Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
America's opponents shouldn't ascribe nobility to its enemies
Published on May 31, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

There's been an interesting discussion regarding the War on Terror. Simply put, the discussion revolves around what the causes of 9/11 were, did the US "deserve" to be attacked and does the US really need to understand the "root causes" in order to win.

Opinions vary on this, of course. But I will submit that historically speaking, WHY rarely, if ever matters. Nation states don't ask why something happened to them. They react instead to what actually happened. We may not like this. We may wish that populations were more introspective. But you can either deal with the world as it is or sit around being frustrated that the world isn't the way you wish it was.

People who are effective in life, in my experience, are the ones who deal with the world as it is. Those who fail are usually impotently trying to change the world to behave as they would like it to be.

What makes matters worse, those who wish the world was something it's not tend to fall under self-delusion. For instance, I have found that those who wish the world was different tend to be quite hostile to the United States.  I won't get into whether that hostility is justified or not because that part doesn't matter. But the other half of the self-delusion is more serious -- they tend to ascribe motives and traits to those who oppose the United States that simply aren't true.

For example: Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda isn't some noble organization fighting with any means necessary to preserve their native culture. They're just yet another hateful bigoted group of violent thugs that history has seen thousands of times who differentiate themselves only in the scale of their violence.  The difference between Al Qaeda and say the KKK is only a matter of scope, not personality.

Al Qaeda and their ilk are violent racist organizations that despise our culture for what it stands for and wishes to eradicate it from the face of the earth through violence -- first in the middle east and later throughout the world. It has very little to do with the imagined wrongs the US has committed during some arbitrary time frame.

The US doesn't need to "understand" Al Qaeda any more than the US needed to understand Japan's motivations for attacking Pearl Harbor. It is up to the one who is liable to suffer the most to learn from history. 

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) are the end points that trace their beginnings to Pearl Harbor. One can argue that the deaths of over a million Japanese civilians (when you add in conventional bombing) was an overreaction to the loss of 2,500 people (mostly sailors) in a military base attack.  But ultimately, that's not something Americans have to worry about. Maybe they should in some ideal world give these matters the weighty concern they deserve. But they don't.

In reality, it is the one doing the attacking that should be reading up on history.  The reaction to 9/11 is significant and far-reaching and should be an object lesson to those would would perpetuate terrorism against the United States. For after all, there have been zero terrorist attacks against the US since 9/11 while on the other hand Al Qaeda's leaders are living in caves in the mountains of Pakistan, Saddam is gone, and the Taliban is now without a country to rule. 

From the US's point of view, therefore, there is little evidence to show why the US needs to "understand" the question "why do they hate you". Again: Yes, maybe Americans SHOULD care. Maybe they SHOULD come together and take a "hard look" at the foreign policies that help give rise to the Bin Laden's of the world. But it's not going to happen. It's not because Americans are uniquely oblique to this, it's just human nature.  And even if they wanted to, the chattering classes who are so ready to educate America as to "why they hate you" can't even agree what the justification is.  I don't think the Average New Yorker is going to see the connection between alleged US interference in say Chile or the Bay of Pigs or whatever and airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center.

I know I don't care why. I might care academically but I would rather see those who would perpetuate such violence and hatred removed first so that I have the luxury of pondering those issues in relative peace and security.

In short, knowing why might be interesting in an academic sense but on a practical level, it doesn't matter. It never matters. Anyone who knows anything of history, will recognize that the why someone attacks you never matters. It only matters that they did. Nation states aren't individuals. They are collectives. They react as collectives. They cannot do otherwise and never do. And idealists are far from the first to express their frustration and exasperation over the way "the masses" react.

It is far more effective for the middle east to clean up its culture of death and violence than try to convince Americans that it somehow "had it coming" because the US supported Israel or because it had a US base in Saudi Arabia or some other lame ass argument for justifying the mass murder of innocent people.

Let us remember, after all, that 9/11 was PLANNED during the Clinton administration who was about as benevolent to the Muslim world as can be realistically expected. If Clinton's foreign policy wasn't "sensitive" enough to the middle east, then I can't envision any US policy that would satisfy the violent hate mongers and their death cults. Clinton was their best case scenario.

But all that aside, I can find far more justification as to why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor than to muddle through the bullshit arguments as for why 9/11 occurred. Pearl Harbor was attacked in response to specific US actions with specific goals in mind.  By contrast, 9/11 happened for very nebulous reasons with very nebulous (and unrealistic) goals. When you read through a history book on World War II, there's no debate as to what was the impetus for Pearl Harbor. But even 3 years later, we still debate the WHY of 9/11.  I saw on one forum someone claiming the US policy on the Kyoto treaty was a "contributing" factor. Simply put, the reasons for 9/11 are at best, nebulous.

And at the end of the day, Al Qaeda is no government in waiting. It's just another pathetic violent hate group more akin to a KKK out of control than any sort of legitimate organization.


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Jun 01, 2004

I think some of the site's terror apologists have been burned a bit Brad or perhaps their scores fell too far:)

It is a hard thing to deal with the motives behind violence but I think Brad's explanation of the reactions of nation-states to it is commendable. While the morality of atcs such as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden are certainly debateable, they were virtually guaranteed reactions at the time. A failure of the silent majority to keep their rowdy roomate in check. (look! I created a meme!)

on Jun 01, 2004
There have always been extremists who attempt to disrupt progress and the will of decency, we the British have most certainly experienced it, once controlling the largest empire the world has ever seen. They will act regardless of whether a nation state endorses them because they are motivated by that most vile of human characteristics, that is, hatred.
on Jun 01, 2004
Brad:

As always, very interesting.

You've used the term "nation state" a couple of times in recent weeks. Would you mind clarifying how you are defining it? It's one of those terms that has multiple slightly different meanings and I'd like to read your article/comments in the context that you intended.
on Jun 01, 2004
It wasn't Iraq that was involved with Al Qaeda, it was Afghanistan. However, what do you expect, Osama was there during the Soviet occupation of their country, and he helped finance their reconstruction with millions of his own money. Osama is a fundamentalist Muslim, so was the Taliban, and its relic wearing invincible leader. The Taliban basically agreed with his philosophy, and Osama gave them money and support.

The attacks were planned on the US during the Clinton administration for two reasons, Al Qaeda had already established itself before that as a group waging a holy war, and Clinton gave Al Qaeda notoriety by calling them some of the world's deadliest terrorists on TV and then trying to blast one of their training camps with missles. Despite what you think, there are reasons to dislike the US besides having an annoying president.

Your article is very well written. It has some strong points which to consider, but its pretty much morally repugnant. A foreign policy that is, "we hit back, and can hit as hard as we want because you hit us first" is just reactionary, it isn't any different from a typical oppresive banana republic. It works so long as you're the ultimate power and you can dictate terms to everyone, but it ultimately boils down to "might makes right". I don't know if you're one for maxims, but I do like, "an eye for an eye leaves the world blind." Its particularly fitting in this case, seeing as how Al Qaeda believes it is taking revenge on the US Government.

For what? The missle attacks for one. The invasion of the middle east to create Israel is another. Working with the corrupt Saudi royals, occupying Saudi Arrabia, and taking their oil for so cheap its almost a crime is yet another. Supporting the unislamic Saddam Hussein and his regime is... well you get the picture.

Osama Bin Laden is an idealist, but also an extremist. Your ideas about delusional and frustrated idealists fits him pretty well. Osama Bin Laden should be brought to justice and tried in an American court, however that goes hand in hand with correcting the USG's foreign policy. I apologize for those who died in 9/11, because they must be rolling in their graves from all the vengence thats being done, if not in their name, than in the name of security.

Al Qaeda is more like a corporation of holy war than a hate group. They're all about raising money and building support for their cause. They don't really hate Americans as people, besides some natural dislike and willingness to kill Americans as if they were stupid sheep, but they're fighting a religious war against us. Hardline orthodox Islam has a Jihad clause, which basically comes down to, "we defend muslims and muslim ancestral lands from outsiders." Osama is a religious idealist, who is all about fighting off all enemies of muslims and trying to build a united middle east that is ruled through fundamentalism. This basically amounts to everything bad and oppressive you've heard about being ruled by a fundamentalist Christian government.

Osama needs to be removed, and Al Qaeda needs to be destroyed, for the US to succede in its anti terror war. Not because he is wrong, but because he is your enemy, and if you know why he is, you'll be much better at fighting him. The same tactics you'd use against the KKK don't work here. The same tactics as Vietnam won't work. The US needs to build up international police connections and cooperate with the world to find them. Just laying about with a machine gun won't hurt them, but you may just find out you shot your self in the foot.

I'm not saying anything provocative here, I would think. Its just interesting how so many people have opinions, but they wouldn't listen to a well written opinion on the same subject. I pretty much agree completely with the leading authority on this subject, Peter Bergen. He wrote, Holy War Inc, he met Osama when he was young, he was one of the journalists who got to interview Osama before 9/11, and he is CNN's terrorism analyst.

"It is up to the one who is liable to suffer the most to learn from history. " When I read that, it sent chills up my spine, its like deja vu, thats probably what Osama Bin Laden would say in arabic about the deaths of those US citizens in 9/11 and in the bombings of US embassies and the USS Cole. You have the right sentiments, and I think its wicked fun to read your stuff, don't stop posting these articles. If we agree to disagree, fine, I'd be happy knowing some people here have read Holy War Inc and have given it consideration.

Yeah its pretty common for people to attribute all sorts of noble freedom fighter ideals to Osama, its natural for some people to project their personal issues against the US onto him. Its hard to avoid having one Osama supporter on a big site, after all millions of people in the middle east see him as a hero, the odds work out that you're probably going to have one rabid Osama supporter in addition to people who pin worthy causes onto him (as if he was some kind of socialist freedom fighter and revolutionary).
on Jun 01, 2004
KB - Nicely written but more people would actually read all the way through it if you put it up on your own blog rather than in a comments section. This is Brad's blog so whatever he likes for comments is his business and all.. but just from my standpoint it is hard to avoid skipping over one *really* long comment like that in the middle of many other short and concise comments. (even though I mainly agree with your points)
on Jun 01, 2004
At the risk of being redundant - AQ is rather like the pimple on the head of a problem - sqeeze the pimple, sure, but if you don't remove the irritant, another pimple will surely arise.

While I certainly understand Israel's position, I don't think their hands are all that clean either. Perhaps they feel they are - and perhaps actually they are - doing the best they can under trying circumstances. Still, I feel that this continued annexation is a provocation that will cause a lot more long-term harm, than whatever the short-term gains are of "Lebensraum" that the Israeli's enjoy from this policy.

I guess I'd get back to the dialogue bit - an acquintance of mine who works to help companies communicate more honestly - (and one of the 25,000 Canadian Vietnam vets -but that's an aside for a different day), says that the whole 9/11 conversation remains at a very superficial level. And as long as no one really cares much about the "WHY", then I'll suggest it (middle-east sponsored terror) will continue to be problematic for the US in particular.

I know the "Crush 'em like a bug" routine plays well with some, but if that's the limit of the policy to stop terrorism, then it's going to fail miserably. Just ask the Irish.
on Jun 01, 2004
KB here, I just got my account setup. Thanks for the tip greywar. I'll consider blogging a version of this. Yeah, I hope people read my comments even if they're long. Thanks for your compliment.
on Jun 02, 2004
Reply #22 By: RedLobster - 6/1/2004 11:33:57 PM
KB here, I just got my account setup. Thanks for the tip greywar. I'll consider blogging a version of this. Yeah, I hope people read my comments even if they're long. Thanks for your compliment.


I propose that RedLobster be banned simply because lobsters are not red unless they are cooked, and the state of Maine does a great injustice to its residents when it puts red lobsters on its lisense plates without showing the lobsters on a plate or in a big pot. This increases global idiocy, and global idiocy can only be destroyed through Stalinist government and the control of people's thoughts. Therefore, fire up the crematoriums, and lets eat lobster before throwing each other in.
on Jun 02, 2004
BTW, there are no UN sanctions against Israel.

jeez ive either got to cut out the time travelling or quit revealing the future.

youre right of course. since israel wont sign the non-proliferation treaty or admit they have nuclear weapons, they arent subject to sanction.

i didnt mean to suggest there were specific sanctions against israel (even though thats pretty much what i said) but that as a beneficiary of us taxpayer dollars and a member of iaea, we should insist israel acknowledge its nuclear weapons development program and sign the treaty. its difficult to understand why the us not only tolerates--but actively funds and supports--israels continued defiant and dangerous refusal to act as anything but an outlaw state in this regard..



on Jun 02, 2004
Al Qaeda's position is not that Israel should be more benevolent.

i never said it was nor have i ever thought of israel as benevolent in any measure.
on Jun 02, 2004

I certainly don't consider Israel as innocent victim either. But the US's support or non-support for any country doesn't justify the actions of Al Qaeda.

Hence an analogy I made previously: Hate groups like the KKK used to murder blacks for merely whistling at white women.  To THEM, such an action was justified. I doubt many decent human beings, however, would start defending that the KKK had reasonable motives of some kind. I doubt anyone would say that African Americans should ask themselves "why they hate you".

Yet you have people who try to ascribe honorable motives to Al Qaeda when, in fact, they're just a bunch of violent, hateful bigots, as bad if not worse than the KKK in that they murder much more indiscrimiately. But some people, blinded by their hatred of the United States, find glee that someone is doing harm to Americans but doesn't want to be revealed as a hateful cowardly excuse for a human being for condoning the deaths of thousands of innocent people so instead they find ways to argue that Al Qaeda was somehow justified.

on Jun 02, 2004
Draginol,

The US and its governments are very interested in the whys, the reasons that act as causes and effects of historical momentum. To see this in action you only have to have a glance at how many think tanks the US funds and use in determining policy or ignoring policy initiatives. This link will give you a taste. Link

You will be interested to note how many of these are dedicated to foreign policy.

Another clue for you - try find a university in the US that does not have history department.

Sometimes it is not a matter of those in power not knowing or caring about reasons, its a matter of them wanting to obscure those reasons in the name of political expediency. This is not synonymous with conspiracy, it is just the way the political media machine works.

A liberal society and freedom of information act means that the information is there for all who want it (and chances are the government already has it) but it also means the government are under no obligation to hand it out in accessible packages so you can make an informed choice.

They don't care if your vote is informed or not, as long as it's for them.

Marco
on Jun 02, 2004
A small addition:

Not knowing the whys can also effect that endevour that is least interested and most impeded (morally) by the context and history of a situation - warfare.

Look back to Somalia and the current conflict in Iraq and we can see an ineffectiveness creeping in due to a lack of understanding of the culture, history and context of a situation, people and place.

The worst thing that can happen is people knowing why something is happening and other people now allowing them to inform the rest of us becuse it counteracts or undermines their agendas.

Marco
on Jun 02, 2004
Once again, notsohighlyevolved comes through with the posts to be reckoned with. Bravo, Marco.
on Jun 02, 2004

notsohighlyevolved: What does what you just wrote have to do with what I am writing about?

I agree that motivations can be interesting from an academic sense. But some people are tryign to argue that we are at the end of history. That unlike all of history's conflicts, the US must become paralyzed in inaction in order to try to study what IT did to deserve what has happened to it. It doesn't work that way.

There is no nobility behind Al Qaeda. Just reckless hate and bigotry.

4 Pages1 2 3 4