Sunday, June 20, 2010

Al Qaeda Spokesman Sounds Like a Leftist

I know, that's not particularly surprising.

Adam Gadahn called on President Barack Obama to withdraw his troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, end support for Israel, stop intervening in the affairs of Muslims, and free Muslim prisoners.
Those sound like exactly the same sorts of things that are said at pretty much any left-wing peace protest. To be fair, they are also similar to policies advocated by isolationists and Israel-haters of all political stripes. That's why we call them useful idiots for the enemies of the U.S.

The U.S. should do precisely the opposite of what Gadahn demands. It should maintain permanent bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our interests and project power in the region. We have invested massive amounts of resources, and expended thousands of lives in those countries. We don't need huge numbers of troops there, but we will need a presence for the foreseeable future. 

Irrational hatred of Israel is endemic in the Arab & Muslim world, and shared by anti-Semites and many leftists worldwide. The U.S. should not only continue to support Israel, it should make it clear that we will stand with our long-time ally despite the waves of hatred directed its way. Adam Gadahn's words demonstrate yet again that Israel's most virulent enemies are also enemies of the U.S.

As for intervening in the affairs of Muslims, no religion determines or has any say in U.S. foreign policy. And it goes without saying that Al Qaeda does not speak for all Muslims, but for its own narrow brand of Islamic religious fanaticism. The U.S. should continue to intervene wherever and whenever to advance & protect its interests, regardless of the religion of the area in question. And of course Muslim prisoners are held because they are enemies of the U.S., not because they've been singled out for being Islamic. 

4 comments:

  1. I would consider myself a bit left of center, but not "leftist". I don't hate Israel, but I don't like some of the things they do. I do recognise, however, that Palestinians (and other Arab groups) also bear a lot of responsibility for what is happening in the middle east.
    I'm not a US citizen, so I'd feel a lot more comfortable about the US "projecting power" into other states if it had less to do with US interests, and more to do with trying to improve others' lot. I think recent US administrations have become aware of this feeling around the world, and are now trying to clothe their imperialist agendas in a layer of humanitarian hyperbole (cynical, I know).
    I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that we should leave other countries alone to abuse their own citizens, but I think we need to be careful about the exercise of power -- I think Iraq has amply demonstrated that we don't have the power we'd like to have.
    I'd be interested to hear what you think of this...

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I don't hate Israel, but I don't like some of the things they do. I do recognise, however, that Palestinians (and other Arab groups) also bear a lot of responsibility for what is happening in the middle east."

    I have no particular problem with that position. My support for Israel is based on what I see as U.S. interests. Other views may differ.

    "I'm not a US citizen, so I'd feel a lot more comfortable about the US "projecting power" into other states if it had less to do with US interests, and more to do with trying to improve others' lot."

    If I were not a U.S. citizen, I'd probably feel the same way. But since I am a U.S. citizen, my position is that the U.S. government should advance U.S. interests. It is not and should not be our job to improve other's lots. And we already do more of that than any other country.

    "I think recent US administrations have become aware of this feeling around the world, and are now trying to clothe their imperialist agendas in a layer of humanitarian hyperbole (cynical, I know)"

    I think those who accuse the U.S. of impoerialism don't know what actual U.S. imperialism would look like.

    "I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that we should leave other countries alone to abuse their own citizens,"

    I'm not a humanitarian. I don't particularly care whether countries abuse their own citizens, as long as they are not either hostile to, or close allies with the U.S.

    "I think we need to be careful about the exercise of powe"

    True.

    "I think Iraq has amply demonstrated that we don't have the power we'd like to have."

    I think the U.S. (and other advanced countries) actually have far more power than it appears. Our power is constrained by self-imposed restrictions and the limitations of political will. But if you mean that we don't have the power to quickly transform a country into a U.S. style democratic state, I agree. There are certain things that just aren't realistic, despite our power.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi, same poster here.

    Would you therefore subscribe to the idea that might is right? The US is currently the most powerful nation, but that won't last. If the US uses its last years of hegemony to reiterate the idea that the powerful should further their own interests and trample on whomever gets in their way, then it is likely that future superpowers will simply continue to do the same thing (potentially at the expense of future US interests).

    What I'm trying to say, is that if you take a big-picture view of "US interests", I think you would support a multi-lateral approach to international affairs, as well as an approach based on the common good, human rights and international law -- because it will be better for you in the long run.

    "I think those who accuse the U.S. of imperialism don't know what actual U.S. imperialism would look like."
    I take your point. I think this is largely because US voters are divided on how "strong-arm" the country should be, and the government needs to at least appear to act in a humanitarian way (to convince the swing voters).

    "I'm not a humanitarian. I don't particularly care whether countries abuse their own citizens, as long as they are not either hostile to, or close allies with the U.S."
    I'm confused by this. Are you saying that you don't care about human rights abuses, but wouldn't be friends/allies with such regimes? If you don't care, then why does it matter?

    "I think the U.S. (and other advanced countries) actually have far more power than it appears."
    This reminds me of a conversation with a guy who argued that the US could have won the Vietnam war by nuking the entire country -- as if you can win an ideological war by killing everyone.

    Nice chatting with you, btw.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Would you therefore subscribe to the idea that might is right?"

    In practical terms, it often works that way in relations between state. I don't think morals that apply to individuals are a useful way to look at state interaction.

    "The US is currently the most powerful nation, but that won't last"

    So we hear, but I'm highly skeptical. The U.S. has many strategic advantages and will probably continue as the most powerful nation for the foreseeable future.

    "If the US uses its last years of hegemony to reiterate the idea that the powerful should further their own interests and trample on whomever gets in their way, then it is likely that future superpowers will simply continue to do the same thing (potentially at the expense of future US interests)."

    Future superpowers will act however they will act regardless of what the U.S. does now.

    "What I'm trying to say, is that if you take a big-picture view of "US interests", I think you would support a multi-lateral approach to international affairs, as well as an approach based on the common good, human rights and international law -- because it will be better for you in the long run."

    I disagree with that line of thinking. Everything you mention sometimes falls within U.S. interests, but sometimes it doesn't. Advancing those ideas is not inherently in the U.S. interest in every situation, and in some circumstances is diametrically opposed.

    "I'm confused by this. Are you saying that you don't care about human rights abuses, but wouldn't be friends/allies with such regimes? If you don't care, then why does it matter?"

    If a close ally is also a major human rights abuser that is an embarrassment to the U.S. By virture of our alliance, it is then in our interests to convince that state to moderate its abuses. If a hostile state is an abuser, that gives us a propaganda weapon we can use against it, including a possible lever to overthrow the regime -- should that be necessary or desirable. In other situations, I don't see it in the U.S. interest to interfere, possibly damaging relations with a state in the process.

    "This reminds me of a conversation with a guy who argued that the US could have won the Vietnam war by nuking the entire country -- as if you can win an ideological war by killing everyone."

    Of course you can win a war by killing everyone -- although that usually isn't desirable. People routinely confuse what we are willing to do with what could be done if the situation changed. The fact that we are not willing to do certain things because of our current values, etc., does not mean that those measures would be ineffective.

    "Nice chatting with you, btw."

    You too. I always appreciate reasonable disagreement.

    ReplyDelete