Saying the terrorists "Hate our Freedoms" Isn't Entirely False [View All]

[liberalpragmatist]

In the wake of the tragic events in London I've spent much time surfing around various websites, both general opinion sites, blogs running the gamut from centrist to left-liberal, and DU.

In doing so, I've found a lot of people take issue with statements that the terrorists "hate our freedoms." And while I think Bush's repeated justifications of his indefensible actions are wholly simplistic, I do believe that there is some truth to this.

Let me reiterate that I am NOT and have never been a supporter of the Iraq War. I DO believe that if we are going to diffuse terrorism and make the world a more peaceful place we truly are going to have to recognize that our foreign policy causes tremendous resentment (often understandably) and that terrorism and extremism feed off this resentment.

That last paragraph immediately distinguishes me from the neo-Cons and the Bush gang, but where I differ from many fellow liberals (and maybe it's just the blogosphere, I don't know) is that I think that a hatred for Western liberties really does play a role in terrorism.

Islamist anti-US and anti-Western terrorism feeds off two strains - one a genuine reaction against US foreign policy in the Middle East and the other a more radical anti-Western ideology that IS opposed to Western-style freedoms. Political terrorism is an example of the former. Al Qaeda is an example of the latter.

In the current climate, the two are intertwined - Al Qaeda feeds off resentment of US foreign policy to achieve its goal of destroying the "infidels." Al Qaeda and its like-minded allies views Western culture as above all decadent and in many ways are the Islamic counterpart to the Religious Right in the US. All groups of religious fundamentalists see social liberalism, personal freedoms, women's rights, and democracy as threats to their more ideal, traditional worldview. Al Qaeda's resentment plays off specific acts of US foreign policy, but for Al Qaeda and its allies, the primary fuel for their ideology is conquest and turning the clock back to an ideal time that probably never actually existed. Thus, on the face of it, it is not false to say that groups like Al Qaeda "hate our freedoms" - the truth is, they do. Like James Dobson and the religious right only more militaristic, they hate democracy and the current culture.

That's not to say that Al Qaeda-style terrorism is unaffected by US foreign policy - Bin Laden and his associates skillfully use resentment against US foreign policy to recruit disenchanted Muslim youth and turn them into agents for their more sinister goals. Bin Laden and his associates also rely on public support by tying their goals with the current political context. The public support - or, at the very least, deep distrust of the US and ambivalence towards Western suffering - create a climate within which Al Qaeda can thrive.

Thus it's important to distinguish between the two types of terrorism, even if they have become intertwined - one exists because they "hate our freedoms," the other because "they hate our foreign policy." This creates difficulties - US foreign policy fuels more terrorism, but it's not so clear that the specific act that occurred yesterday would not have happened if not for Iraq. Al Qaeda will use any excuse to further their ideology. They are skillful exploiters of public relations.

So while the US and our allies need to reevaluate our foreign policy in the Middle East - our alliance with the Saudis and other dictatorships; our war and occupation of Iraq; our policies towards the Palestinians; our hypocritical support for Uzbekistan and for Putin's Chechnya slaughter; our lack of commitment to Afghanistan, our use of torture and extra-legal measures in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere - let's not pretend that the most radical terrorists of the Al Qaeda sort will suddenly embrace us because we change our foreign policy.

We need to focus on improving counterterrorism, focus on improving the situation in Afghanistan, coordinate with other countries with counterterrorism and all together stay vigilant and opposed to those that do "hate our freedoms." That doesn't mean illegally invading countries that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. And it needs to be accompanied by the sort of changes to our foreign policy that I have talked about.

What it means is recognizing that the most extreme elements of Islamist terror that Al Qaeda represent are in a long-term and unnegotiable war with the United States and the West. Their network has to be confronted with efficiency, precision, and focus. Reevaluating our foreign policy will take the wind out of their sails, and yes, terrorism as a tactic can never be truly destroyed, but any effective protection against terrorism will have to include good counterterrorism and a clear view of what Al Qaeda and Bin Laden represent. They are opportunists who are intent on creating a fundamentalist, worldwide Islamic Caliphate. The fact that they cannot succeed in that mission does not mean they cannot cause harm. Their true identity needs to be recognized, for the people Al Qaeda represent really do hate our freedoms and truly do want to create conflict, war, sew divisions, and turn back the clock by a thousand years.