By Barry Rubin
In the exchange over Ron Paul’s vindication of the September 11 attack in the Republican presidential debate there’s an important point being missed. Paul keeps insisting that Usama bin Ladin attacked America because the United States was occupying Muslim territory, particularly Saudi Arabia, and its treatment of the Palestinians.
This is not true.
But equally, Rick Santorum was wrong when he remarked in response: “We were attacked, as Newt [Gingrich] talked about, because we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists.”
It is amazing that ten years after September 11 the truth is still not widely understood. First, Paul misses the number one complaint of bin Ladin at the time, which was the U.S. sanctions on Iraq which bin Ladin claims was killing millions of Iraqis. Those sanctions were UN-approved and a response to Saddam Hussein’s refusal to implement measures to check his nuclear and WMD programs in general.
In other words, this was not some American action but an international action in response to Iraqi behavior, and could have been lifted at any moment if Saddam had wanted to do so. Saddam’s dictatorship was also using available money to buy arms and obtain luxuries for his elite so he was doubly responsible for any suffering within Iraq, which was exaggerated by his regime for propaganda purposes.
Ron Paul doesn’t want to seem as if he’s siding with Saddam Hussein but he is.
Second, Paul is dead wrong when he attributes the September 11 attack to al-Qaida’s anger at U.S. policy toward the Palestinians. What is surprising is how infrequently this issue was mentioned before the attacks. Indeed, having done a detailed survey of al-Qaida statements before September 11, I discovered that the Palestinian issue was not mentioned more than such things as the treatment of Muslims in the Balkans and in Southeast Asia.
Moreover, by September 2001, the United States had become the main patron of the Palestinians, provided most of the aid they received (and encouraged other countries to give the rest), and had offered a Palestinian state.
Paul thus merely accepts and promotes Islamist propaganda. In many ways, so does the current occupant of the White House.
But Santorum and Gingrich are obviously wrong also. Why should Islamists attack the World Trade Center because “we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists”? Why should they possibly care?
The reason this issue is relevant is not because Jihadists are concerned about what America does at home but their fearing such practices will come to dominate their own society. They are not protesting how Americans live but want to discredit the United States and show it as a failed society in order to make it a less attractive model.
Thus, Gingrich and Santorum are wrong but, of course, there is nothing the United States can do in policy terms–whether flattery or concessions to Muslims–that can fix this problem. On the contrary, the more conciliatory the United States tries to be the more dangerous it is. Obama’s approach has the exact opposite impact from what he thinks, not to mention the way that such behavior is interpreted as a sign of American weakness.
Here’s an example to keep in mind: the Iranian revolutionaries seized hostages in response to the Carter Administration’s conciliation efforts. They feared that such moves would lead to a deradicalization of the revolution and better relations with the United States, things they were determined to prevent.
The main missing element here does relate to U.S. action but not anything the United States should be ashamed of. A bit of background is needed. By September 2001, the Islamists had failed. Other than in Afghanistan—where, ironically, they did so in part with U.S. help—the Islamists had not taken over any country other than Iran. The movement was flagging. Insurgencies in Algeria and Egypt were totally defeated.
What bin Ladin and his colleagues concluded—and very explicitly and consistently explained—was that a change in priority was needed. When they tried to overthrow Arab governments they were defeated; when they killed Muslims in terrorist attacks they were unpopular.
Instead, al-Qaida promoted a new strategy: attack the United States as the perceived force preventing an Islamist victory against the existing regimes and kill non-Muslim, Americans in order to appear heroic and to be popular. The mighty United States would be shown to be a pitiful helpless giant, the Muslim masses would decide they were all-powerful, and revolutions would sweep the Middle East.
Two additional points are important here. First, this was an attempt to repeat the victory in Afghanistan—the place where al-Qaida arose—according to bin Ladin’s exception. Afghanistan was conquered by defeating one superpower, the USSR, which subsequently collapsed. Attacking New York and Washington would defeat the other superpower and the United States would collapse.
It was true that U.S. policy was a major element in motivating the attack but not the policy of “occupation” in any real sense but the understanding that America was ultimately the biggest enemy of the jihadists and would never support their coming to power. Well, how would bin Ladin know that Barack Obama would become president?
Yet could American policy have been different? Was the United States going to sponsor al-Qaida and the jihadists? Of course not. Thus, al-Qaida attacked America because of the same factor that made imperial Japan bomb Pearl Harbor, or the USSR view the United States as its main Cold War adversary.
Thus, a Cold War “Ron Paul” would wrongly say that the USSR hated America because it was an imperialist occupier—wrong—and a Cold War Santorum-Gingrich would wrongly say that the USSR hated America because the United States had a democratic system of freedom. Similarly, the Japanese did not attack the United States because it “occupied” the Philippines, Guam, and Wake Island, nor did they attack it because they didn’t like American civilization. They attacked because they knew that America must be discredited and defeated if Tokyo was going to rule the entire Pacific Ocean and most of its shores.
The USSR, 1941 Japan, Islamist Iran, and al-Qaida hated America because they correctly perceived it as a strategic adversary which had to be destroyed in order for them to triumph. And in playing this role, the United States made no mistake and had no choice. These are not moralistic issues—bad America as occupier; good America as land of freedom—but strategic issues. And the next president of the United States better understand strategy, not just self-loathing or applause lines.
“The USSR, 1941 Japan, Islamist Iran, and al-Qaida hated America because they correctly perceived it as a strategic adversary which had to be destroyed in order for them to triumph.”
Confuses levels of analysis. “Hate”, is a human emotion, as such it is people not countries who hate. People rarely “hate” wholesale another people in abstract. It is usually the consequence of violence of major proportion that might lead to hate another people who might wish to destroy you. I am not sure if Russians or other ethnic groups in USSR “hated” Americans. Remember that was after all a cold war. The feelings of “love” I think was mutual between Japan and US in 1941 as a result of hand to hand combat. US loved Japan so much that it gave them a nuclear detonation. Iran? Well they think your CIA stole their democracy and they were immensely humiliated. You stole their freedom and gave them Shah’s tyranny. Al Qaida? American support for Arab tyrants who stole their freedom? Short of it, whether deserved or imaginary what people hate is humiliation. If they feel humiliated, they hate because they feel helpless. Consequently, they direct their hatred towards the source of their humiliation. That I believe is human nature.
Are you serious?
To me the quran gives justification to slay the unbeliever
in surah 9 and many other verses justify suicide bombing.
In Islam there end time global agenda is to rule the world.
Iran is waiting for the mahdee. To me it is justified in quranic theology
September 11th
Dr Phil fernandes says a Christian back to the bible movement is peaceful as Christians
Were persecuted the first three hundred years of Christianity compared to the conquering sword of Islam
Which conquered countries the first 300 years of Islam
it is more than just political motives that motivate Muslims to attack America
I am amazed how ignorant politians are
You are correct. Islam was the motivation behind September 11.
Rumsfeld’s biggest regret: Bush administration too politically correct to name the enemy, radical Islam
Well, that’s certainly a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough, not by a long shot. It isn’t “radical Islam” that’s our enemy, it’s Islam.
Oh, and by the way, the US made the huge mistake of fighting on behalf of the Muslims in the Balkans. No, that did not win us the favor of any Muslim country or power. Instead, the Muslim world accepted this misguided assistance as a form of “tribute” from the unbelievers (meaning us), and then came back around to bite us.
How sadly predictable.
rumsfeld is a three trillion dollar mistake.. no way around that for that neocon bs artist.
There are only three main factors for why Al Qaeda waged war to the level of September 11.
1. Power – ultimately Al Qaeda is a co-op of militant groups that seek power, religion though serious to them is still an means to an end.
2. Force the concept of “clash of civilizations”, based on the assumption that such a clash will “unite” the Muslim world – under their control, of course.
3. The actual September 11 attack was the high-stakes attempt, clever and well done considering how security was managed at the time, but it was raised because before that point, the West and in particular the US, did not respond as was hoped.
Yet again, Barry Rubin has introduced much needed perspective regarding our Islamist enemy.
Younger readers here should note carefully his comparisons, and try to Google around too “Cold War”, “Japanese Imperialism”, and associated links. There is in America today a general ignorance of World Affairs and how they’ve directly influenced living Americans.
We Americans have an enormous obligation to…yes….ourselves….. to become aware of events beyond Lady Gaga and the latest celebrity pregnancy. Try it, it’s actually very interesting, this thing called “History”. Try being informed…you’ll like it.
Thanks again, Mr Rubin.
When our president gets apologetic, and proceeds to flatter the Islamist’s pride, he is imagining that pretending to be humble and deferent will eliminate the most natural corollary of representing a great power: Being the necessary strategic target of any group animated by any global ambition of a supremacist nature.
It is understandable that a child will try to accommodate a bully, for self-preservation, but a grown man is expected to know that the the only effective policy towards bullies is to oppose them until they back off, which in hard cases may require them to experience the ultimate humiliation of defeat.
There are bloodless ways the jihadis could really hurt the USA. But they seem to want the glory attached to the heroic Mohammed’s successful jihad. Big explosions, blood and drama may be just too seductive. Bin Laden seems to have grown a few bricks short of a load, what with his pitiful existence and his habit of parroting liberal talking points. I think we overlook Hezbollah too much. They appear to be far more dangerous than Al Queda and are well entrenched in our country, waiting for orders from Iran to attack.
It is possible to describe circumstances under which terrorism might be understandable. The very fact that we are arguing over the objective means that the 9/11 attacks failed the first condition of absolute clarity of motivation.
The response must be to assume the worst possible motive and act accordingly.