Will Femia of MSNBC’s Clicked links to my piece criticizing western leaders and media sources who provide rhetorical cover for terrorists, an argument prompted by London bomber Shehzad Tanweer’s purported admission to a cousin that “the abuse of Muslim prisoners in Guantanamo Bay” calls for “violent retaliation.” Muses Femia:
Here at MSNBC.com we get letters about how talking about terrorists too much actually encourages them. Are terrorists (or anyone) really so attuned to all of this talk?
I’ve been asked this question several times—sometimes in earnest, sometimes dismissively—so I suppose I should make my answer clear: it depends on the terrorist. If you are speaking of those terrorists indoctrinated from birth in the medieval atmosphere of a Pakistani madrassa, the answer is probably no. But if you believe the thesis put forward by Olivier Roy (and, separately, Reuel Marc Gerecht) that a major concern we face in the GWOT is the growing threat from Islamists being radicalized inside one of the balkanized, “multiculturalist”-friendly liberal democracies of western Europe, then the answer is undoubtedly yes. After all, Tanweer was, from all accounts, a perfectly assimilated Leeds boy, and one assumes that as such, he—like the rest of his countrymen—was treated to the self-serving pontifications of George Galloway and Ken Livingstone, the columns of John Pilger and a host of anti-war, anti-Blair Guardian propagandists, and, invariably, Al Jazzeera and the BBC—neither of which has ever been accused of being too friendly to the Iraq war coalition (and neither of which, ironically, is comfortable describing those who commit acts of terror as “terrorists”).
My post, as I’ve gone to great pains to make clear, was not an attempt to smear “the Left” as some homogenous entity responsible for terrorist bombings. Terrorists are responsible for their own actions, and I, unlike some of my ideological opponents, do not believe for a one second that, as actors possessing free will, these radicalized thugs are somehow compelled to act. Instead, my argument was meant to call out those on the left (and I gave several specific examples) whose words and actions are indeed aiding the cause of radical Islam by consistently providing excuses for their actions, or else by undermining our prosecution of the war in their partisan-inspired rush to condemn coalition actions in advance of the facts, publicly and often in the most hyperbolic terms.
That this is even debatable is astounding to me. But not quite so astounding as my continued capacity to muster astonishment, even after having seen these types of behaviors defended time and time again by people whose culture has been targeted for destruction by a committed enemy with no compunction, and with no conscience not provided for by the precepts of their murderous ideology.
****
see also, VP.
Paraphrasing Golda Mier (yes, badly): we, the West, will not take this war seriously until “the left” hates the actions/activities of the Islamic nihilists more than it hates Americans (or Republicans).
Word is fear; oddly appropriate in that I don’t believe this transition will occur soon.
Atrios blames the shoot-first-ask-questions-later rhetoric of the war on terror for the shooting death of the innocent man by police in London.
Well, that and the fact that he wore a heavy coat in summer, came out of a building under surveillance, went straight to the tube station, disobeyed police orders to stop, jumped a turnstile and ran straight towards target #1…
Call him “innocent but real stupid”, and you know what Bob Heinlein said about stupidity.
Somebody ask Atrocious whether he’d rather the Bobbies fialed to shoot an actual bomber. On a train he’s riding.
What twits. Both of ‘em.
Jeff is right on the money. If you simply read (most of) the papers, or listen to the BBC’s world report, and don’t take the time to inform yourself with various sources or do any actual thinking about the various phenomena at work in the GWOT, you get the idea that there isn’t right or wrong. To the Pilgers, Galloways, Ralls, Moores, etc. there isn’t a side that deserves to prevail– and that’s just about the sickest fucking thing I can imagine. So, you have young Muslim cricket fans turn into bomb-packing fanatics, thinking hey, I’m being a progressive here!
Jeff,
I generally support your position, but there is one point that should be clarified. I don’t think the media and the left are “providing excuses for… (radical Islam’s) actions” I recall Osama Bin Laden citing the use of atomic weapons on Japan as an example of the perfidy of the West.
Terrorists don’t need anyone to give them excuses, they need people to give validity to their excuses. They need people who say “Terrorism is wrong, *but* the terrorists are right to be angry for the reasons they state.” Or, for that matter, they need those who agree with terror’s “root causes” and support violence in the pursuit of those goals.
What I hope will happen is that enough of them will eventually realize that when some “bomber” blows up a bunch of innocents in a public place, it is for the same reason that the Klan sets fire to a church with a black congregation.
But I’m not holding my breath.
I take your point, Glen, but I think some on the left and some in the media do indeed provide excuses, not that the terrorists need them. They came with plenty of their own, but remember, many of al Qaeda’s leaders studied in the west and are quite aware of materialist critiques of modern market-oriented nations.
I’d be willing to qualify my argument by saying something like “additional” excuses. Fair enough?
Jeff,
You had me at “hello”. You’ve been right all along on this meme.
You’re right, Jeff, the terrorists don’t need excuses—they think they’re doing Allah’s work. But excuses by people in the West do help the terrorists by making it easier to recruit. They also provide cover for a significant number of folks to engage in what I call “ostriching.” Those people will keep their heads in the sand and their asses in the air until the latter are blown clean off. They then lobby their governments and make it more difficult to take action.
The sad thing is, it gives the bad guys time to get more proficient at mass murder.
What’s surprised me most about the stink my post raised is that those who’re so quick to point out how complex the problem of terrorism is can’t seem to understand that you can blame terrorists for terrorism while simultaneously holding propagandists responsible for providing those terrorists with legitimacy either by repeating the terrorist’s own propaganda (detainees’ claims of torture given maximum credence in advance of the facts) or by ginning it up themselves (eg., Galloway, et al, Durbin and Pol Pot, etc.). My post calls for them to knock it off—not for them to cede their First Amendment rights, not for the to “stop criticizing mistakes in the war,” etc. Those are red herrings offered up by opponents so keen on ignoring my point and winning a debate that they simply will not admit to the simple fact that anti-coalition propaganda delivered during war time by our own side helps the terrorists.
ExRat brings up the key point, I think. Propaganda isn’t (primarily) about the terrorists; it’s about the fence-sitters. The terrorist recruiters can use American lefties for support, but if the lefties weren’t around, something else could work almost as well for recruiting the really fervent types. Hell, go for the return of Andalusia to Muslim rule – just as good as Americans mistreating Korans, really.
But… consider a hypothetical scenario in Leeds. Muhammad the Merchant overheard Johnny Jihad bragging about how he’s going to London on Tuesday to blow up the U.S. embassy. Does he call the cops, or pretend he didn’t hear anything?
Now, Muhammad is a nice guy. He’s a family man, happy to be in Britain, not especially religious or political. And he’s not especially well-informed about the world, though he tries at least a little. He watches news in his own language from al-Jazeera. Realizing that different perspectives are good, and hoping it will improve his English, he also watches the news on the BBC. Based on what he can remember learning, he tries to decide on a course of action.
Muhammad has nothing personal against the U.S. or Americans, and is a law-abiding citizen. But… wow, he’s heard the Americans are doing awful, horrible things to Muslims. Casually murdering civilians by the thousands, desecrating holy books…. And Muhammad is skeptical, he knows how stupid rumors can spread. But… well, the more he looks, an awful lot of Americans are saying the same things! And trusted, important people! This McKinney woman – she’s a member of the American Congress. And that Dr. Dean person – excitable chap, but he’s the leader of America’s largest political party, is he not? And here… Senator Kennedy – brother of the great American martyr-hero-President! And they all agree with the commentators on al-Jazeera! Surely they would not oppose their own country in such a manner if the allegations were false. Perhaps this Bush fellow really is an evil tyrant?
And so, Muhammed lifts his hand off the telephone. No, no need to call the police, he thinks. Not his business. It could be dangerous to himself and his family. And really, when you consider all the news he’s heard… the Americans have it coming, don’t they?
Jeff: Few things should astound you. You just have to understand that–degrees and professional status notwithstanding–a sense of perspective is a very rare trait, indeed.
The analogy I thought of when I read the original post was a parent making excuses for the misdeeds of their kid. A weak analogy, but it covers the angle of holding the kid responsible for it while similarly castigating the parent for willfully turning a blind eye to the possibility their child should be held accountable.
Jeff,
I wrote a pretty good clarification to my original thought, but when I submitted the form the software told me I had not entered the spam-blocker word correctly and I lost the whole thing. Gone. Bye-bye.
If I feel like it I’ll reconstruct it later, otherwise screw it.
Glen
Sorry about that, Glen.
you can blame terrorists for terrorism while simultaneously holding propagandists responsible for providing those terrorists with legitimacy either by repeating the terrorist’s own propaganda (detainees’ claims of torture given maximum credence in advance of the facts) or by ginning it up themselves (eg., Galloway, et al, Durbin and Pol Pot, etc.).
If I understand this (and your arguments in the first thread) correctly, what you’re saying is that by using rhetoric in whose context the United States is presented as “demonic” (or whatever term you wish to use), critics of US policy / bad apples are, wittingly or not, “justifying” the terrorists’ basic claim that murdering civilians is their only recourse, because no one can be expected to stand by and allow their people to be mistreated. In other words, the terrorists are claiming “victim” status for themselves, and “aggressor” status for the US, so Durbin et al are helping to legitimize those claims.
If this is the point you’re driving at, then I believe you’re correct in your overall logic, but incorrect in your instance-evaluation. The logical basis of your argument has merit because, to use a Nazi analogy that I think is not inappropriate for once, this is exactly how the propaganda campaign against Jews was carried out – by presenting Jews as evil monsters who controlled the world and wanted to destroy the human race. If that were the case, then how could any decent human being be expected not to act? So, relating back to the original point, anyone who, at the time, made arguments presenting Jews as a whole in a sinister light would have been providing “rhetorical cover” to the Nazis. Up to this point, I’m definitely with you (if my interpretation is on target). However, I think your evaluation goes wrong in the following ways:
1) Interpreting Durbin’s (or any other Democratic politician’s) remarks as “presenting the United States overall in a sinister light”. I can acknowledge that some hardcore True Believer self-described “leftists” do exactly that, and frankly, I wish they would shut up, even if I believe at the same time that they have a right to express their beliefs. However, it seems to me that Durbin, in particular, was trying to make the point that this sort of behavior is not representative of the American character – which is precisely why it needs to be stopped, and its perpetrators punished severely.
2) Believing that, as I think someone else put it, “words are more important than actions”. Basically, the cat was out of the bag a long time ago on Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, and it’s the actions of Americans in those places that inflame passions in the Muslim world. If anything, in fact, I would say that loud, public, harsh self-criticism makes for a glaring contrast between the United States and oppressive Arab regimes. The fact that our opposition party is allowed to criticize the President completely undermines the idea that we as a nation are the monolithic, sheep-like Western imperialists that bin Laden and his ilk (and, yes, a few pompous assholes like Ward Churchill) try to make us out to be so they can justify murdering people who have absolutely nothing to do with carrying out the American policies to which they object.
Whether Durbin or anyone else had all this in mind when they made their remarks (they probably didn’t) is a separate matter. I simply don’t believe those words had the effect you seem to be saying they had, even if I agree that the possibility exists for that to happen.
it seems to me that Durbin, in particular, was trying to make the point that this sort of behavior is not representative of the American character – which is precisely why it needs to be stopped, and its perpetrators punished severely.
Well, Durbin was wringing his hands and trying to buy cheap grace at the expense of this administration, I think. Sure, he’s saying America is above these kinds of actions—but he’s also implying that they are systematically engaging in these kinds of actions, which turned out not to be the case in Gitmo.
<object.</i>
Again, this is not about squelching self-criticism. That’s important. But my original premise, if you go back and read the post, was the continued deployment of hyperbolic rhetoric in advance of the facts, or—in the worst cases—despite the facts. All as part of partisan gamesmanship.
Damn, Jeff. You write so goodly!