This is such an important issue for Americans (at least) at the present time that I thought it worth posting here.
By Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski
Notably absent from the presidential primary campaign is serious discussion of how to implement an effective long-term strategy for protecting the United States from future terrorist acts. Many political leaders in the past have embraced winning "the battle of ideas" against Muslim extremists as the most important component of any strategy, yet this ubiquitous catchphrase stems from an erroneous and counterproductive framework for understanding extremists like Osama bin Laden.
The framework assumes that groups like al Qaeda possess a coherent and compelling interpretation of Islam that the United States must counter to prevent Muslims from adopting it. This flawed understanding should be replaced with a more nuanced approach based on the true nature of the terrorist threat.
The "battle of ideas" approach is counterproductive for two important reasons: first, it encourages the concept of a Manichean struggle. raging between two equally powerful and opposing world views, in effect legitimizing the extremists' understanding of the struggle, and second, it overstates the extent to which bin Laden's world view constitutes a viable theological alternative for the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. These zealous religious views are not only alien to most Muslims living today, but have also earned a place on the fringe of the history of Islamic intellectual thought.
For an effective strategy, the United States needs to take three important steps.
The first is decoupling Islam and terrorism. The 9/11 commission report states that "the enemy is not just 'terrorism' ... it is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism." While it is true that America faces a significant threat from people who identify themselves as Muslims and dress their grievances in religious terms, this does not mean that such people are perpetrators of "Islamist terrorism." The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts. "Terrorism in the name of Islam" is more accurate.
The second step requires recognition that most grievances expressed by extremists such as bin Laden are secular and political in nature. They are angry about what they perceive as the exploitation of Muslims at the hands of the United States. They enjoy sympathy from Muslims who perceive the United States, and the West in general, as per~ petuators of an unjust global politicaleconomic system. As many have already noted, the attacks of 9/11 targeted American FINANCIAL and military complexes and not Western religious symbols. Though the United States should not accept at face value the legitimacy of al Qaeda grievances, we cannot effectively prevent terrorist acts from taking place without a better understanding of their ultimately profane roots.
.
The third step involves ensuring the United States actively works for the promotion of human dignity. U.S. policymakers should make a concerted effort to understand the circumstances of the countries of the Muslim world that cause a sense of deprivation and humiliation among their populations, as these factors contribute to sympathy for al Qaeda's political aims. Washington conventional wisdom maintains that Muslims need to believe in an alternative vision for their economic and political future, though the vast majority of Muslims need no convincing that economic prosperity and political freedom are good things. Muslims share the same vision held by humanity everywhere - a secure future for their children and a life defined by dignity and liberty. Thus, policy makers should approach Muslims as partners on the path toward bettering livelihoods in Muslim societies.
If the United States continues to be implicated in the social, political and economic underdevelopment of much of the Muslim world, al Qaeda will continue to gain followers who are blind to everything but the perceived destructive effects of U.S. hegemony. In the end, focusing on winning the "battle of ideas" obscures our view of what must be done to prevent future terrorist attacks. The United States should recognize the true nature of the terrorist threat, identify its root causes, and partner with Muslims to eliminate them.
COMMON GROUND NEWS SERVICE
Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski work for the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.
9/11
I watched a TV show on National Geographic that said their was two main factors that caused 9/11:
1. Bin Laden was upset that his helped was turned down for USA support for the Desert Storm war.
2. Two of the 9/11 conspirers just wanted to "kills Jews".
Anyone have any knowledge of this?
You can find
any number of responses to the question of what caused 9/11. Here's one.
[Dinesh] D'Souza contends that the cultural left is responsible for 9/11 in two ways. They fostered "a decadent and depraved American culture that angers and repulses other societies ? especially traditional and religious ones ? and by promoting, at home and abroad, an anti-American attitude that blames America for all the problems of the world."
In his book, D'Souza explains his thesis further: "I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world."
Another:
"The history I?ve described is very complex, but there are common themes of anger, frustration and shame. Many Arabs and Muslims on the ?street? are angry because they feel as though they have been victimized since 1918. The West destroyed the Ottomon Empire and the Caliphate. The West colonized Arab lands and forced a Jewish state in their midst. The West polluted Islam by introducing the ideas of secularism, rationalism and feminism. The West only cares about Arab countries because of their oil.
Arabs and Muslims are frustrated because their own countries and leaders ? frequently supported by the West ? have failed them. Most of their leaders are harsh, authoritarian dictatorships who have done little to help the people, build functioning economies or create civil societies ? and they are divided along religious and ethnic lines. Arabs and Muslims are shamed because countries with other religions ? the West and Israel ? are doing much better than those that are Islamic. (People take pride in their religions.) Above all, Arabs and Muslims ? like all people ? want dignity and respect, but they have nowhere to find it. So many turn to extremism.
But what can be done? That?s something the next U.S. president will need to determine."
http://samueljscott.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/the-causes-of-911/
A shame,
isn't it ? There are actually leaders, both political and religious, who encourage their followers to believe such sad and dangerous ideas -- in many parts of the world, and probably throughout the history of "civilized" mankind.
[Sorry for all the question marks in the above quotes; they are supposed to be apostrophes and quotation marks. . .]
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com