Excuse after excuse

Why ask why?
Victor David Hanson

[quote]Excuse after excuse
By Victor Davis Hanson, August 19, 2006

What makes two-dozen British Muslims want to blow up thousands of innocent passengers on jumbo jets? Why does al Qaeda plan hourly to kill civilians? And why does oil-rich Iran wish to “wipe out” Israel? In short, it’s the old blame game, one that over the last century has taken multiple forms.
Once, a tired whine of Islamists was that European colonialists and American oilmen rigged global commerce to “rob” the Middle East of its natural wealth. But they were pretty quiet when the price of crude oil jumped from around an expensive $25 a barrel to an exorbitant $75.
Recently, oil exporters of the Middle East have taken in around an extra $500 billion each year in windfall profits beyond the old lucrative income. It is one of the largest, most sudden – and least remarked upon – transfers of capital in history.
Another old excuse for Islamist anger was the claim the West had favored autocrats – the shah, the House of Saud, the Kuwaiti royal family – in a cynical desire for cheap gas and to prop up strong anti-communist allies.
Some of that complaint was certainly accurate. But since September 11, 2001, America has ensured democracy in Afghanistan, spent billions and more than 2,600 lives fostering freedom in Iraq, pressured Syria to leave Lebanon, and lectured long-time allies in Egypt and the Gulf to reform. For all this, we are now considered crude interventionists, even when our efforts may well pave the way for radical Muslims to gain legitimacy through plebiscites.
Islamists have and continue today to gripe about Western infidels encroaching on Muslim lands. Osama bin Laden attacked because of American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, or so he said. Hamas and Hezbollah resorted to terror to free Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank, or so they said.
Yet, nothing much has changed since the United States pulled its combat troops out of Saudi Arabia, or after the Israelis departed Gaza and Lebanon, and announced planned withdrawals from parts of the West Bank. Meanwhile, the elected Iraqi government wants American soldiers to stay longer (while the latest polls suggest the American public doesn’t agree).
Then there is moaning that the West treats its Muslim immigrants unfairly, despite evidence to the contrary. After all, Muslims build mosques and madrassas all over Europe and the United States; yet Christians cannot worship in Saudi Arabia or have missionaries in Iran. Western residents or immigrants in most Arab nations would not dare demonstrate on behalf of Israel. But in Michigan last week, largely Arab-American crowds chanted “Hezbollah” – despite that terrorist organization’s long history of murdering Americans.
Another Islamist grumble is that the West supports only Israel. Again, that’s hardly true. The Europeans gave plenty of aid to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas, and their hostility to Israel is well-established. The United States make no bones about aiding Israel, but it also has given tremendous amounts of money to the Palestinians, Egypt ($50 billion so far) and Jordan. And without the United States, Kuwait would be the 19th province of Iraq, the Taliban would rule Afghanistan, Saddam and his sons would still slaughter Kurds and there might not be any Muslims left at all in Kosovo or Bosnia.
The one thing, however, that the United States cannot do to please Islamists is change its liberal character and traditions of Western tolerance. And isn’t that the real story behind all these perceived grievances and phantom hurts: the intrusive dynamism of freewheeling Western, and particularly American, culture?
Both its low form of girly magazines and punk rock as well as its impressive literature, art, commerce and technology now saturate the world. And why not? American radical individualism appeals to the innate human desire for freedom and unbridled expression. Westernization subverts most hierarchs, especially in the reactionary world of Islamic fundamentalism, where the mullah, family patriarch or state autocrat can’t keep a lid on it. Instant communications have also brought to a socially insecure Middle East firsthand views of how much wealthier, freer and more tolerant the outside world is when democratic and transparent.
But instead of providing a blueprint for reform, these revelations only incite envy and anger from millions who are advised that parity with the West is found instead by retreating further into seventh-century religious purity.
So never mind the trillions in petrodollars, billions in aid and concessions. Unless we change our very character, or the Middle East achieves success and confidence through Western-style democracy and economic reform, expect more tired scapegoating and violence from radical discontents, from Lebanon to London – and well beyond.
washtimes.com/commentary/200 … -7323r.htm[/quote]

Well, there’s just no choice if they refuse to see how wonderful and peace-loving we are. We’ll just have to just keep bombing them back in time twenty years at a time until they “get it.”

Next up for love bombs: Iran.

TC, I’ll see your ivory tower antiquarian and raise you a CIA expert with first-hand knowledge of the Middle East and Islamic terrorism:

"The man who once headed the Central Intelligence Agency unit tracking Osama bin Laden says the United States needs to develop a sharper understanding of the terrorist leader and his appeal in the Islamic world. Michael Scheuer, who resigned from the spy agency last Friday (Nov. 12th, 2004), talked to VOA correspondent Gary Thomas, who files this report.

Osama bin Laden is usually portrayed in official U.S. pronouncements as a mad terrorist bent on attacking the United States out of hatred for American values of freedom and democracy.

But Michael Scheuer - who spent much of his 22-year career at the CIA tracking bin Laden - says such characterizations do little to fostering a true understanding of the terrorist leader.

“Any individual who continues to tell the American people that Osama bin Laden is simply a more lethal than usual gangster, or that he only represents the lunatic fringe of the Muslim world, or that this war has nothing to do with religion - as long as they keep spouting that sort of analysis, they will be giving the American people the wrong idea.”

In a lengthy VOA interview, Mr. Scheuer says the reality of bin Laden is far more complex. Bin Laden’s grudge, says the former CIA analyst, is not with the American lifestyle, but with official U.S. policies.

“Bin Laden dislikes our society, without question. But his power, and his genius, if you will, comes from focusing on a specific set of United States policies that are widely viewed as antithetical to Muslim interests across the world.”

Mr. Scheuer says bin Laden and his followers are angry over U.S. support for both Israel and autocratic governments in the Arab world. Understanding that motivation, he says, is key to defeating al-Qaida and its allies."
Voice of America (VOA) News Report

If Islamists truly “hate us for our freedom”, why do our governments keep reducing our freedoms whenever there’s a new Islamic terrorist plot? Isn’t that giving the Islamists what they want? SHouldn;t we be expanding our freedoms?

Now we have wiretapping without warrants, people being held without charge or trial at Guantanamo, torture of prisoners, free speech being limited, etc. Meanwhile, as everyone is distracted, abortion rights are under serious threat and laws opposing equal marriage rights are being added to the books.

Shoe bomber - now we check shoes in airports (as if the next terrorist is going to use the same trick).
Liquid bombers - now we forbid liquids (as if the next terrorist is going to use the same trick.)
I can’t wait for the underwear bomber to be found. I sure look forward to flying naked!

Paranoia and fear are everywhere! Freedom is disappearing! The terrorists have won, and Bush is their best buddy.

I can find an “expert with personal experience” to counterbalance your " expert with personal experience" on ANY subject. Who’s right? Try thinking instead of blindly following. Or is that too hard?

Dealing with any complicated problem is a two-step process. Get the facts first from true experts in the field (not Curveball or ancient history professors) and then think about what they’ve had to say and make your best decision.

Formulating your theories first and then seeking out “experts” to validate them and ignoring the true experts in the field is simply the flawed process which has gotten us into such a mess in Iraq.

"In a career spanning three decades, (Milt) Bearden headed the CIA’s Soviet and Eastern Europe Division, and served as station chief in places like Pakistan and Sudan. He also ran the CIA’s covert war in Afghanistan from 1986-1989. . .

"The U.S. used to have the red flag. In every other conflict, it would go for a while, and if we waved the red flag, I guarantee you, the thing stopped.

But now we’re the ones that are in lockstep [with Israel] … and this is not even good for Israel. It must come as a shock to the cooler heads in Israel that we weren’t there as some sort of restraint. . . . if you step back and look at a larger piece of the Middle East, the Iranians must wake up every morning and say, “What’s the catch?”

Think about it. They’ve got a Shia south of Iraq. They’ve got the Shia that could emerge as the dominant force in Lebanon. They’ve got the Americans bogged down forever doing the Shias’ heavy lifting in the Sunni areas of Iraq. Kurdistan is independent already in [northern Iraq]. And we’ve got ourselves a narco-state war in Afghanistan that goes on without end. What would you say? You’d say, “What’s the catch?” . . .

I think we’ve probably given up any possible role as honest broker, even though there’s no one to replace us … The concept of a tsunami of democracy (in the Middle East) is done for. I think that’s ended, particularly when the world realizes that the first two democratically elected entities — Hamas and Hezbollah — that we have been providing the weaponry to take them down.

The push for democracy in countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia is off the table now. They can say, ‘look, we have our own problems just like you see in Lebanon, and we can’t let [Islamic parties] win an election because we’d have the same thing that’s happened there, or happened in Gaza, and you know how bad that is, so give us a little slack here.’"

[color=blue]Gallup World Poll probes for the real reasons why the world’s one-billion Muslims believe they’re at war with the U.S. and its allies:
[/color]
"It’s the Policy, Stupid: Political Islam and US Foreign Policy

. . . As Islamist parties continue to rise in prominence across the globe, it is necessary that policymakers learn to make distinctions and adopt differentiated policy approaches. This requires a deeper understanding of what motivates and informs Islamist parties and the support they receive, including the ways in which some US policies feed the more radical and extreme Islamist movements while weakening the appeal of the moderate organizations to Muslim populations. It also requires the political will to adopt approaches of engagement and dialogue. This is especially important where the roots of political Islam go deeper than simple anti-Americanism and where political Islam is manifested in non-violent and democratic ways. The stunning electoral victories of HAMAS in Palestine and the Shi’a in Iraq, the Muslim Brotherhood’s emergence as the leading parliamentary opposition in Egypt, and Israel’s war against HAMAS and Hizbollah go to the heart of issues of democracy, terrorism, and peace in the Middle East. . . .

The majority of Muslims around the world view the Bush administration’s supposed effort to bring democracy to Iraq as a cover-up for the failed US-led invasion, one of the many reasons why many Muslims have lost trust in the United States.

In relations between the West and the Muslim world, phrases like a clash of civilizations or a clash of cultures recur as does the charge that Islam is incompatible with democracy or that it is a particularly militant religion. But is the primary issue religion and culture or is it politics? Is the primary cause of radicalism and anti-Westernism, especially anti-Americanism, extremist theology or simply the policies of many Muslim and Western governments?

A new Gallup World Study overwhelmingly suggests the latter. The poll, whose results are released for the first time in this article, now enables us to get beyond conflicting analyses of experts and selective voices from the “Arab street.” It lets us listen to one billion Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia. And they tell us that US policies, not values, are behind the ire of the Arab/Muslim world.

Why Do They Hate Us?

Is there a blind hatred of the United States? The question “Why do they hate us?” raised in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 looms large following continued terrorist attacks and the dramatic growth of anti-Americanism. A common answer provided by some politicians and experts has been, “They hate our way of life, our freedom, democracy, and success.” Considering the broad based anti-Americanism, not only among extremists but also among a significant mainstream majority in the Muslim world (and indeed in many other parts of the world), this answer is not satisfactory. Although the Muslim world expresses many common grievances, do extremists and moderates differ in attitudes about the West?

From North Africa to Southeast Asia, the Gallup World Poll indicates an overwhelming majority of people (91-95 percent) do not believe that the United States is trustworthy, friendly, or treats other countries respectfully, nor that it cares about human rights in other countries (80 percent). Outside of Iraq, over 90 percent of Muslims agreed that the invasion of Iraq has done more harm than good. . . . "

Outside or Iraq, eh? Wonder why the exception here.

I also wonder how popular the Islamists are in Algeria, Afghanistan, Iran and elsewhere where wars have already been fought.

I really think it depends on how these questions are phrased and in what context they are asked.

At the end of the day, however, you can take as many polls as you like and it will not change the fact that this is a war worth fighting if you believe in democracy and basic human rights and tolerance. Would we have bothered to poll Germans in World War II for their views about the US and its actions? I see no reason why we should do the same here.

Again, North Africa has quieted amazingly since the focus has moved to Iraq. The wars are being fought in the immediate vicinity: Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon and the reasons for this are because Iran is the nexus of all this activity.

One final comment about the poll: Shall we ask what the view of the Russians is among Arabs and Muslims because of their incredible brutality in Afghanistan (invasion) and Chechnya? It would be an interesting comparison. If there is a higher rate of popularity than I think that it would indicate that the US would be best to dispense with elaborate efforts to protect civilian populations from violence since not only do such actions not receive respect but they seem to result in even lower popularity. Bring on the barbarity of the Russian actions and it will actually help us make friends?

So now when it’s convenient for you, democracy and basic human rights are back at the top of the list.

In Afghanistan, it’s about toppling Taliban, so let’s ignore the druglords.

In Columbia, it’s all about the narcowar, so let’s spend billions helping out the government and the paramilitaries.

Back in SE Asia, let’s hook up with folks in the Golden Triangle to help fight the N.Viets. Let’s support the abominable Khmer Rouge, because they are no friends of the Viet. But hey, let’s conveniently put aside their genocide for the moment, because this is a war worth fighting for if you believe in hating the Vietnamese.

What are you talking about?

No it is not about ignoring the drug lords but realizing that even if they return, it is still better to have the Taliban gone and Afghanistan denied as a sanctuary to al Qaeda.

That is ColOmbia. No, it is not all about the narcowar. But that does come into play. Have you never had to weigh conflicting priorities EVER in your life? This kind of naivete may strike one as earnest concern for human rights in the Bay Area but in the real world, the choices are sometimes between bad worse and worst. I don’t think that you understand that. We also cooperated with Stalin against Hitler. How do you feel about that? outraged? Smirk!

Khmer Rouge? My understanding is that their primary benefactor was China. Oops! Wrong answer! Back to the kiddie pool. Damn I miss MFGR. Where the hell is he?

Look before you leap:

The CGDK (The Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea) formed in 1982 to drive the Vietnamese out of Cambodia after they had deposed the Khmer Rouge government included the Khmer Rouge army, which was its most effective fighting force, and one of its most infamous former leaders, Khieu Samphan.

The CGDK received significant overt and covert aid from the U.S. with the aim of resisting the spread of communism in SE Asia.

Though its aim – resisting the spread of totalitarianism – was honorable it was a pact with the devil nonetheless which can’t be denied.

Fred Smith:[quote]Khmer Rouge? My understanding is that their [color=red]primary[/color] benefactor was China.[/quote]

Good advice…

[quote]The CGDK (The Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea) formed in 1982 to drive the Vietnamese out of Cambodia after they had deposed the Khmer Rouge government included the Khmer Rouge army, which was its most effective fighting force, and one of its most infamous former leaders, Khieu Samphan.

The CGDK received significant overt and covert aid from the U.S. with the aim of resisting the spread of communism in SE Asia.

Though its aim – resisting the spread of totalitarianism – was honorable it was a pact with the devil nonetheless which can’t be denied.[/quote]

I said the Khmer Rouge not the CGDK AND I note that the US provided, what is substantial by the way? support after the Killing Fields. The main supporter was China. I see no reason why the US should offer support once a nation and its government starts moving in the right direction. Perhaps, that support helped the CGDK move toward a more pluralistic society and ultimately led to the elections that were held in 1994? Just a thought.

[quote=“spook”]Look before you leap:

The CGDK (The Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea) formed in 1982 to drive the Vietnamese out of Cambodia after they had deposed the Khmer Rouge government included the Khmer Rouge army, which was its most effective fighting force, and one of its most infamous former leaders, Khieu Samphan.

The CGDK received significant overt and covert aid from the U.S. with the aim of resisting the spread of communism in SE Asia.

Though its aim – resisting the spread of totalitarianism – was honorable it was a pact with the devil nonetheless which can’t be denied.[/quote]
I can hear the argument already: “it was the lesser of the two evils” (or something to that extent …)

Good advice…

[quote]The CGDK (The Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea) formed in 1982 to drive the Vietnamese out of Cambodia after they had deposed the Khmer Rouge government included the Khmer Rouge army, which was its most effective fighting force, and one of its most infamous former leaders, Khieu Samphan.

The CGDK received significant overt and covert aid from the U.S. with the aim of resisting the spread of communism in SE Asia.

Though its aim – resisting the spread of totalitarianism – was honorable it was a pact with the devil nonetheless which can’t be denied.[/quote]

I said the Khmer Rouge not the CGDK AND I note that the US provided, what is substantial by the way? support after the Killing Fields. The main supporter was China. I see no reason why the US should offer support once a nation and its government starts moving in the right direction. Perhaps, that support helped the CGDK move toward a more pluralistic society and ultimately led to the elections that were held in 1994? Just a thought.[/quote]

The CGDK was effectively a front for the Khmer Rouge, which the U.S. urged be included because the fighting forces of the CGDK itself had all but been wiped out by the Vietnamese.

A policy of choosing the lesser of two evils is understandable and even supportable at times but having anything to do with the Khmer Rouge for any reason after the genocide they had perpetrated is just wrong.

Wrong as usual.

Also, I would really like to know who and how Rascal was raised to such an exalted level of moral arbiter. First of all, Germans have plenty of their own little problems historically to deal with don’t you think? Second, what exactly do nations such as Germany do about these problems? Today, Cambodia is far more stable. Who should be given credit for this? Communists? Khmer Rouge? China? Russia? Vietnam? or nations led by the US? Think about it and stop posturing. Was Germany a key nation in getting a peaceful settlement for Cambodia? How much has it given in terms of money or peace-keeping troops to said nation?

The US is frequently blamed for “extending” the war to Cambodia but Viet Cong guerillas were already there. When the US left Vietnam, these forces put their preferred method of government and economic structure into effect. Look at the results. Then, ponder back to all the massive protests in Germany and elsewhere in Europe against the US involvement in Indochina and ask yourself if these “well-meaning” individuals were not partly to blame for the subsequent disaster that befell Indochina. I mean the US pulled out as they demanded and look what happened. They demonstrated to get this to happen. Is the subsequent disaster something that we can morally lay at these protesters’ feet? I think we can and more importantly I should. Posturing idiots go running amok but they never are there to own their “mistakes,” eh?

There were no Viet Cong guerillas in Cambodia. They were North Vietnamese regulars.

The fact is that the NVA ended the “killing fields” spree of the Khmer Rouge in 1979, which makes the Vietnamese takeover of Cambodia truly the lesser of two evils.

Spook:

This is the quote that you provided

Yes, the Khmer Rouge army is included but only one of its leaders. That surely makes a very big difference. AND why isn’t anyone complaining about the fact that China supported and funded the Khmer Rouge especially given that this support was occuring right during the Killing Fields. And where were the Western protesters marching in the streets then? Hmmm?

Also, remember that after WWII we also cooperated with many of Germany’s high-ranking officials including Nazis to counter the Soviets. Was that wrong too?

The US urged China to support the Khmer Rouge, because they themselves couldn’t openly support it. This is acknowledged by the American admin (I want to say Brgznieski or however you spell his name).

They gave food aid thru Thailand when the KR was pushed to the brink by the Viet and consequently help rehabilitate them. As one official noted, what the KR no longer needed to spend on food, etc., they can spend on arms.

[quote]The US urged China to support the Khmer Rouge, because they themselves couldn’t openly support it. This is acknowledged by the American admin (I want to say Brgznieski or however you spell his name).

They gave food aid through Thailand when the KR was pushed to the brink by the Viet and consequently help rehabilitate them. As one official noted, what the KR no longer needed to spend on food, etc., they can spend on arms.[/quote]

Yeah? Well, let’s have a link on this first and then we will talk.

[quote=“fred smith”][quote]The US urged China to support the Khmer Rouge, because they themselves couldn’t openly support it. This is acknowledged by the American admin (I want to say Brgznieski or however you spell his name).

They gave food aid through Thailand when the KR was pushed to the brink by the Viet and consequently help rehabilitate them. As one official noted, what the KR no longer needed to spend on food, etc., they can spend on arms.[/quote]

Yeah? Well, let’s have a link on this first and then we will talk.[/quote]

you mean like your link on your “understanding” of the world?