Comments on: Influencing Al Qaeda

By: Luc

Luc — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 04:22:24 +0000

Luc: You appear to be saying that attacking terrorism at the roots is a good thing, and therefore appeasement is a worthy tactic. Yes, with two comments. First i find appeasement a misnomer, but it is the term generally used by those opposing the tactic. Second, “appeasement” is only a good tactic if it works. And I do think so. I just saw Colin Powell on TV praising Musharraf, and it looks as if he actually does something against al Qaeda. Yet at the same time I consider this cosying up with dictators “appeasement”. And long term this will only work if there is pressure from the US in getting Pakistan back on a course to democracy and respect for human rights. Another logical target for this kind of appeasement would be Syria or Iran. And of course you can’t “appease” Osama or any of the other leaders associated with al Quada. But I don’t see how you can blow them into smithereens and then say you’re done with it. Some people say it is simply us or them. But those “them” will come after you forever if you don’t take away the source that generates “them”. And yes, I do think you’ll need appeasement (discussions, negotiations, trade relations, aid money, whatever) to take away that source. Maybe I’m too much influenced by the European variants of terrorism. “Appeasement” has almost always worked to reduce those threats. But the brilliance of democracy is that the current US president can take the path of war with Iraq as its most visible aspect of the fight against terror, and the next US president can try to improve relations with countries around the world. Just as the Spanish changed course.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:42:16 +0000

I’ve read most of Chomsky’s political books and articles and find myself agreeing with him the majority of the time, though not always. I’ve also read a lot of criticism thrown at him, much of it inaccurate and used to argue with people about it. Big waste of time. So far as I can tell, people who dislike Chomsky nearly always put the worst possible (or even impossible) interpretation on his words and no amount of argument will change people’s minds. I know he doesn’t think Osama cares about human rights—the portrait I painted of Osama in my previous post is basically a paraphrase of something I remember Chomsky writing. I should have thought about college kids when I said no lefty thinks Osama is a freedom fighter. It’s kind of a truism to say that college kids tend to be more extreme and more obnoxious no matter what position they take, whether it is college Republicans or college radicals. I’d expect that college students who idolize Chomsky probably go further than their idol, usually further in a stupid way—I remember one Chomsky admirer at ZNET, for instance, say that the Palestinians should just go all out with suicide bombing attacks and Chomsky replied that this was a great idea if you wanted massive suffering on both sides with no one winning. The questioner obviously didn’t expect Chomsky’s tart response. And then there are also those young anti-globalization protestors who think they’re striking a blow for freedom by smashing a MacDonald’s window. I’m not bashing the anti-globalization movement, just admitting that yeah, there are always people who smash windows or maybe think Osama is a “freedom fighter” and somehow imagine they’re fighting for the oppressed. I don’t hang around or read such people (except for the occasional defender of Palestinian terrorism), but they’re no doubt out there. I do read Noam and he isn’t one of them. On the aid idea, I think terrorism would decrease if we showered the world with aid, but I don’t think it would stop Osama or the most hardcore members, because they want an extremely repressive Islamic theocracy. The US has a lot of innocent blood on its hands and we are also derelict in fighting disease and poverty overseas, but this doesn’t mean that if we were saints there wouldn’t be crazed killers in the world who’d be worse than us if they had the power. They have to be stopped and this will involve killing some of them and catching the rest. And we’ll need a military too, because some whackos might have a country behind them. There might, however, be fewer people willing to support Hitler/Osama/Saddam types if we do the aid-showering thing. I’m pretty close to Chomsky on this, from all that I’ve read him say on the subject. Anyway, you can have the last word in this thread. I let myself defend Noam now and then, but decided some time back it was more productive just to defend my own far lefty views instead, rather than get bogged down arguing about whether Chomsky really meant this or that. Besides, as I said before, sometimes I think he’s wrong, or partly wrong. Of course I do have my moments of weakness where I jump to his defense, this being one of them.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:10:32 +0000

Donald – I can talk for hours about Chomsky (it’s all I write about at my blog), but I suppose what I’m trying to say is this: Chomsky and like-minded people (Chomsky claims there aren’t any, but lets say Tariq Ali, Arundhati Roy and such) present a world view where if US policy were to dramatically change by shelving all weaponry and showering the world with aid money, the terrorist groups would dissipate. As a former Berkeley radical, I can attest to having been convinced of this view by the ISO (International Socialist Organization), and the ISO’s number one thinker is Chomsky. Check out Mick Hartley’s blog for a convincing argument about why Chomsky’s worldview suffers from “blame American first” syndrome. So to clarify, the disagreement is not whether al Qaeda was motivated by a reaction to US policy or its own depraved agenda. As you say, it’s probably both (mostly the latter). The disagreement is over whether a change in US policy would reverse the behavior of al Qaeda, or not. I use that question as a litmus test to distinguish the far left from the soft left on the terrorism issue. In that sense, by acknowledging that al Qaeda could be suffocated by increases in foreign aid, the far left views bin Laden as a “misguided freedom fighter.” They would never support his cause, but they think they understand his actions. Most importantly, they think he really cares about US policy to the extent that he would cease fire if bombed with food rations and dollar bills. (In my Berkeley ISO phase, at least I bought this canard) Chomsky’s Kosovo analogy (scroll to bottom) follows the same logic. In it he employs standard Chomskyian rhetorical techniques (“remorseless logic”) and presents al Qaeda as a group responsive to atrocities in East Timor. The logical implication is that had the US not supported Suharto, al Qaeda would pat itself on the back. In reality al Qaeda wanted East Timor to remain under Muslim rule. Certainly Chomsky does not defend AQ but he nevertheless presents an extremely flawed view of their motivating logic. Luc: You appear to be saying that attacking terrorism at the roots is a good thing, and therefore appeasement is a worthy tactic. I agree with the premise but not the conclusion. Appeasement stiffens and emboldens the likes of bin Laden, who (as is always mentioned, I know) already thinks of the US as a “soft” enemy. The ideal policy then, would attack the roots without appeasing the leaves—hence regime change in Iraq. (think of it as a root transplant… yes, yes, scoff at that quasi-neocon logic)

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:51:10 +0000

If using carrots to persuade people not to join terrorist groups is appeasement, then in some cases we should start appeasing. Osama and his sort can’t be appeased (unless we want to support vicious theocracies, which we shouldn’t), but their potential support base can be decreased. One way to appease Palestinians and Muslims who might otherwise support terrorism is by evacuating Israeli settlements, for instance. The Palestinian demand for a state is just and should be satisfied. As a side effect satisfying it should decrease support for suicide bombings. People worried about democratic elections which lead to increased support for terror ought to be petrified every time Israel has an election, but for some reason most aren’t. That does seem like bad faith. There might be reason for concern over the Spanish elections if Al Qaeda receives more support because it is seen as a victory for them. That doesn’t mean the Spanish should have voted differently from the way they did.

By: mc

mc — Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:12:51 +0000

bp writes: Zapateros hasn’t actually done anything yet. He’s proposed to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq but he hasn’t actually done it yet. To add to what bp said there – like I wrote in the comments to Ted’s “Thoughts in my pocket” post, one thing many people seem to miss about Zapatero’s announcement to withdraw troops is that, he did say “if by June the UN doesn’t get involved“… and he very slyly “forgot” to add that by June the UN and NATO will get involved anyway! A smart way – from Zapateros’ point of view – of pretending you’re getting what you campaigned for, when your getting it is not your own doing at all – the US had decided already that it will shift more responsibilities for Iraq to NATO and the UN. Zapatero, like Aznar, is playing political tactics too. The promise to withdraw is part of what he campaigned on, that’s what he has to say. But once the UN and NATO get in, Spain won’t be “withdrawing” troops anymore than say, Beckham wasn’t going to go to Real Madrid just because he said he wasn’t going to leave Manchester UTD unless he got a better offer. Doh… It’s all political bargaining, and the shrill reactions on a part of the UK and US press (I don’t hold blogs responsible for upholding standards of political discourse – not because they don’t matter, but because they don’t have the same political affiliations and interests the media have) are part of the other side of that bargaining… All this does damage to the quality of political discourse, not to the actual fight against terrorism.

By: james

james — Thu, 18 Mar 2004 03:34:52 +0000

bp, I think AQ and its target audience is perfectly able to draw conclusions from the Spanish elections without the help of the blogosphere – so claiming that we shouldn’t say appeasement even IF it is appeasement (a word I haven’t used by the way) doesn’t cut much mustard. Equally I don’t suppose that anything said here will make terrorist acts politically inconsequential – in fact I don’t even say they should be politically inconsequential. Nonetheless I am stunned and frustrated at the apparent nonchalence of many at the possibility that an electorate has been deliberately persuaded to change its mind by an act of mass murder. This nonchalence is only explicable to me if bad faith or partisan motives are presumed on the part of those who express concern at the hypothesis. I can only protest that I am guilty of neither.

By: Luc

Luc — Thu, 18 Mar 2004 02:01:38 +0000

Generally, people who believe al Qaeda can be appeased also believe al Qaeda is simply a violent reaction to US policies abroad — they find it inconceivable that al Qaeda is pursuing its own depraved agenda. Those who believe this are not marginal by any means — they’re just not well represented in the blogosphere. As for the appeasement, I try, but I consistently fail to convince anyone. Appeasement is a very good response to Al Qaeda. Besides the US government I’m probably the only person who thinks appeasement of the dictator of Pakistan is a good idea to reduce terror of the Al Quada type. To significantly reduce terror for the next generations you’ll need to take away the reasons that make people, who are supposed to be born innocent, into terrorists. But then if you dispute thet fact that the relation between oppression and terror is nonsense, you’re hit with the fact that science tells otherwise. So apparently in the blogosphere people think that changing oppressing regimes into democracies does nothing against terror for the next generations. Hard to argue with. In discussing the methods in the fight against terror there should be a more open view to all the options we have. And I think a method like ‘appeasement’ should be used when appropriate. But then I’m not going to convince anyone here I believe. I personally think that the Iraq war was wrongheaded because I don’t believe in the ‘reverso domino theory’ (or the WMD/relations with al Quada story), yet if the domino theory works then war was the appropriate option. And I do think that appeasement of Pakistan is a good idea because I believe that in the long term the US has the power and will to convince Pakistan that it needs to revert back to a path to democracy. But then if the support of the US only strenghtens the dictatorship I would be wrong. And to get back to the original article: They cannot be influenced, only incapacitated. Long term “they” can be influenced. Al Qaeda is neither a fixed ideology, nor a fixed group of people. To turn your statement around, only by influencing their recruitment ability can you incapacitate al Quada, and end their terror. Even short term the influencing is the important part, since al Quada continues to recruit new terrorists by using their influence. Not by pointing a gun to their head. So to prevent them joining al Quada I should think it is more appropriate to use influence than pointing guns.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:57:02 +0000

To rajeev, I don’t know anything about whatever the ISO is, but I read Chomsky and like-minded people and none of them that I’ve read think of Osama as a freedom fighter. The point of his AQ analogy is that he doesn’t think the US cares about human rights, not that he thinks AQ does. You might find the analogy wrong or offensive, but he’s not defending Osama, but accusing the US of state terrorism. In fact, Chomsky’s view of Osama and his goals is basically the same as those of Hitchens and every other rational person—Osama is a bloodthirsty fanatic who wants to overthrow the theocracy in Saudi Arabia and replace it with an even worse theocracy. I suppose there probably are some crazed leftists who think Al Qaeda is a collection of freedom fighters, since you can generally dredge up someone somewhere who believes any stupid proposition you can imagine, but what I think you usually get in terrorism discussions are convenient misreadings of other’s positions because it’s easier to burn down strawmen. I’ve been on the receiving end of online arguments where someone accused me thinking that America deserved 9/11, which was interesting given that like many people in the NYC area I spent much of 9/11 in a nightmarish state of misery and fear trying to find out if any of my friends had been killed. (None were.) There’s a subtle distinction people miss between saying “Isn’t it terrible that America is implicated in state terror overseas?” and saying “Isn’t it great that my friends and now my wife live or work in an area targeted by terrorists bent on killing as many people as they possibly can? Boy, do we ever have it coming, don’t we?” In reality, probably most of us lefties have a kind of pragmatic attitude towards Osama’s gang—kill them or capture them, but don’t bother talking with them, except as prisoners who might have useful information. And yeah, weaken their support base by dealing with whatever legitimate grievances Muslims may have. As for whether 9/11 was a response to American policy overseas or the actions of a group pursuing its own depraved agenda, there’s no reason why it couldn’t be both. In fact, it clearly was. Osama was offended by the US presence in Saudi Arabia, so he plotted the murder of thousands of innocent people. He wanted to attract support in the Arab world, so he tacked onto his list of supposed motives the Palestinian plight and the sanctions on Iraq, but from what I remember reading in far leftist sources, this was transparently hypocritical—he was hoping to stir up Muslim anger by pointing to issues he didn’t really care about himself. (And no, as already mentioned, no crime of ours would justify 9/11.) Now what I have seen from some lefties are defenses of suicide bombing in Israel, on the supposed grounds that it’s the only way the Palestinians have to fight back. I think the argument is both immoral and foolish, but presumably don’t have to make that case here. (Well, maybe I do. Murdering children is self-evidently evil and morality aside , it will only harden Israel’s position.) The people who defend Palestinian suicide bombing see it as a legitimate tactic of war and claim it shouldn’t be compared to 9/11, because the Palestinians have legitimate grievances and Osama does not. I think this is a minority opinon on the far left (Chomsky opposes Palestinian terror, for instance), but I have seen it , while I never see defenses of 9/11. Maybe they are more common overseas, where it’s presumably easier to dehumanize Americans, the way we Americans often dehumanize Arabs. (I’ve seen ordinary Americans react to condemnations of the Iraqi sanctions by saying that they wish “all those people” were dead.) To Sebastian—. Did Al Qaeda try to influence the vote? I don’t have cable and didn’t see the CNN report, but given the timing, it seems likely they had something like that in mind. But if terrorism was my deciding issue, I’d have picked the party I trusted more, without caring what Al Qaeda thought. Whether the Spanish voters made the right decision based on that criterion is something I don’t know enough about to judge. I know enough about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to know that those are the two countries that should concern us the most with respect to terrorism, but not enough to say what the US or the EU should do about it. (As you say, Spain can’t do much.) So as a kind of honorary guest blogger, my original post was just long enough to make the one legitimate point I had to make, but it arguably didn’t cover all the relevant considerations.

By: Marky

Marky — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:46:17 +0000

Sebastian, you should spend less time arguing and more time informing yourself. Your argument is based on several silly misconceptions. First of all, the polls showed a very close race before the election, so it was not as if there was a huge surprise that the Socialists won. Secondly, the message conveyed by the Spanish press is that the PP was ousted for lying about the bombings—-Aznar called up newspaper editors to personally assure them that ETA was responsible for the bombing, when he knew that was not the case. The head of the Spanish anti-terrorism unit threatened to resign over the PP’s actions. It was only because ZAPATERO threatened to go to the press himself with the news that Al Qaeda behind the bombings that Aznar made that announcement himself. I don’t find it hard to understand that anger of the Spanish electorate over this kind of manipulation. It is also true that the Spanish were quite angry that the government had gotten them into a mess in Iraq when 90% of the populace was opposed to such action, and this contributed to the PP’s problems. On the other hand, Aznar was stepping down, and the PP itself was not likely to stay as Bush-friendly as it had been under Aznar. You mention that Spain cannot do much about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. This is not conditional on Spanish troops being in Iraq, so is irrelevant. On the other hand, to suggest there is nothing Spain could do in the war on terror makes sense only if you believe that all such action must take place under the umbrella of U.S. primacy. This is of course nonsense, as well as incorrect on the basis of evidence, considering that France and Germany have been contributing alot of troops in Afghanistan while not taking part in the war in Iraq. At the heart of our disagreement is that you see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror. As a matter of fact, you see involvement in the Iraq war as being essential to supporting the war on terror. This makes no sense at all for the myriad reasons that you have heard innumerable times, so I won’t repeat them; however, at least you can admit that Spain could actively fight Al Qaeda without having troops in Iraq.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:21:55 +0000

“I suppose the answer to that would be for the new Spanish government to demonstrate it is serious about fighting Al Qaeda even if it disagrees with Bush about the way this should be done.” Sheesh, over at my blog I got practically whipped up and down for that suggestion. The problem is that there is very little in the way of strong action apart from the US that Spain could do unless there is some enormous change in EU policy. They can’t do much about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Frankly they weren’t even doing that much in Iraq. So at this point there is very little he could do to signal a strong move against Al Qaeda. He can do damage to civil rights within Spain itself I suppose, but the whole problem with the policing approach is that the threats come in from the outside. Bp, the fact that Zapateros had a well known platform only indicates that he did not change his own mind in response to the bombings. The fact that he won when he was not expected to before the bombings suggests that enough Spanish voters were inspired to vote for him by the bombings to make a difference in the outcome. The fact that his policy is well known is exactly why Al Qaeda acted to help him. You have seen the CNN report on the Al Qaeda bombing policy which targeted Spain for that very reason, right? Or do you discount it for some reason? Al Qaeda changed an election in a way that helped their foreign policy. That isn’t good.

By: Nigel

Nigel — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:15:08 +0000

It seems to me that whatever spin is put on the result, whether by A-Q or the left or the right, the larger-than-usual turnout at the voting booths does not strike me as being indicitave of defeat, or cowardice. Quite the opposite. A cowed nation would have stayed at home in droves. An energised, furious population rushed out to cast their vote. There’s defiance in that. Of course it might be as much defiance of their own leaders and allies as of the terrorists. A plague on both your houses. I don’t know. That’s just my impression.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:13:10 +0000

Donald: You’d be shocked if you went to a few ISO meetings. There you would find the sorts of people on the far left whom Hitchens is usually responding to in his writing. Generally, people who believe al Qaeda can be appeased also believe al Qaeda is simply a violent reaction to US policies abroad—they find it inconceivable that al Qaeda is pursuing its own depraved agenda. Those who believe this are not marginal by any means—they’re just not well represented in the blogosphere. Had you gone to the World Social Forum last December in India, you would have encountered 80,000 of them. I vaguely recall an analogy from Noam Chomsky that the US intervening in Kosovo for humanitarian reasons is akin to al Qaeda bombing Washington over the atrocities in East Timor. The logic implies that AQ cares about US policy in East Timor.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:38:52 +0000

Wow. Practically like guest blogger status. The one weakness in my argument (that I can see) is what I think a few have pointed out—maybe some Muslims will see the Spanish results as a victory for Al Qaeda and decide to join up. That could be and that’s a separate issue from how Al Qaeda sees it (which doesn’t matter so much for the reasons I gave). I suppose the answer to that would be for the new Spanish government to demonstrate it is serious about fighting Al Qaeda even if it disagrees with Bush about the way this should be done. On the left-right split, is there anyone who has any difficulty recognizing that Al Qaeda is a group of killers we can’t negotiate with? Anyone reading Hitchens or people of that sort would think that the left is full of people who think Osama is a misunderstood freedom fighter, someone who could be reached if we just sat down and talked things over with him. Maybe there are lefties like that, but they must be pretty marginal and I can’t recall ever encountering one. (Well, there was one strange guy in Union Square a few weeks after 9/11 that I heard use the term “freedom fighter” in connection with Osama, but I was too disgusted to hang around and see if he meant it.)

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:35:47 +0000

djw, I agree (in fact, I said) that CT has one of the best comments threads in the blogosphere (I think my individual blog is also pretty good, but no doubt I’m biased). By contrast, I was just embroiled in a dispute with Tim Blair, which necessitated reading his comments threads – not an experience I’m eager to repeat. I agree with Maria that the commenters contribute at least as much as the bloggers to CT. But in a thread with 80+ comments, that still implies a lot of noise from which to extract the signal.

By: BP

BP — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:09:26 +0000

You’re grasping at straws, Sebastian. Zapateros’ platform has been known for months. That’s the whole reason you assumed that electing him is a victory for al-Qaeda: that they influenced the Spanish election to help elect a man who is going to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. By acting as if that is a foregone conclusion, and not doing everything in your power to help prevent that conclusion from coming to pass, you are actively fanning al-Qaeda morale. That is sheer surrender, dressed up in bluff. You already believe the battle is lost, when it isn’t even over yet. “He isn’t going back on the announcement which highlights (correctly in view of the bombing) what he believes won him the election” Given the right approach, a suitable figleaf could have, and can be found for Zapateros. Politicians, after all, flip flop all the time. “Read my lips. No new taxes.” The question is, of course, if calling Zapateros a yellow-bellied appeaser is going to get him to flip-flop. What are you doing to help win the War Against Terror? Besides, that is, wailing at every percieved setback?