The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism

[ethics]

Since last year's attacks on New York and Washington, the conventional wisdom about the motivation behind such deadly terrorism has gelled. The violence, we are often told, was a reaction to misguided U.S. policies.

So says Barry Rubin, Director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center in a r<a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20021101faessay9993/barry-rubin/the-real-roots-of-arab-anti-americanism.html">ecent article for Foreign Affairs.</a>

This explanation, he feels, completely ignores a large amount of evidence to the contrary. To lend credence to his assessment, he points out several largely undiscussed facts that generally lay ignored by critics of American policy in the region.

One of the traditional arguments is that the United States, down the line, has proven itself to be 'anti-Muslim,' when in fact, he claims, it is not. He cites the U.S. imposed cease-fire between a victorious Israel and a defeated Egypt in 1973, lack of U.S. support for a joint Israeli/British/French plan to overthrow Nasser in 1956, U.S. support for Yasser Arafat in Beiruit in 1982, and American support for the mujihadeen in Afghanistan against the invading Soviets, among other things, as evidence that the United States has sided with Muslims many times in the past.

I urge everyone to read it.

[tke711]

Very good read!

Thanks for sharing that Ethics!

[Ugly]

Good post ethics. Ugly

[ethics]

Danka. Foreign Affairs, NG, and The Atlantic are the magazines I must have in print form. :)

[Sierra Mike]

Now all we need to do is have it translated into Arabic and Farsi...

SM

[DSL Dan]

Shouldn't display my ignorance like this, but didn't we come to the aid of Muslims in Bosnia?

[Sierra Mike]

We did indeed...US forces rolled in to save the Bosniacs.

SM

[ethics]

Originally posted by DSL Dan
Shouldn't display my ignorance like this, but didn't we come to the aid of Muslims in Bosnia?

Absolutely!

[pupowski]

The essay is propaganda, with liberal use omissions and distortions to buttress the author's case. I do, however, agree with his conclusion about being attacked because we are perceived as weak. I saw Jimmy Carter's refusal to grant the Shah assylum as a major blunder at the time, with long term implications for the region. I believe we are still paying for Carter's cowardice, and the lingering perception it created.

[ethics]

The essay is propagand yet you agree with the conclusions?

[pupowski]

Originally posted by ethics
The essay is propagand yet you agree with the conclusions? Correct, regarding the conclusions in question. There is nothing inconsistent about that. People come to the right conclusion by the wrong path all the time. Propaganda can be all lies, all true, or somewhere in between, as this piece is. Context makes the difference, and omissions, distortions, and mis-characterizations are the "art" of mis-information. This article attempts to make a case that US policies have been decidedly pro-arab, but the examples cited are ludicrous and one sided. I would love to see a competent Arab Muslim rebuttal.

[ethics]

Originally posted by pupowski
Correct, regarding the conclusions in question. There is nothing inconsistent about that. People come to the right conclusion by the wrong path all the time. Propaganda can be all lies, all true, or somewhere in between, as this piece is.

Ah! You actually went by the true meaning of the word propaganda and not what it has evolved in to.

Ok, I agree actually. :)

[Kangaroo]

Perceived weakness is the major reason OBL has targeted us. I recall him calling us a paper tiger, without the fortitude to defend ourselves and therefor ripe for terror attacks. He specifically mentioned the US leaving Mogidishu without Adide, the non-response to the embassy bombings. Ever wonder why the terrorists never fucked with the Soviets? Immediate, bloody and personal reprisals.

[wapu]

In the 22 years since Carter, 14 have had a Republican in office. the first 12 after Carter in fact. Now that I think of it that way, you are right Reagan and Bush 1 were so ineffective as presidents, they could not overcome the havoc Carter wrought. :rolleyes:

I agree that Carter's foreign policy was about on par with Bush 2's Domestic Policy, both crap. But to say that Carter is solely responsible for the "cowardice" perception the world has of the US is, at best, an exaggeration. The American <i>people</i> cannot stomach heavy American casualties. Maybe it is still backlash from Vietnam, but I don't think a US president would get re-elected if the nightly news were filled with American flag draped coffins being unloaded from planes that had to fly across an ocean.

Are things different, post September 11th? I would <i>like</i> to think so, but I don't. We don't think our soldiers should die on other continents, that simple.


wapu

[pupowski]

I didn't say Carter was solely responsible, nor would I. The lingering problem he created was letting our middle-east allies know they couldn't count on us in a pinch. We had, arguably, no stronger alliance in the gulf region than with the Shah, but we refused him assylum, on his deathbed, in an attempt to avoid confrontation with Khoumeini.