Why are we still "over there"?
Another compilation of a couple of Glenn Greenwald articles that have caught my eye.
In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force to study something I have been talking about all along - the theory that our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq - as well as our actions at Guantanamo Bay - are actually creating more terrorists than we are "eliminating". I am pleased, if a bit surprised, that Rumsfeld ordered such a study, but I would be even more pleased, and even more surprised, if anyone actually took action based on its findings. (.PDF)
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.
• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.
• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World - but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.
• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self- determination.
• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack - to broad public support.
• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.
I recommend you read the entire lj-cut, but if you do not, here it is summed up:American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists
Another PDF worth reading is a resignation letter from a former Marine Captain who was the the senior U.S. civilian in the Taliban-dominated Southern Afghanistan province of Zabul. One of his points is that most insurgents do not fight for the Taliban, but rather just against foreign soldiers.
In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force to study something I have been talking about all along - the theory that our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq - as well as our actions at Guantanamo Bay - are actually creating more terrorists than we are "eliminating". I am pleased, if a bit surprised, that Rumsfeld ordered such a study, but I would be even more pleased, and even more surprised, if anyone actually took action based on its findings. (.PDF)
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.
• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.
• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World - but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.
• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self- determination.
• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack - to broad public support.
• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.
I recommend you read the entire lj-cut, but if you do not, here it is summed up:American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists
Another PDF worth reading is a resignation letter from a former Marine Captain who was the the senior U.S. civilian in the Taliban-dominated Southern Afghanistan province of Zabul. One of his points is that most insurgents do not fight for the Taliban, but rather just against foreign soldiers.