Re-Think Your Stance

• August 31, 2004

One of the most often used arguments against the war in Iraq from the left is that it has caused Iraqi’s and Arabs in general to hate America even more than they did before the war. But before anybody puts forth that argument they should take the time to consider some recent events.
Consider that terrorists in Iraq are currently holding two French journalists hostage and are threatening to kill them lest France change its policy toward head scarves in schools. This action against France is in spite of the fact that France has been bitterly opposed to the war in Iraq since day one.
Consider also that just yesterday 12 Nepalese hostages were murdered, once again by terrorists in Iraq. Nepal is not a member of the coalition forces nor is the country involved in Iraq in any way. These now-dead hostages had simply come to Iraq for the opportunity to work (see Rusty Shackleford for more).
For the past year or so America has been the focus for the hatred pouring out of these terrorists, but that hatred has pre-existed America’s invasion of Iraq by centuries. These fundamentalists hate everything that does not fit into their world-narrow view which is defined by radical Islam. They do not care what country you’re from and they do not care what color your skin is. If you don’t adhere to their beliefs they hate you and will try to destroy you.
America is not the reason these people behave in this manner. We are not to fault for their murderous ways. These people are a scourge on the earth that no amount of appeasement or understanding will cure. They deal in death and violence thus can only be dealt with in the same manner.
Its time some on the left recognized that.

Tags: General

http://Array Mark

Rob – thanks for the correction.

I think the dispute between ‘right’ and ‘left’ (if these terms hold) on the issue of how to deal with fundamentalism doesn’t centre around the character of these individuals. They are impossible to reason with; I think even the most bleeding-heart liberal would have to acknowledge that, and equally would acknowledge that these people, if they have committed crimes (or plan to commit them) should be pursued (or detained) and brought to justice.

Rather, I think the dispute centres on how fundamentalism should be dealt with more generally. Certainly, violence and force is necessary with the murderous individuals we’re talking about here. But what some liberals object to when they talk about the war creating hatred is the fact that it is much easier for clueless, misguided young Arabs to subscribe to fundamentalist ideology when civilians around them are being killed (albeit unintentionally) by Americans. It is easy for these situations to be misrepresented and slanted.

Of course, it’s not right that this misrepresentation takes place, and equally it doesn’t mean that the war was wrong. But nevertheless, the war has created conditions for recruitment to fundamentalism, conditions which would not have existed had America stayed out of Iraq completely (regardless of whether this course of action would have been the right one).

I think the left is wrong to suggest that this a reason for the war not taking place. But I think they are right when they argue that America, and foreign troops more generally, should show a little more sensitivity and be a little more careful (to give an example – last year I heard a BBC report from a roadblock outside Baghdad, where a family of civilians had been killed by American troops – the reporter discovered the soldiers did not even know the Arabic for ‘stop’).

The situation in Iraq isn’t one of civilians and fundamentalists, as distinct, monolithic groups. I think the boundary between the two is very blurred, and America has to work hard to keep those on the boundary from straying the wrong way. No-one is born a fundamentalist.
Mark

‘One of the most often used arguments against the war in Iraq from the left is that it has caused Iraqis and Arabs in general to hate America even more than they did before the war. That argument has now been thoroughly debunked.’

I don’t think so.

Certainly, I can agree with your claim that some Arabs and fundamentalists will hate America whatever it does, as long as it holds to western liberal, democratic values. This explains why France has been a target, despite its opposition to the war (as for the Nepalis, I think that points to the total irrationality of these people).

But you seem to be implying that the war in Iraq has had no effect whatsoever in creating (more) Arab hatred of America. That is totally implausible.

Granted, that hatred may be irrational, misguided, or without foundation – but to assert that the war simply hasn’t created any more hatred than already existed? Please…
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Perhaps you’re right Mark. “Debunked” is the wrong wording. I’m going to edit the post to reflect that.

I do, however, feel the rest of the post stands true. These would be hateful people regardless of what America has done in Iraq. Certainly we’ve stirred them up a bit, but just as a parent must suffer through the temper tantrum that follows a child’s disciplining so must America and the rest of the world suffer through the murderous rage that follows the destruction-in-progress of these groups.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Mark, you make some excellent points. I would only add that I believe that America was justified in going to war in Iraq and that, in the end, the world will be safer when Iraq is a free nation under the rule of its own citizens. That may take a long time to happen but as long as coalition forces keep applying positive pressure to the region it will happen.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Re-Think Your Stance

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments