Saying the terrorists "Hate our Freedoms" Isn't Entirely False

[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.

[wurzel]

1. What they hate is "Our Freedom" to run their countries.

[Igel]

5. I'll agree with pragmatist on this one.

He's right. There are those that would engage in an attack because we run their countries in bad ways. Install the Husseins, Mubarak, support Fahd, etc. As though the citizenry involved were powerless wimps.

But there are also those that would engage in an attack because we run their countries. We criticize lack of freedom for minorities? Women being forced to stay covered, not drive, having a bejillion kids, or not be able to be educated and use their education? We export our kufr movies and literature to their lands? How dare we imperialist crusaders criticize the "best nation"?

Then there are a third group: Qutb described the west as decadent in the '50s. Currently they say the west can be attacked because of gay rights, divorce, equal rights for women ... all of which, by their presence on earth, are an affront to Allah, and undermine their grasp on virtue.

I'll leave aside those that believe absurdities as loonies--Jews that are sent to steal good Muslim men's penes, or the occupation of the Kaabah by westerners.

[manic expression]

11. Just in case there was some confusion

We completely support a country which denies women the right to drive a car, among other abominations: Saudi Arabia. We also supported the rise of the Taliban. We are very much responsible for the conditions in those countries.

Also, OBL began to target the US when we put "infidels" in the "holy land" (US bases in Saudi Arabia) and when we invaded Iraq (coincidentally, he also hated Saddam for being secular and bringing the US to the region), not because of gay rights and what not. If divorce, gay rights and women's rights was the reason for terrorist attacks, countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Canada and other advanced nations would be attacked all day long.

Our own actions have bred terrorists more than anything else.

[wurzel]

16. Absolutely! Who are we to tell Arabs how to run their countries?

Take a look at Outer Washington DC. It looks like Third World. Take care of that!

[Igel]

17. I agree; we've had 50 years of supporting some horrorifically

repressive regimes.

But UBL's fairly consistent in ranking his priorities. The complaint against Sa'udi Arabia wasn't that it was repressive: it was that it wasn't faithful enough to proper Islam. This was similar to the complaint against Saddam--not a good Muslim. From our perspective, they weren't sufficiently or properly oppressive.

Then infidels were allowed on Arabian soil in an improper way--maybe for him there is no proper way.

UBLesque philosophy c. 1990: First, restore Islam in Muslim lands; next, reclaim Muslim lands; then puruse da'wah, Salafi-style.

UBLesque philosophy c. 1992: First rid Muslim lands of infidels; restore Islam in Muslim lands; next, reclaim Muslim lands; then puruse da'wah.

And, of course, we all know what happens in Salafist tradition if da'wah doesn't work out quite right.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. We need to focus on improving counterterrorism

We need to focus on not supporting oppressive regimes overseas just because they sell out their peoples' natural resources for a song.

On second thought, it's much more profitable to just put up with the unrest and kill off those that we can and ignore the ones we can't.

[walldude]

3. What you say is true but there are always going to be

nutcases who use religion to support murder. We have our own Fred Phelps to prove that one.... The key is to minimize the justifications. Read my sig line, Yoda is all wisdom.

[liberalpragmatist]

4. And I said we do need to cut off the support

Changing our foreign policy will have a great effect on reducing the appeal of Al Qaeda and will make us safer. But combatting terrorism will require a two-pronged approach - winning "hearts and minds" and vigorous counterterrorism against what remains - the heart of al Qaeda and its allies that goes deeper than simple anger at our foreign policy.

[manic expression]

12. Be careful

in Vietnam we tried vigorous "counterterrorism" against the guerrillas and it proved more effective in empowering them than weakening them. With clandestine war, it is very difficult to find and destroy such groups without a great amount of damage to innocents, and this only helps that which is being targeted (case and point: Iraq).

Al Qaeda would lack the means to have any significance if we gave people a reason not to hate us. The Taliban (and al Qaeda) came into being because of the US, as well as many other horrible entities. We have the power to do better, and when we do, we will receive better.

[jobycom]

6. You are defining freedoms in our terms

Al-Queda doesn't particularly care how an infidel behaves, as long as that infidel is somewhere else. The problem is, we aren't. Our domination of the Middle East isn't just political. We are trying to make it cultural.

We are trying to force our own ideas of freedom on a people who have different bases for their beliefs. Our idea of the equality of women, for instance, violates their freedom to determine what they value, how they should live their lives and practice their religions. I'm not saying that all Muslims believe that women are inferior and have to wear burkhas or whatever stereotypes we have. Obviously there are feminist movements in Muslim countries. But it's a debate that the people involved should have with themselves, and not one whose solution we--who are coming from a different set of values--should impose from without.

Sure, we think our freedoms are true freedoms, and theirs are wrong when they violate ours. And not just on gender issues. It may be that if we allowed them the freedom to define their own ideologies that they would arrive at much the same conclusions that we have. It may be that their solutions would be superior in some way. Or they might be worse, and unacceptable to us. But the point is, we are trying to dominate them not just political and economically, but culturally, and until we back off, anything we achieve will just be a foreign skin graft on an alien body, and will probably be rejected as soon as we leave. As long as we try to dominate, there will be a terrorist element fighting against us.

I see your point, LP, and it's well stated, and in some ways I'm just arguing semantics. But I stick with what I've been saying all along: they don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us for denying them theirs.

[punpirate]

7. Let's back up for a minute....

While there is a component of what you describe in Wahhabism, let's not forget one thing. The phrase from Bush, "they hate our freedoms" is not analytical, nor is it meant to be analytical--it's emotional and political and propagandistic--it's meant to jerk America's chain, not that of foreign Muslims. It's strictly for domestic consumption.

It's meant to appeal to what most Americans--even those who flunked civics--think our freedoms are. It's actually a very nostalgic and sentimental appeal to what Americans believe about the United States.

The great and current tendency to think of al-Qaeda as a monolithic, highly structured entity (an ethnocentric view from our own notions of our own military) causes one to think that terrorism is fundamentally religious in nature (because the ostensible leaders of al-Qaeda, al-Zawahiri and bin Laden, are Islamists). It's largely not. It's an attempt to influence our foreign policy with regard to the Middle East, which, over many decades, has been manipulative and coercive in both overall strategy and in detail, largely to promote the economic interests of US multinationals.

Let's look at this in simpler terms--we now have occupation forces in two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is a very strong desire in both for our expulsion. In neither of those countries did we provide anything but the trappings of democracy--in order to impress our own citizens. Our purposes, in both places, were primarily economic.

Most of the people in the Middle East and Central Asia are smart enough to figure that out. Some of those are radical enough to be determined to use any means to get us out, or to blunt US influence with the more corrupt elements in other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Bahrain and the like. Treating the entire terrorism issue as a problem originating exclusively in the minds of Wahhabi fundamentalists ignores the starker, more obvious explanation for terrorism.

Cheers.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. How does the content of your post support the truth in Bush's platitude?

Where is the truth of the inane "they hate us for our FREEDOM" found in there?

Resentment of U.S. foreign policy has nothing to do with FREEDOM.

Imperialist conquest = spreading freedom? What freedom are you smoking?

[WillyT]

9. Outstanding Toon, Thanks !!!

:hi::rofl::hi:

[illflem]

10. I've always felt they hate our freedom

but for a different reason than the moron in the white house.
In their very regimented religious lives they see that our freedom has allowed us to degenerate.
Not that I am judging nor agreeing with them but porno, hookers, gays, abortion, etc have no place in their society. It's almost like they prefer a theocratic government to keep them from going the same direction we are.

It's almost like the Hopi explanation for why they chose to settle in some the most god forsaken inhospitable areas of the country, it would force them to keep their faith in a creator.

[geek tragedy]

13. What AQ fears is that our ideas of freedom will take hold in the Muslim

world. He fears secularism, the empowerment of women, and a permanent move away from fundamentalism.

[cynatnite]

14. They're savages

The term 'savages' was used to describe a culture the white man did not understand. How they lived, who and how they worshiped, raised their families, etc. The concept was foreign to anyone who didn't live their way.

I do believe much of it is the same with the Middle East. The protests there are way different than this country. The culture is so foreign and we see and hear disturbing stereotypical behavior we don't understand which only fuels even more fear between the Middle East and western civilization.

They believe differently, they raise their children differently and their society in many respects are so foreign to us that many may consider the Middle East savage. They fight differently than us and can justify it just as we do. Sometimes it seems like we're trying to force them to be like us.

I do wish there was more understanding than fear. When someone is born in the Middle Eastern culture it is the women, the mothers, who see this new life in. When they die, it is the men who sees the life out. I never used to understand this before. I wondered why the women were not allowed at funerals. I understand and respect it.

Native American culture was nearly wiped out when we did this. Aspects of Native American culture was cruel. The Apache used to chop the noses from their women's face if it was judged adultery had been committed. In many respects their culture was rigid with no room for anything but their way. Tribes kept slaves and the treatment of wives and slaves was barbaric.

How barbaric was our own culture? How barbaric is our culture today? How can we say we are better than them?

Change must come from within. If we force change on them to our way of thinking it threatens to destroy the very fabric of their society. They have a beautiful culture and a religion that binds them to who they are. I believe we have a duty as humans to understand them and learn from them. I hope they can from us.

Right now it's stereotypes and propaganda which separates us. This lack of understanding while we occupy and take their land has cost lives. While this ignorant administration spouts 'they hate our freedoms' they may very well be saying 'they hate our religion, they hate us, they want to kill us'. Perhaps the Native Americans said the same thing as they were being slaughtered.

[liberalpragmatist]

15. So it's just "differences of opinion" that allow them to stone gays?

Look, I'm not calling for imposing our culture on Muslim societies - I believe that things like equal rights for women and gays will eventually come through those societies. That's how I feel about democracy too.

However, I reject the idea that religious tolerance, equality for women, minorities, and homosexuals, freedom of speech, and justice is something that doesn't apply to fundamentalist Muslims because they have "a different culture." When said in such a context it's little other than turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses (and no, I don't claim that we have a perfect record either).

In any event, I think you misunderstood the context of my post. I wasn't and am not arguing for war with the Muslim world. I am talking specifically about confronting Al Qaeda. A large part of that will be addressing the specific foreign policy grievances of the Arab and Muslim worlds, but it also needs to take into account that the core of Al Qaeda is made up of people who hate us for more than our foreign policy. They DO hate what we represent - as the most powerful Western nation, we embody Western values. While those Western "values" ARE often deplorable (rampant commercialism for example), they also attack general enlightenment values. They conveniently use foreign policy grievances within the Muslim community to recruit supporters and tie their struggle with their wider Muslim anger at the US. But for the core supporters of Al Qaeda, people like Bin Laden and his inner circle, their primary beef is with modernization and things like equality for women, gay rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion - they oppose those ideas and ultimately that core will not be appeased through foreign policy changes alone - that core needs to be pursued with an understanding that they are fanatics who do hate modern culture and want to see it destroyed.

I'm not arguing for forcibly going in and restructuring Muslim societies in some neo-colonial adventure, which is what your post implies that I said. What I'm simply saying is that the core of Al Qaeda is made up of people who cannot be appeased. We can take the wind out of their supporters by acknowledging specific grievances but we also have to vigorously go after the core and the cells that already exist.