This really seems to be the difference between liberals and neoconservatives on foreign policy, doesn't it? Neocons envision a near-static population of terrorists, and prescribe an aggressive policy of killing them in order to rid the world of terrorism. Liberals see a dynamic population of terrorists and prescribe broad policies meant to blunt their popular appeal and deprive them of public support. Neocons looks at the liberal prescription and say, essentially, "you're not killing enough of them." And liberals look at the Neocons and, aghast, say, "stop making so many more."Ezra may be right about the differences between neocons and liberals. But are either the neocons or the liberals actually right?
It occurs to me that both may be wrong. To me, terrorism seems to be the product of economic conditions (oil deposits in Arab nations that kept them from modernizing, leading to rampant discontent), demographic conditions (a big birth cohort of sexually frustrated young Arab men in increasingly urban environments), and the legacy of the Cold War (which created the Taliban, encouraged Saudi extremism, etc.). Terrorism is only one part of an inferno of violence that has consumed the Arab world - and Muslim countries like Pakistan that have strong financial ties to the Arab world - for the last three decades.
So I also believe that the Arab/Muslim hurricane will blow itself out naturally over time - just like the anarchist movement in Europe or the "angry leftist kid" movement in mid-century America. Young Arab men will realize that life is a lot better when you stop spending your time plotting your own violent death and start spending it asking girls for their numbers. The populations of Muslim countries will realize that most victims of Muslim violence are themselves Muslim. And then terrorism will start disappearing, and fundamentalist Islam will gradually give way to more moderate interpretations.
I believe there's a social niche for terrorists in Arab societies, and that that niche is shrinking steadily, and will continue to shrink more or less regardless of United States policy. So I think the neocons are wrong to think we can kill the terrorists, because more will just flow into the niche to take their place (though it would help to kill the really skilled ones in Afghanistan and Pakistan). And I think the liberals are wrong to think we're producing more terrorists by staying in Iraq; if "they" hated us when we sacrificed our lives to protect Muslims in Somalia and Bosnia and Kosovo, and when we stood up for Muslims in Chechnya and brought them aid in Indonesia, then they'll hate us if and when we withdraw from Iraq.
Which is not to say the Iraq war is fine and dandy. It's bankrupted our government, killed thousands of our troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and destroyed American prestige, all for absolutely zero gain. But one thing I do not believe it has done is increase the total number of Muslim terrorists.
Addendum: I posted this idea as a comment on Klein's blog, and another commenter argued that America's actions help to preserve the Arab/Muslim political status quo that generates terrorists. Good point. If we're talking about U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, or (more arguably) support for Musharraf in Pakistan, I think it's clear that we do perpetuate the status quo and thus help foment terrorism. In the case of Saudi Arabia, though, it's pretty obvious that their vast oil reserves, not U.S. support, are the reason for the regime's stability. We'll see if the Iraq war turns Iraq into a new source of anti-U.S. terrorism - if that happens, my whole argument is bullshit. But I suspect the Iraq war will do as much to hasten the end of terrorism as delay it - by showing Muslims that violence in the name of Islam is just inevitably going to turn into Muslim-on-Muslim violence. Anyway, we'll see.
0 comments:
Post a Comment