permanent win. The political solution involves power-sharing and sharing oil revenues, as well as dismantling the militias that have infiltrated the army and police. If Maliki is reluctant to do this, as he has been, the military is wasting its time. Economically, reconstruction efforts have slowed and funds are being cut by Bush. Many needed projects remain unfinished (health clinics for Iraqis), electricity is at an unsatisfactory level, there is a lack of clean water, and oil production is down from pre-war levels. If we are to win and if we are really there to help the Iraqi people, these goals are vital. All the military can do is keep the country from falling into civil war in the meantime.
I wonder with all this verbiage what are we getting at. Let us come down to the brasstacks. The world would have respected, admired and obeyed the USA if the US administration had come out with flying colours against what it has been describing as terrorism in the past three years.
Now in the absence of any decisive victory, it is fumbling for words…the leaders are muttering in total confusion and the public response is no better. We now seem faced with the prospect of an unending war, turmoil and violence. No sensible citizen of any country wants this.
Here was the golden chance for the sole super power to parade its power, its value system, its belief in democratic lifestyle and so on. It all went phut…totally ineffective. And in its place the world is being treated to nothing but words, words and more words!!!