November 2nd, 2004
My answer to Mickey Kaus’s crazy assertion that it’s “obvious” Bush will create more new terrorists than Kerry would is up.
-
The criteria you use to dismiss Mr. Kaus seems appropriate. But don’t such criteria—data, data, data—also push claims about one’s religious faith beyond the reach of decidability? Or, perhaps more damaging for Mr. Bush, don’t such criteria push any assertion of winning the war on terror beyond our epistemic limits. (Let’s bracket for the moment all questions about the implausibility of a war on a method of violence.)Parlor games about critical reason aside, your argument undercuts much of the rational foundation for taking on Iraq. Aside from the louder reasons for using force to depose Mr. Hussein, occupy, and rebuild Iraq, many observers quietly discussed the nexus of despotism, poverty, and Islamic fundamentalism. These discussions highlighted the relationship between economic and political freedom, identifying political repression, disenfranchisement, and the lack of economic opportunity as factors likely to fuel the growth of Islamic extremism. Of those who argued for the occupation of Iraq to establish a model of liberal democratic insitutions there, the most coherent participants in this discussion worried about the United States’ continuing support for both anti-democratic and anti-liberal governments, support that, in conjunction with our support of Israel, grounds Arab and Islamic claims of American hypocrisy and contributed to anti-American sentiment across the Middle East.In addition to charges of hypocrisy, the existential facts of life in anti-liberal and economically underdeveloped societies promote the consideration of social and political violence by their citizens. Such conditions allow the eschatological hopes and ideas of aggressive Islamic fundamentalists a hearing that they might not otherwise receive, thereby creating the possibility of much broader and more dangerous challenges to American and liberal interests. So the logic runs.It may be the case that American foreign policy in the Middle East has created economic and social opportunities for which we have no data. If this is true, it seems reasonable to believe that those who might otherwise provide a recruiting base for Islamists will instead go to work and support their families. On the other hand, if American policies in the region have no tangible positive effect on individual lives, why should I believe that the apparent distaste for U.S. policies will limit or alleviate the despair that feeds eschatological hope?The question is not whether we should use force to secure ourselves against radical Islamic totalitarians; that’s a no-brainer. (But the idea that, as “rational actors”, potential terrorists will think twice about their actions because American forces are hunting them seems naively familiar. I didn’t think anybody still believed in rational choice theory.)The unasked question concerns how we respond to the civil war within Islam. Perhaps we can rely on the attraction of freedom and democracy, as Mr. Bush seems to believe, though we might better understand the situation if we attended to the ideas forming about the next wave of political reform in the region. The ideas of Islamic democracy or representative government are battling Islamic totalitarianism and the more standard status-quo-despotism. If, as all news sources report, American credibility and respect is failing in the streets, and we are presiding over deadly occupation, how does this help us convince Arabs and Muslims that they should side with us?
-
you are all morons. they come from countries with strong a muslim presence
Matthew Heidt November 2, 2004 at 7:35 am
The answer to what creates terrorists is…Weakness. 9/11 by its dynamic success inspired a generation of potential terrorists. We have created the perfect killing field for them in Iraq by accident or design who knows. http://froggyruminations.blogspot.com/2004/11/john-kerry-al-qaeda-recruiter.html