|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
How to Reduce Terrorism: Bring American Troops Home, by Thomas Gale | from Joe H - Wednesday, March 12, 2003
accessed 1612 times I challenged a few people to tell me why so many people in foreign countries hate the USA, some so much that they are willing to die to inflict even a tiny bit of damage on it. No one seemed able or willing to provide an answer that went beyond pithy remarks and recited slogans, so I decided to answer my own question. But I chose to find someone much more intelligent and reknowned than myself, who shares my views on the subject to argue with all of you. His name is Thomas Gale Moore, a prolific author, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution. The following are excerpts from a speech he gave at a conference titled, "Understanding America`s Terrorist Crisis: What should be done?" and hosted by Gore Vidal. (an author, not a shampoo manufacturer)
In his September address to Congress, President Bush declared: Our war on terror begins with Al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
Our desire for revenge is natural, but the president’s end cannot be achieved. We are the strongest power the world has ever seen, not only in absolute terms but also relative to the rest of the globe. Our overwhelming success in the Persian Gulf War, with only 148 American deaths, our victory in Kosovo without any fatalities, and our conquering of Afghanistan with only a handful of casualties have given the impression that our military is invincible.
But our military, no matter how invincible, cannot eliminate the suicide bomber, the terrorist who will die for his cause. As long as people hate us, we will always be vulnerable.
While we cannot eliminate terrorism, we can reduce its frequency and violence. We should consider its roots. If we understand why people hate us and are willing to die to attack us, it does not mean we are justifying their actions. If our policies are leading to more terrorism, however, we should understand that.
Osama bin Laden has told us why he is attacking us: because we have troops in the "holy" territory of Saudi Arabia. In his first tape after Sept. 11 he promised: "I swear to God that America will not live in peace before all the army of infidels depart the land of the prophet Muhammad." Not only does he feel this way, but so do many millions in the Islamic world.
Wherever we have bases, the local population resents those troops. American troops abroad furnish both a motivation for terrorism and a target. If we brought our men and women home, would we be safer or less safe? The answer is clear: We would reduce the motivation to attack us. Americans would be seen more as we think we are, peaceful people who wish good things for the world.
Even before Sept. 11, more than 60,000 U.S. troops were operating in more than 100 countries. No wonder people consider America an imperial power.
If we also reduced our unseemly favoritism for Israel by taking a more neutral stance, our credibility in the world and especially in the Arab countries would increase immensely. That too would help reduce the hatred that many feel toward the United States.
President Bush explained to Congress why the terrorists hate America. He said: "They hate what we see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
The President is wrong. According to a Zogby International Poll released on April 11, a majority of people in the five Arab countries and three non-Arab Muslim states view our freedom and our democracy with favor.
But overwhelmingly, they disapprove of our policies toward Arab nations and the Palestinians. Kuwait, for example, which we rescued from Iraq, liked our freedom and democracy by 58 percent to 39 percent, but only 6 percent viewed our policies favorably and a huge 88 percent disapproved of our policies in the Middle East.
Other Muslim countries had almost identical views. And this poll was taken before Israel sent its military into the West Bank!
Finally, attacking Iraq or any other Middle Eastern country will only increase the number of terrorists who will seek to get revenge. Let us reduce terrorism, not increase it. The policies currently being followed and those being talked about will only produce more 9/11s. Security cannot come from violence.
We should follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice from his first inaugural: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Dani
Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 17:46
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Blame it on the film industry, some people believe that American's live similarly to the was lifestyles are shown in films.
(reply to this comment)
| from Regi
Friday, March 14, 2003 - 09:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Joe, I just read a article that I thought was excellent. It is called "The Unloved American" in the latest New Yorker (March 10). It covers two centuries of the fundamental reasons for the negative view of Americans abroad. I thought you might be interested.
The author, Simon Schama, concludes with a quote by Mrs. Trollope. "If the citizens of the United States were indeed the devoted patriots they call themselves, they would surely not thus encrust themselves in the hard, dry, stubborn persuasion, that they are the first and best of the human race, that nothing is is to be learnt, but what they are able to teach, and that nothing is worthing having, which they do not possess."
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from PompousJohn
Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 09:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you say "yes" every single time you will probably never be raped.
If you have no worldly possessions you will probably never be robbed.
Of course we will have fewer problems with terrorists if we give in to their demands.
"I swear to God that America will not live in peace before all the army of infidels depart the land of the prophet Muhammad." Not only does he feel this way, but so do many millions in the Islamic world.
I think many millions in the Islamic would shoot Mr. Moore on sight for suggesting that they have sympathies for Osama Bin Ladin.
What other lands will the “prophet” claim next? The Islamic world, wasn’t always Islamic, it was conquered and forcefully converted by Muslims from other places. If it’s the troops they object to, they should fight the troops. If there is a burglar in my house, I’ll deal with the burglar, not run out and shoot his sister. Sure she’s an easier target, but she’s not the problem.
Where there are US military bases abroad there is usually some agreement with the local government, the fact is Osama doesn’t represent any government anywhere, and if the Islamic peoples and their interests are so poorly represented by their leaders and Osama could do so much better a job let them depose their leaders and appoint him. We all know they would if they wanted to, but they don’t so what we really have on our hands is a small group of people wanting to speak for everybody without “everybody’s” consent.
What most rational Muslims will quickly tell you is that what the fundamentalist extremists (terrorist material) are ranting about is not what the Muslim people as a whole want. They are a dangerous, ignorant and extreme minority like the skinheads in the US, and do not represent the interests of the Muslim people.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | |  From PompousJohn
Thursday, March 13, 2003, 16:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
What if staying out of Middle Eastern affairs meant not buying any more crude oil?
What if it meant leaving the Middle East to the Axis in WWII?
What if it meant leaving Afghanistan to the Soviets in the 80's?
What if we had continued to let the "Christian" Serbs rape and murder "Muslim" Croats in former Yugoslavia?
Where were the prophet's holy warriors then? Why is there no footage of Bin Ladin running through the woods of Yugoslavia bravely defending "God's people" from the infidel? Did he not have cable then or what?
American foreign policy is far from perfect, and I don't have any excuses to offer for most of it, but there are just as many benefiting from it as suffering as a result, Muslims included.
American soldiers are annoying, sure. But as I said before their governments have agreements with ours as far as whether to allow troops within their borders. I imagine this can be a cause for concern in countries where people do not choose their leaders, but our right to choose our leaders was not won cheaply and reforming their governments and making decisions for themselves remains an option.
We live in an age of reason where people who choose to live under the mandates of antiquated religions and superstitions are going to have a rough go of things and get less and less cooperation from the more enlightened corners of the world. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From JoeH
Thursday, March 13, 2003, 15:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm just getting this whole "we're better" viewpoint from you. We all know there are problems in other cultures, but there are problems in US culture too. I prefer to focus on the good aspects and learn to live with the bad, rather than form bizarre blanket statements about how language limits your ability to think and so on. (I'm not defending Arab culture btw) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From mex
Thursday, March 13, 2003, 20:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with most of your views on the sate of Spanish speaking countries what I cant not understand is how you can attribute it to the language, sure the politics, religion and mentality have a lot to do with why things are the way they are, blaming it on the language is absurd.
“To start with it would most likely be a former Spanish colony made up almost entirely by transplanted slaves and their offspring, possibly there would be no separation of church and state and social and legal sanctions might apply to anyone who did not adhere to the Catholic faith. As it is the US population is made up largely by the descendants of people who chose to fight and die rather than serve, who would never be slaves under any threat.”
Most of Latin America cannot claim this heritage.
What you refer to in the above paragraph is the people, politics and religion. And yes we cannot claim that heritage because our countries where founded by completely different mentalities, where the Spaniards came to convert the indigenous people (granted by force and unspeakable brutality). In the USA it was done more efficiently by nearly eliminating all opposition to “the white man” who was not welcome.
This is very concise, but what I am trying to understand is how you blame it on the language.
“All you have to do is look at the condition of Spanish-speaking countries to get an idea of the (non)efficiency of the language and thus the thought processes of those who speak it.”
Please, that is just insulting, do you purport to know the thought process of the whole Spanish speaking populace?
“Spanish speaking countries are famously inefficient, the whole “mañana” thing is not a joke, it’s a reality. It’s not insensitive to say so; it's insensitive to be so inefficient.”
Sadly true, as most of your views on Spanish speaking countries are, and I will speak for my own country, Mexico we are 20-30 years behind in just about everyway compared to 1st world countries, Our politician are corrupt our justice system is a joke healthcare pathetic and religion sad, but attributing this on the language is preposterous. (reply to this comment) |
| | From JoeH
Thursday, March 13, 2003, 16:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well let's talk about "better" Economically, yeah we're the powerhouse. Militarily, hands down. But several countries have a higher standard of living, less crime, and less disease and poverty. Health care's a complete mess in this country. Is our government the best? This is really hard to measure. 77% of Americans express a lack of confidence in the federal government. (http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/usia/usiahome/pdforum/demopeop.pdf) TARGET="_new">http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/usia/usiahome/pdforum/demopeop.pdf">http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/usia/usiahome/pdforum/demopeop.pdf) ; How much freedom do we really have, especially now that Bush has given the police and the FBI a whole lot more power to wire tap and to arrest without warrants?
It's all a sliding scale. You seem to want latinos to work harder, but you're on here posting and chatting quite a bit while you're at work, as am I. A lot of people feel that Americans are too obsessed with work (you and I don't have this "affliction"), and that we should spend more time relaxing with family and friends, partying and getting drunk. A lot of these so called cultural differences are just a matter of euphemisms and degrees: one man's "work-ethic" is another man's "work-aholism", and one man's "laziness" is another man's "zest for life". And then there's the people we call lazy who are just unemployed, the people we call stupid who are really just ignorant, and the people who know full well how to speak English but just don't want to and get by just fine, and the people we call "backward" that others call "old fashioned" (reply to this comment) |
| | From PompousJohn
Thursday, March 13, 2003, 17:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
But several countries have a higher standard of living, less crime, and less disease and poverty.
Which countries? Countries we waged wars with and restructured? Countries that don't have to spend any of their budgets on a military since we defend them?
Suspected criminals have almost unparalleled rights in our country, I am not a proponent of the new homeland security measures, I think the potential for abuse is deplorable, but that's not the point, and besides it is a recent development that may not last long.
Sure health care's a mess, but it's a worse mess in most of Latin America.
I have an American acquaintance here who recently (last year) amputated his leg because of an infection that set in when he was involved in a traffic accident and denied medical treatment by the police because he was found to be in possession of controlled substances at the time of the accident (taken to jail instead of the hospital with a compound fracture). Even when he finally did get to the hospital he was not properly treated or he wouldn't have lost his leg.
My father was in the hospital recently here complaining of chest pain and difficulty breathing and was sent home to rest where he almost died, finally was taken back to the hospital and it was found that a third of one of his lungs had turned to mush (lifelong smoker) and needed to be removed immediately.
And as far as Americans not having confidence in the federal government, Americans don't have confidence in anything, we're not trusting people. We have almost no heroes; nearly none of our leaders can stand up to the scrutiny of the press or revelations from their acquaintances.
Now about work ethic: Getting things done has nothing to do with working hard and long. You either get stuff done or you don't. If you have time left over you bullshit on the internet or whatever floats your boat, who cares as long as the work gets done? Some people get a lot done in a little time, some people never accomplish anything. I don't care how they do it, I just want it done.
“there's the people we call lazy who are just unemployed, the people we call stupid who are really just ignorant”
If you’re really not lazy you’ll find something to do. If you’re really that smart you’ll have a hunger for knowledge that will eliminate your ignorance. There is a good reason why laziness is associated with unemployment and stupidity with ignorance. (reply to this comment) |
| | From K
Wednesday, March 26, 2003, 10:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
wagged wars -reconstructed? Americans have not cleaned up the mess it has made in its wars for oil.Landmines still remain.America is a third world country if you look at the differance between the top and the bottom. Also why do the poorest people pay more taxes than the rich? My frends and I have make an effort to bypass American goods. If i buy chocolate I'd rather it wasn't Cadburys or nestle;fair trade products are more supportive of foriegn countries.I won't miss the Big mac,I may choke on it.Oh and the US wouldnt have gone to war without the U.K, of which im disgusted.As they obviously felt they needed a partner in crime and the skills of the military. Aide in this budgit for Iraq is only 600m-for Isreal 10bn(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]