Let's just look at some of the responses from two of our supposed allies, Turkey and Egypt. 8% of both Turks and Egyptians actually approve of attacks on U.S. civilians inside the U.S. At first glance, that doesn't seem too bad. Pretty small percentages. But 40% of Turks, supposedly our strong allies, support attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, as do an overwhelming 83% of Egyptians. The same percentage of Egyptians supports attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan (apparently Turks weren't polled).
And then there is the question of the U.S. and Islam. 82% of Turks and 87% of Egyptians think that to "Weaken and Divide Islam" is a U.S. goal. 79% of Turks think spreading Christianity is a U.S. goal (Turks not polled). With all the fanatical Jew-hating among Muslims, it's no surprise that 78% of Turks and 86% of Egyptians think that "Expanding Israeli Borders" is a U.S. goal. I'm sure the Israelis would be surprised to know that the U.S. wants to expand their borders.
Only 8% of Turks and 11% of Egyptians think the U.S. "mostly shows respect to the Islamic world." That's pretty funny. The Islamic world deserves far less respect than we've shown it.
Trutherism is of course rampant in Muslim countries. Only 23% of Egyptians, and 39% of Turks think that Al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks.
There are various other questions as well. These are just some of the lowlights. This poll, if at all accurate, illustrates the futility of attempts to reach out to the Muslim world. How do you reason with people who think that spreading Christianity and attacking Islam are major U.S. policy goals? How many times did President Bush bend over backwards to avoid associating Islam with terrorism? Unfortunately, although there are some decent, rational people in Islamic countries, most of them have to keep their mouths shut because they are surrounded by backward, ignorant, religious fanatics. And that's true of the countries that are supposedly U.S. allies. A full 11% of respondents in Jordan are actually willing to admit that they support attacks on U.S. civilians within the U.S., with another 15% having "mixed feelings." Naturally the more hostile areas, like the Palestinian territories, hate us even more. But hey, let's give them 900 million dollars. I'm sure they'll appreciate it and not spit in our faces like every other time.
> This poll, if at all accurate, illustrates the futility of attempts to reach out to the Muslim world.
ReplyDeleteWay to spin the story exactly wrong.
This is actually all the more reason the U.S. military should avoid the Middle East and Southwest Asia, yet you're on record as supporting "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here", an approach that inflames radical propensity for terror.
It's ridiculous to think refusing to reach out to people with anything but military might in nearby lands will attenuate the threat. The only time force makes people reasonable is when they fear being conquered or destroyed. Short of rabid American Power-style neoconuttery or RSM's genocidal mania nobody thinks it's sane to threaten to destroy or invade all the regions that support terrorist radicals.
Our message should not be "you're either with us or against us" -- it should be "you're better off with us, and here's why"
Happily today's left seems to understand this well enough, or we'd be screwed.
"Way to spin the story exactly wrong."
ReplyDeleteExcept I didn't spin anything. Read the poll results for yourself. Tell me what I said that's incorrect. You are the one cherry-picking a single subject (US troops in the region), and pretending that our troop presence is the only source of Muslim hatred of the U.S.
"This is actually all the more reason the U.S. military should avoid the Middle East and Southwest Asia"
Yeah, we should kow-tow to barbarians. No thanks. The U.S. military should go wherever it needs to go to protect U.S. interests. Unfortunately the U.S. has interests in those regions.
"an approach that inflames radical propensity for terror."
Radical Islamic nutcases don't need us to do anything to inflame them. Our existence inflames them. Until we abandon Israel, become irrelevant on the world scene, or all convert to Islam, they are going to hate us.
"It's ridiculous to think refusing to reach out to people with anything but military might in nearby lands will attenuate the threat."
Except that we haven't done that. We give humanitarian aid to anyone that needs it. We provide all sorts of financial support and have numerous economic ties with multiple Muslim countries. The idea that we are only reaching out with mililtary force is obviously untrue. But no matter what we do, it isn't going to make irrational religious fanatics like us.
"nobody thinks it's sane to threaten to destroy or invade all the regions that support terrorist radicals.
Who's advocating that?
"Our message should not be "you're either with us or against us" -- it should be "you're better off with us, and here's why""
Actually it could be either, depending on the circumstances. It could also be, if you don't want to be with us that's fine, we don't care. Stay out of our way and we'll leave you alone. Oppose us and you'll be sorry.
I don't pretend it's the only source of hatred, but it's clearly the one we can most easily and cheaply avoid by not getting involved in protracted conflicts and reducing our military footprint.
ReplyDelete> "Radical Islamic nutcases don't need us to do anything to inflame them. Our existence inflames them. Until we abandon Israel, become irrelevant on the world scene, or all convert to Islam, they are going to hate us."
Some will. But radicalness lies on a spectrum. When we do more to anger the region, more become radical.
I never said we should Kow-Tow to them. I only think we should keep open the possibility of their acting reasonably and not act like there's zero chance of it. Otherwise more of them will remain unreasonable.
> "no matter what we do, it isn't going to make irrational religious fanatics like us."
Sure we can't make them all like us, and depending on how narrowly you define "irrational religious fanatics", most won't. But, beginning from the most modern, moderate side, we should appeal to as many successively more radical groups as possible. Among other soft power and intelligence considerations this is how you reduce their radicalness and thus reduce the threat. By contrast A-10s and Humvees are mostly useless because they increase the threat from nearby countries. Some more restrained covert ops and surgical strikes by tomahawks and predators may be viable, but still of limited utility.
> "Actually it could be either, depending on the circumstances."
Nope. "You're either with us or against us" is a false dichotomy unbecoming of a rational actor.
> "It could also be, if you don't want to be with us that's fine, we don't care. Stay out of our way and we'll leave you alone. Oppose us and you'll be sorry."
This could work, but "Oppose us" and "be sorry" is too vague. There are types of opposition from rational state actors that do not merit punishment, and there are some types of threats that we can't tolerate. And of course some types of "being sorry" wouldn't be from our direct action that could be considered punishment. But if you omit that last sentence it's fine.
> "Who's advocating that?"
Nobody, because it's impractical. But it's the only way brute force reduces the net threat.
Strikes and raids are another story -- when called for, with those can tenably do enough damage against high enough value and sufficiently non-civilian targets such that the security gain outweighs the backlash.
The Turks and Egyptians are right about expanding Israeli borders. To them, Israel's borders equal the 1949 borders. So when the US looks the other way when Israel expands settlement building, they view it as the US supporting expanding Israeli borders.
ReplyDeleteAs for "Who's advocating that?", Ralph Peters comes fairly close.
Gherald,
ReplyDelete"but it's clearly the one we can most easily and cheaply avoid by not getting involved in protracted conflicts and reducing our military footprint."
Well, I'm not in favor of getting involved in protracted conflicts, and I think we should reduce our military presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan. So I don't think we are in disagreement there.
"I only think we should keep open the possibility of their acting reasonably"
People who think that U.S. goals are to spread Christianity, attack Islam, and expand Israel, among other things, and want to live under governments run with strict sharia law aren't even seeing things on a rational basis.
"Nope. "You're either with us or against us" is a false dichotomy unbecoming of a rational actor."
Nonsense. It's a common attitude to take in wartime, and it can make perfect sense, depending on the situation. Sometimes even seemingly benign neutrality can be a threat.
"his could work, but "Oppose us" and "be sorry" is too vague."
All of these types of statements are vague.
Alon,
"The Turks and Egyptians are right about expanding Israeli borders. To them, Israel's borders equal the 1949 borders. "
That's irrelevant. The poll question was about expanding Israel's borders now.
"when the US looks the other way when Israel expands settlement building, they view it as the US supporting expanding Israeli borders."
The question specifically about borders, not settlements. You are reading an interpretation into the question instead of taking it at face value.
"As for "Who's advocating that?", Ralph Peters comes fairly close."
You must not have read much by Peters. His latest article put forth leaving Afghanistan entirely as our second best option -- and the first was greatly reducing our force level. He's not advocating attacking everyone -- far from it.
I'm saying it's the way most people who were asked this question are interpreting it. The pollsters may have intended to ask "Do you believe the US is trying to help Israel expand beyond its post-1967 borders?", but it came off as "do you believe the US is trying to help Israel keep its settlements?".
ReplyDeleteAlon,
ReplyDeleteI guess that's possible, but I'm not sure how we could know how they interpreted the question.