In early November, 1605, Guy Fawkes was arrested for plotting to explode several tons of gunpowder beneath the British Parliament building. When asked his motives - which me made no secret of - Fawkes claimed that he wanted to kill King James I and destroy Parliament for (among other things) their persecution of Catholics, as well as to be revenged on the Scottish nobles for their betrayal of the Scottish people they had left behind. He also said that, on the day the gunpowerd was to be ignited, he fully intended to stay behind and make sure everything worked out, assuring his own death.In modern parlance, Fawkes would undoubtably be a terrorist, and a suicide bomber at that. Yet no one says he was inspired by hatred of the Protestant way of life; it was the Protestant hatred of the Catholics that did it for him. Simply because his means were terroristic doesn't make his grievances invalid. Even today, some Catholics continue to celebrate Guy Fawkes for his efforts to strike back against their persecution.
In a video released on Augist 4th, al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri stated that "Your salvation will only come in your withdrawal from our land, in stopping the theft of our oil and resources, and in stopping your support for the corrupt and corrupting leaders."
Well, few Middle East scholars would disagree that the West in general and the U.S. in particular exert a negative influence on Middle Eastern society. The lapdog regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. are among the most corrupt and repressive in the world, and exist solely on U.S. support.
Of course, they are not bin Laden's lands, or al-Qaeda's, or any one group of people's; bin Laden cannot possibly speak for all Muslims or all residents of the Middle East. He and his cohorts offer no positive alternative, but only (to borrow Tariq Ali's phrase) "a nightmare Pax Talibana".
It is not 'appeasement' to do something simply because bin Laden says he supports some aspects of it in theory. Besides, allowing Arabic self-rule without foreign coercion is the last thing he wants; his fundamentalist message would be powerless against a genuinely free and democratic system. For example: before the American invasion of Afghanistan, the radical Islamist parties never received more than 5% or 6% of the vote in Pakistan. After the invasion, their support shot up. Why? Because the US-backed Pakistani government supressed all other criticism of their government or ours, cutting off any chance of a secular, democratic movement taking hold. But they couldn't totally silence the far-right clerics because Musharaff (along with many Arabic leaders) had an understanding that the clerics would use religion to keep the commoners in line while the dictators used the army to keep the elites in line. Now, of course, the fundamentalists have gotten out of control. Who could've seen that coming?
If the US wished, it could make its puppet governments do practically anything in the way of electoral reform or allowing personal freedom. This, however, is viewed as a bad idea. Give people a little freedom, and all they want is more. That's the last thing we want to happen in the Middle East.
If the Middle East is going to be prosperous and democratic, it will not be under the control of America. Partly because so much of the secular, democratic sentiment in the region is tied up with Marxism, and partly because nobody likes being ordered around by gas-guzzlers across the sea. That is a fact we will simply have to deal with if we ever want peace and stability to reign in that region.
Four hundred years hence, I doubt that Osama bin Laden will have become a Muslim folk hero (or, at least, I hope not). Let's not make him into one.
6 comments:
im glad you cleared up that whole...thing... about catholics celebrating guy fawkes too...cos it often got me all uppity...being a catholic and wondering why we were 'celebrating him being hung-drawn-and quartered'...('for blowing up those b*******')
;-)
Great post. Buchanan has a history of terrorism in his Where the Right Went Wrong illustrating that no, Osama isn't the first.
We should pull out of the Middle East--and the rest of the world for that matter. If the plan doesn't work, and they do decide to keep attacking us--which they won't--we would be more justified in fighting a "war on terror".
Of course we're never going to actually stick to our own turf. We like playing the world's policeman. Wouldn't it be great if one of our leaders didn't kowtow
to corporate interests and instead stuck with the interests of the American people?
Before you go and blame capitalism for this mess, if the libertarians ever captured the presidency--I can dream--they would practice isolationism.
I guess the "good news" is that Bush foreign policy is untenable. I just hope we realize that before it's too late.
Musophrnia: No need to censor yourself here.
Wiser Man: I don't think isolationism is the way to go. We don't live alone in this world, and we can't pretend that we do. But we can try to let people rule themselves instead of assuming we always know better.
If we let people rule themselves, the need for isolationism would fall. Isolationism has become a dirty word, and I only use it in juxtaposition to whatever we have now.
I'm not saying we never talk to anybody, only that we keep our troops for the most part here, and act in out best interest.
It's a trite difference I think. We're on the same page--for the most part--when it comes to foreign policy. If only I could get you to come around on economic issues. ;)
One other thing. I picked up that book by Keynes. I'm not too far in, but I'm having a tough time. Does it get easier to understand, or should I just concede defeat? I suppose I should take an economics class at some point here. Thanks.
Keynes can be difficult, but he's less ideological than Hayek and a much better economist. I don't think you'll agree with keynes, but reading him might help you understand how the 'free market' really works.
I spent some of today scanning blogs on the right and pro-war left and the prevelant topic is "terrorism" and the universal refrain is that it can never be explained, to try to do so is appeasment, even treason and the reason bleeding heart leftists should all be plced in camps.Also that terrorism is an Oriental abberation that never affects Westerners.Good Lord!Killing civilians for political or military gain is as old as Stonehenge and has been practiced by every civilization since.
Wiser,you should try to think of anti-capitalism less in the vein of Stalin and more in the vein of Eugene Debs.
Post a Comment