Well, Mike, given your conservative background, I wouldn't expect you to agree with me, nor would I expect that you would acknowledge any expertise on my part, despite the years I spent working in Muslim countries.
Terrorism results from a combination of factors, including alienation from not being allowed ownership over one's land. For over 60 years, Palestinian refugees have been forced to live in refugee camps and have not only been driven off their land, but the Israelis have refused even to consider compensation. To add insult to injury, the Israelis who control Palestinian territory have allowed extemist Jewish groups to come in and settle, granting them building permits for permanent housing subdivisions, while denying permits to any Arabs who might also like to build in the same areas.
The sympathy among Muslim populations throughout the world for this abject, forceful eviction of the Palestinians has been one of the great motivating factors for terrorism, and the loss of hope for any improvement leads to the willingness to martyr oneself while killing or injuring others. The U.S. would have been much better off pressuring both sides to accept the land for peace agreement that came out of Camp David. Sharon is the most extreme of those in power in Israel for NEVER having endorsed the land for peace agreements. In fact, his record has been unwavering in driving out the Palestinians entirely--no compromise whatsoever.
These are the kinds of acts that have alienated Arabs, particularly those exposed to fundamentalist views of Islam, encouraging them to do anything, including kill innocent people, in response to the unwavering attitude of Sharon and his Israeli supporters (not by any means all of Israel). Bush declined to rein in Sharon because he thought a tough attitude against the Palestinians and in favor of Sharon would get him a lot of Jewish votes in the U.S. and reduce the amount of Jewish monetary support for Democrats. That was the main reason he didn't pressure Sharon into not expanding the settlements, much less withdrawing from the settlements.
All this is what breeds terrorism. The U.S. is seen in the eyes of the Arab extremists as responsible for Israel's truculent behavior. Were the U.S. more even handed, there would be much less support for terrorism, which appears to be the only way to hurt Americans. The current war makes it even more likely that terrorism will increase as a result.
What could have been done differently? First, the U.S., departing from the work that began with Jimmy Carter's Camp David accord, and further departing from Clinton's attempts to force a compromise on the Arabs and Jews (he was very critical of Arafat), decided in effect to end diplomacy and go with military solutions. This is a mistake because it can only produce even more terrorism.
Then the Bush administration used 9-11 as an excuse to mobilize public opinion against Iraq on the false premise that Iraq was somehow connected with 9-11. It was never proven, nor was or is there any evidence of a connection. But this is a public relations thing, so the finer points, like evidence, don't count as much. Just tell them whatever, and most of them will believe you. The real reason, of course, for going into Iraq is to avenge the mistake of Bush senior for NOT going in and finishing the job, and more important, for gaining control over enough Middle East oil to break the grip of Saudi Arabia, whose policies set world oil prices (just the way the Texas Railroad Commission used to set oil prices when Texas was the main source of oil used in the U.S.).
The documents supporting this view are numerous and have been cited by many others on this thread. The evidence is overwhelming. Assuming that most people are too ignorant of the real situation, and too preoccupied with other problems, the Bush administration has bamboozled the public into believing that war is the only way.
Well, as a diplomat with years of service in Muslim countries, I know it isn't. And if anyone would talk with the hundreds of retired diplomats around and about Washington, they would find that my opinion is similar to others, whether they be Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal.
The bottom line is that this policy costs a lot more than a peaceful solution, and war, regardless of the short term victory, will be more expensive for each and every American for the next two generations at least. When you praise war, you should also praise higher taxes, because the two are inseparable.
Remember also that the bottom line isn't solely higher taxes and their impact on the U.S. As I said earlier, the bottom line also includes the destabilizing effect of terrorist groups against moderate Arab governments such as Egypt, which lost Anwar Saddat to a terrorist gun. You can't make intelligent policy just on what will get you the most votes in the next election. You have to look at the whole picture, including what your policy does to your allies, and I include countries like Egypt in that group, though it may not be that way for long.
Now why won't the Bush administration look at the whole picture? Because it is blinded by ideology, disinterested in skilled government and the professional handling of public policy, and worse, completely lacking in any professional competence in dealing with the Middle East at the upper echelon of policy making. If you think this an overstatement, just look at who is making policy--Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle--not a single person with ANY academic background in the area, with any ability to speak or understand the language, or with any practical experience working with the people living in that area. No wonder we're in such a mess.
Art |
