I was awakened early this morning by a call from London. Let’s hope that the police and intelligence services will effectively and quickly identify the terrorists behind the bombing attacks. But who can have much doubt about the cause involved, if not the specific identity of the perpetrators?
This is almost certainly payback for British participation in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Will the British react like the Spanish did last year or like the British used to react? Is it best to give in to terrorists when they impose such costs on one (and when there may be independent reasons not to have gone to war in the first place), or does that reward them and thereby put yet others at risk?
This is a terrible thing. For whatever it is worth, my condolences to the British. And may the murderers get what they deserve.
I don’t think it is accurate to imply that the Spanish reacted by giving in to terrorists. As I understand it, the defeat of the ruling gov’t occured primarily over public outrage over the gov’t’s attempts to pretend — for its own political purposes — that the attack was an ETA operation, and then to shut down news coverage of demonstrations over this issue. I believe that Spain remains involved in Afghanistan.
Back to the main point — it’s a disgusting thing that has been done. May the British recover quickly; they’ve certainly proved in the past that they can, and I expect they’ll do so again.
I agree that it is a difficult question. But, here are some arguments for relenting to terrorist pressure that I’ve been thinking about recently:
1. The incentive structure given by these terrorists is problematic. If the politicians make the “wrong” decisions, then the terrorists kill civilians (not the politicians). This gives politicians the ability to be, to some degree, detached from their decisions, but also means that they risk less. Why do terrorists do this? Wouldn’t terrorists be better served by attacks on politicians known to have voted for or implemented policies with which they disagree?
2. Relenting to terrorist demands may weaken the radical edge of the political cause of the terrorists.
Now, in counterargument, this whole question of how to respond to terrorist activity is poorly formed. It is rarely the case that terrorist group X demands Y by date Z. Even so, many of the terrorist attacks are suicide attacks, so we are surely not dealing with the same people each time. What’s worse is that we are dealing with only marginally rational people, so even the chains of causation that usually pull in expected ways may be especially weak.
All of this is to say that the proper response to a terrorist attack is to treat it like any other crime — find out how and why they did it (motive, means, and opportunity), and try to shut down each point of the crime triangle — and here’s the clincher — without infringing the liberty of innocents.
What should happen is that the London tubes be better policed and its riders and their baggages better controlled.
So, maybe I agree with you after all, but in a broader way that smells a bit like a Hegelian synthesis — terrorist acts should not guide policy. They should not prompt action unrelated to the criminal act(s), but also not preclude political options.
If the Blair government was on the verge of releasing, say, an Iraq withdrawal plan, this terrorist attack should not affect those plans one iota. Realistically, they would, due to the influence of public sentiment. If the plan were advanced after the attacks, such an act would not necessarily be a concession to terrorists, even if it seemed to be.
Kerfuffle, Gil: These aren’t difficult questions at all.
They cannot kill us all. But as 9/11 demonstrated, they can disrupt and “kill” our seductive, open, advanced way of life. The direct cost of 9/11 was half a trillion dollars – much more if you count the recession and it’s world-wide impact.
It’s not an attack on anyone – it’s really an attack on q lifestyle that insults Allah.
9/11 shut down a country, and now they’ve done it again. Just imagine the many trillions of dollars more a nuclear attack would cost – not to mention the many many more lives lost. Welcome to Hollywood’s films “The Peacekeeper” or “Executive Decision” – it’s no longer the 90s and now it;s a real live possibility, It’s our future.
To Islamists, democracy, our open media, our moral decadence, are all rivales to Allah. We think we’re so sophisticated, but they have the one True Religion that calls us out of Dar Al Harb into Dar Al Islam – the “realm of peace.”
The real question is whether or not this is a “religion of peace?” or a “religion of pieces?” Obviously, the latter unless you are a fundamentalist, in which case murder isn’t reallly murder.
Thus, the pnly real question is whether or not to convert to fundamentalist Islam (and join in killing those who still aren’t) or fight and kill them?
They don’t want capitalism or science or liberal democracy, (except in so far as they can use them against us – they want Infidels to be dead! It’s simple. And I hate them for making it so because of what it does to my naive faith in humanity. But by using (at least) one suicide bomber – the first in the west since 9/11 – they kill it, too.
Now that that’s clear, where do you want to fight them? Or are you preparing to convert? (Remember: the Koranic penalty for leaving Islam is death – and gowing numbers seek to enforce it.)
The message of London isn’t “payback” – it’s a stick (and a warning) to chase the wobblies out of the Middle East, whether from Italy, or Denmark or Britian or elsewhere. If you believe the message is that the Islamists will then leave them (or us) alone, then you haven’t been paying attention.
The real alternatives are simple.
Now here’s where it isn’t simple and where we have almost zero influence on the outcome. Wars of geography or government can find peace – yes. But does a war for religion, for ultimate beliefs, ever end in peace?
We wage war only to play for time while Muslims work (or dither against) to reform their beliefs, hopefully to make Islam safe for the rest of the world – hopefully before we see a nuclear 9/11.
I agree with Gil’s conclusion — our fundamental decsions and policies ought not be driven by terrorists — we should neither do what they demand, nor the opposite, but rather what makes sense from standpoint of our own interests.
I am doubtful about Gil’s characterizations of terrorists. I think they are quite rational, if by rational we mean that they are choosing means appropriate for their ends. As I understand it, the primary goal of Al Qaeda and its ilk is to promote a fundamentalist reformation within the Muslim world. Provoking a war between what they see as the Christian West and the Muslim world is an important part of this. They also see the current governments of Muslim countries (e.g. House of Saud) as being in league with the West and hence they see a need for war within the Muslim world. And given that Westerners are infidels, killing them isn’t objectionable.
If so, then this suggests that the Al Qaeda attacks on the west are first of all driven by matters that western gov’ts have next to nothing to do with. And for provoking war with the west, attacking soft targets — civilians — is likely a more sensible strategy than attacking heavily guarded politicians. And Western policy responses are likely beside the point, at least on this issue.
This is one reason that it makes little sense to me to dwell on arguments against “terrorism.” Rather we ought to be arguing about ends — making the case for reason and for individual rights. Given these ends (if you are willing to call these ends) violent attacks on the innocent make no sense.
TJ,
This has nothing to do with Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Harb. Islamic theology could use a renaissance to allow much of the Muslim world to flourish again, but that’s not our problem.
If the US would just get the hell out of the Middle East – stop aid to Egypt and Israel, get its troops out of the Arabian peninsula, quit propping up the Saudis, etc. that would do more to pull the rug out from under the Islamists (especially in the Arab world) than anything else. Of course the invasion of Iraq has immensely complicated things and I wouldn’t advocate a simple pull-out right now, but the sooner the better.
As long as the West ties itself up with Arab and Muslim business, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if there are Arabs and Muslims who react badly. People like bin Laden exist everywhere in the world. The only difference between the ones walking around here and the ones in the Middle East is that ours don’t have much of a potential supply of recruits given that there isn’t a whole lot of anger, frustration, or resentment in these parts, relatively speaking.
None of this is to say that we brought this on ourselves or that anyone deserves terrorism. They certainly don’t. But not everyone involved in terrorism is doing so because they’re power-hungry madmen. Osama bin Laden would be Osama bin Laden no matter what, but the foot soldiers join up for reasons and you need to remove as many of them as is in your power.
– Adam
P.S. Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Christians use it as well. Saying Muslims worship Allah is like saying the French worship Dieu.
Horrible. Just horrible.
A large mischaracterization is that Islamists hate our way of life. Yes, there is a hatred there, don’t get me wrong. But it’s rather more an exercise in transference.
They hate our lifestyle because it represents our character as a cultural unit. That is, they hate us because of what Western society is seen as: brash, arrogant, intrusive. Fundamentally, the hatred that Islamists display towards the West and the US in particular is a direct result of their hatred towards the corrupt regimes the US props up and supports in order to acheive its own interests.
The hole the US has dug itself into, however, is that the risk of removing support for regimes like Saudi Arabia and otherwise opens those nations up for even more corrupt regime flying the flags of populism and near mob rule.
Finally, Adam is absolutely right. Allah is not only the Arabic word for God, its technically the name of the god of Abraham. That’s the same God that Jews and Christians worship.
Assuming these horrible attacks are indeed the work of Islamic terrorists, in my mind it creates a real opportunity for “moderate” Muslims to regain control of their religion and establish a place for them in the world community.
I am truly mystified why mainstream Muslim leaders do not a) loudly proclaim the means used by terrorists as being anti-Islamic; and b) simultaneously assert that there are legitimate complaints Muslims have regarding “the west”.
Wouldn’t that give Muslims a reasonable leader to rally around and support and give our leaders someone with whom they can listen to and reason with?
Right now, the only Muslims with a “voice” seem to be the terrorists. But the reaction of the West to such actions is and must always be resistance, not acceptance.
Or am I missing something?
So a country must continue an unjust aggressive war and occupation of another country because coreligionists of the occupied country launched a small terror attack? That’s foolish and illogical.
Also, your post shows you are uninformed about the circumstances of the recent election in Spain. Shame on you for so casually slandering an entire people.
How did the Spanish react? They changed the government. Was it only because of the attacks? Probably not, because the misinformation from the previous government was an isuse, too. But some of the voters changed their votes. So Spain changed governments and withdrew troops. That is simply true and is not a slander. Isn’t it being suggested that maybe that was the right thing to do, but may be not? That it isn’t always clear what is the best path forward? Horacio is reading too much into a question like ‘Will the British react like the Spanish did last year or like the British used to react?’ Should we never ask such questions?
Adam-
As long as the world continues to globalize, we’ll have the explosive mixing of the faithful and kafirs.
The Holy texts of Islam are quite explicit about this: it is bad and corrupting to the Believer.
Simply leaving Iraq and Afgahanistan (much less Egypt, Israel, and Saudi) and regarding the Muslim world much like an Indian reservation during the Old West just isn’t a live option.
In Roland Jacquard’s book “In the Name of Osama Bin Laden: Global Terrorism & the Bin Laden Brotherhood,” you’ll find roughly 120 pages of dissident and militant posters, flyers and documents in photographs and translations from thoughout the Arab speaking world. It’s notable that not just the USA is attacked – EVEN BRITISH and FRENCH OVERFLIGHTS by airiliners are targeted! Brian is correct that their hatred is holistic. but their solution is religious purification and a rededication to (imagined) early principles and isolation. Among peoples enduring a population explosion, how long will an Islamic Republic of Iran writ large, among the many hundreds millions lacking an oil reservois nest egg, last? How practical is that dream?
An alternative translation too much neglected by the media of “Allahu Akbar” is “our God is the Greater God.” In the Hadiths, even Jesus comes back as a Muslim. How do you fight True Belief like that?
Our problem is a lack of discussion of who the enemy truely is. We can’t have an honest one because it’s too politically incorrect. We can’t have it because too nativist – too close to verging on racism. Thus, we have a dishonest one instead: Bush blames Bin Laden, and Dems castigate him for “giving up” on finding him. In fact, these are false alternatives – Bin Laden merely a convenient figurehead for a strategy that inverts Islamist Iran’s: attacking the Greater Satan (the US, the West) first instead of the Lesser Satan (Israel).
But Brian’s correct – as you’ll see in Jacquard’s book, these sympathetic to Al Qaida groups break down according to nationality, and attacking each local government which is excoriated as corrupt. It is an exercise of transference as Brian says, but ossified into a virulent ideology with militant foot soldiers. London should warn and remind us of our future for the next two generations.
Obviously, we can’t clean up all these problems for them, nor can we meet these issues directly. But through Iraq today, the US has started the debate among Arabic peoples about the benefits of popular sovereignty and transparent government. This indirect approach hold great potentials, but only if we’re exceptionally patient. (Remember: our evolution from Protestant Reformation and the virtue of the self-conscious mind to universal human rights took centuries – now we expect Muslims to traverse this challenge in a tiny fraction of this time?)
Fortunately, Bush has seized on the popularity of democracy among them and founded an alternative to the unpopularity of militant Islamist “solutions.” This enables Muslims to find workable alternatives and define a genuine hope for themselves. And therein is long-term cause for optimism.
-T J Olson
PS the only “good news” is that it now appears the suicide bus bomb wasn’t; at least one culprit still lives and breaths among us. The other news is that two more unexploded bombs have been found in London.
PPS Richared is “mystified” that there is no moral dissent from moderate Muslims. Didn’t you get the press release? This is what the CAIR-types always say. Actually, we don’t get genuine dissent from individual Muslims en mass becuase Islamic Holy texts sanction group-think and acquiessence – they don’t support real individualistic debate. One is encouraged to fall in line and do God’s will, not – as in the prosylitizing Christian tradition – to merely give witness to one’s Truth, and pester others with the Good News, or otherwise Seek The Truth. Remember: Muhammid was a general, not a pacifist on a quest like Jesus. A capacity for reform is not in their dogma – otherwise, Islam wouldn’t now be, as it long has remained, at the bottom of the world development ladder of all the world’s great Religions.
I just take issue with one thing TJ’s said that’s echoed a lot in western media.
“Actually, we don’t get genuine dissent from individual Muslims en mass becuase Islamic Holy texts sanction group-think and acquiessence – they don’t support real individualistic debate. One is encouraged to fall in line and do God’s will, not – as in the prosylitizing Christian tradition – to merely give witness to one’s Truth, and pester others with the Good News, or otherwise Seek The Truth.”
The thing to realize is that Islam, like Christianity, contains many tenets that can be interpreted loosely to fit social norms. This why mainstream Christians look at the Bible holistically, choosing to ignore the stranger and more antiquated aspects of Leviticus. So-called Islamic group-think is probably more closely related to Arabic indoctrination born of years of repressive regimes and imperialism, rather than the supposed collectivism behind Islam.
“Is it best to give in to terrorists when they impose such costs on one (and when there may be independent reasons not to have gone to war in the first place), or does that reward them and thereby put yet others at risk?”
Is it best to respond by imposing collective public policy, or to leave individuals free to do as they see fit?
I think that Mr. Kennedy poses a good question. Maybe various forms of privateering or letters of marque and reprisal would not be such a bad thing. And maybe collective public policy is one of the roots of the problem in the first place. But also, maybe not. Let’s take the usual extreme hard case first, just to achieve some clarity. An emerging powerful state begins to make “territorial demands” on its neighbors because it is motivated by visions of its past or potential historical greatness. Is the answer to let the individual inhabitants get out their pitchforks? Maybe. But what if they want to defend themselves in an organized manner, even through a government? Maybe their own government will impose lower taxes, or simply be less likely to engage in ethnic cleansing. In such cases, a collective — even governmental — response may indeed be best. The current case may even be sufficiently like that (except that instead of territory, it’s just killing infidels) to warrant a collective response. Or maybe not. Maybe earlier collective acts through the state contributed to the problem and more will just make it worse. All are logically possible, but merely logical possibility is not enough to sort out what one should do or support — the devil is in all those contingent facts.
There are lots of other interesting questions posed above. I’d pay more attention to them, but I just finished a long response to a rather courageous attempt to defend the indefensible at: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/022289.php#comments
Finally, Adam is absolutely right. Allah is not only the Arabic word for God, its technically the name of the god of Abraham. That’s the same God that Jews and Christians worship.
I’d like to point something out about this that relates to what TJ has been saying. Yes, while in terms of definition you are right, Brian, there’s something else we should remember. Islam is a religion that, like Judaism and Christianity, revolves around the idea that it is based on the revealed truth of a Supreme Being. As such, and I know this analogy is simplistic, it’s like a revision. Just as Christians view the New Testament, judging from the very diction involved in that name (TaNaKh does not mean “Old Testament”), as a “revision” of sorts and an implied improvement over the TaNaKh, the Moslems view the Qur’an as more recent and thus more “up to date,” as it were, with the thinking and truth of the Supreme Being. The implication is that the truths of Judaism and Christianity are not as valid. The further implication is that, really, it’s not the same god.
I’ll add to the “why do they hate us” theme by saying this:
There are some very powerful elements within the extremist/terrorist category that are fully ready to execute the Qur’an’s order to kill apostates and infidels. The earlier reminder from TJ that Mohammad was a general is worth noting.
But there’s another reason why they hate us, aside from (entangled with?) the loathing for perceived excesses, moral corruption, and end-in-mind strategy. This other reason is born out of resentment.
Islam has the very real concept of the umma, The Nation of Islam, the Community of Moslems.
It is not forgotten in the Middle East that Islam once was the most powerful, vibrant, advanced civilization on the face of the earth. It has always been a civilization in addition to being a religion. They were metaphorical miles ahead of Europe, and they even outpaced India and China.
They see themselves today, and they feel that the world perceives them as the dirthole of the world, cared about merely because they have a boatload of the world’s most important natural resource.
How did they lose it?
They were carved up by the West once the West had the advances and weapons brought to it by methodical science. They were carved up by a group of imperialist Westerners. This is part of Said’s Orientalism argument, which, despite Said’s other politics, does have some very real validity. The West acts like it knows what is good for the Middle East, and when it tries to impose it, bad things have this horrible tendency of happening.
Here’s the crux of it. They don’t like us meddling in the region. And it’s compounded by the historical, nationwide psychological trauma that the evisceration of the Empire of Islam caused.
That, I think, is something we should always remember.
” But what if they want to defend themselves in an organized manner, even through a government?”
Everyone in the territory? If everyone agrees on a course of action they don’t need government to pursue it, voluntary contract will suffice. Why would you even call such an agreement government?
And if there are dissenting individuals (as is obviously the case) who’d prefer to take a different course what justification can there be for compelling them?
“All are logically possible, but merely logical possibility is not enough to sort out what one should do or support — the devil is in all those contingent facts.”
An individual’s right to arrange his own affairs depends on those contingent facts?
Jeff Goldstein points out the reactions of some your “libertarian” bretheran:
“update 16: Predictably, Justin Raimondo is already seeing Joooos in the Shepherd’s Pie. Now, I’m not one to tell the Zionists how to run their international cabal, but if it were me who was in charge of running the world, I’d sacrifice up a few Hebes at each of these bombings, just to keep Justin Raimondo and his tireless investigators off my ass. Hell, I might even throw in a Likudnik from time to time, just to really confound the Truth Seekers.
Like Fox Mulder, had his sister been abducted by hooknosed bankers or orthodontists, this guy is.”
(http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/18624/)
More on Raimondo’s theory of how the Jews benefit from the attack (wink wink):
http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/005728.html
What the Muslims believe is no more a monolithic set of beliefs than what the Christians believe.
The most sensible analysis of Al Qaeda’s objectives I’ve seen is from Princeton’s Michael Doran, who draws on what bin Laden and his ilk actually say and do. (Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb 2002, pp.22-42). His analysis leads to the conclusion that Al Qaeda and similar Islamists are first of all waging a war within the *Muslim* world.
So long as we delude ourselves by making self-congratulatory satements like “they hate us because we are free” or by thinking that Islam itself, we’ll remain confused and our policies will be blunders.
that Islam itelf is the problem (Huntington’s thesis)…
Balloon Juice vs Dustin “It’s all about the Joos” Ramindo continues:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/005742.html
There’s some very interesting & relevant analysis of data on Al Qaeda attacks by political scientist Robert Papeof U. Chicago in the 9 July NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/opinion/09pape.html?th&emc=th