I’ve posted several pieces below(“Boudreaux on Suicide Terrorists and ‘The War on Terror’” and “The Other Side of the Debate“) on what to make of the “War on Terrorism.” Are current policies generating more terrorism, rather than less, or is there in fact a now unavoidable conflict between free nations and those who are pledged to destroy them? Robert Pape puts weight on the national origins of the suicide bombers. What does the evidence regarding the identity of the bombers in London add — if anything — to the discussion, since they were British subjects of Pakistani origin, hence seemingly inconsistent with Pape’s analysis?
Perhaps logic similar to that of Mr. Bouyeri was at work. The man who killed Theo Van Gogh has “no regrets.”
Mr Bouyeri said he did not hate Van Gogh but had been motivated by religious beliefs that “demand that I behead anyone who insults Allah”. He said he would have done the same to his own father or brother.
“I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted,” he told the court.
Source for the above is here: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/74aeb9f6-f33a-11d9-843f-00000e2511c8.html
While no one is occupying Pakistan, it is true that the U.S. supports a dictator there. He is nominally Islamist, but fighting Islamists in Afghanistan. I wonder what is the tribal background of the terrorist in Britain? The U.S. and Britain are “occupying” the Afghani part of Pushtun lands.
Anyway, what striks me about the situation, is that these terrorists were largely westernized and lived in a democracy. So, exactly how will creating a democracy and westernizing various Muslim states stop terrorism?
Finally, while it may not be true that all terrorists are motivated by an occupation of their homeland, many apparently are. This suggests that ending such occupations will reduce the amount of terrorists.
That is, there may be some whose hatred of what is going on in the West is so intense that they will come over here and commit terrorist acts. But there are probably even more who will be motivated by efforts of the U.S. to go over there and reconstruct their societies to respond by coming over here and committing terrorist acts. And again, what evidence do we have that democracy and westernization will help?
Think about Lebanon. A somewhat democratic regime and a good bit of Westernization. And plenty of suicide bombers from time to time.
The bombers, we now know, were second generation British, of Pakistani origin. They all seemed to be integrated so their actions cause great surprise. The problem however is that within their community are people who are pushing a particular ideology, one that is attractive to a person experiencing a crisis or dissapointment in their life. Of course, the overwhelming majority will not respond by following that ideology and blowing themselves up, but it only needs a few. The critical problem for me is the ideology. There are two strategies for dealing with this. The first is to help the emergence of a more humane theology (more mainstream in fact) to combat the fundamentalists. The second part of this is to combat and hopefully stop the utterly malign influence of the Saudis, whose systematic pushing of salafi ideas has been truly malign.
Arabic readers should be ready to rev up their web browsers for a blast of libertarianism on August 18. On that day a new, dynamic, and regularly updated pro-liberty web site in Arabic will go live. Check this space on the date….
1. “I wonder what is the tribal background of the terrorist in Britain?” — Three out of four were Punjabis, from Lahore & Faisalabad. The fourth was a Jamaican convert. None came from the tribal areas.
2. “The U.S. and Britain are ‘occupying’ the Afghani part of Pushtun lands.” — These lands are also home to Hazaras, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Ismailis, & other similar negligible groups (in Pashtun eyes: some are — shock, horror — Shias; others do not speak Pashto; others are both.)
I wish the analysis implied by Pape and repititiously advanced by libertarians were true. Why? It is optimistic an empowering. It claims that peace can be had by simply withdrawing from Arab-Islamic lands. I call this the “reservation strategy.” In effect, the West pulls up for oil (in oil rich countries), and we balkanize the rest of their world against our impact.
Sancta simplicitus! But will radical Muslim’s bred on religious paranoia then embrace a “live and let live” ethic? Not likely. (See how even “moderate” Muslims are morally split http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050720/ap_on_re_eu/muslims_suicide_bombers_1) Ongoing globalization makes this impractical. And the inevitable neglect of oppressed peoples makes this immoral.
But do we need to sacrafice for others to achieve their good? No. In practical politics, I think a Bush style “Sherrif’s posse” can alternate with a modified libertarian foreign policy modelled on emergency strategies like “rescue” or resucitation. The utter disarray of Democrats are currently stuck in means that creative thinkers, such as many libertarians are, have the power to nudge the debate in a new, innovative direction.
What do I propose? Three things to take advantage of the liberating social, intellectual, and political forces for freedom that have been unleashed by Bush policies – but in ways not sacraficial, but self-interested for the US and individuals.
First, renounce unilateralist Bush doctrine. But don’t throw the baby of Muslim popular sovereignty out with the bathwater – this still can grow. Since debates about freedom and the backward nature of Islam are now open and joined, how can more liberating ideas be expanded?
Military intervention should be proclaimed as only a defensive measure – as only a last resort. Thus, the fruits of the war in Iraq need not be abandoned as isolationists would do. Instead, solidarity with incipient freedom can be helped along, benifiting the political debate both here and abroad.
Second, revive abolitionism. Expand the debate over the meaning of freedom within Islam – as well as within the West – through aggressive diplomacy and volunteer activity that harnesses American’s Christian ethos. In other words, complete the mission of the abolition of slavery – which is mostly a Muslim institution today. (“Silent Terror: A Journey into Contemporary African Slavery” by Samuel Cotton, 1998. See review http://www.danielpipes.org/article/903)
The failure of libertarians to take up this noble cause in the wake of the Fall of Communism is, to me, a great stain on us and part of our parochial failure to revitalize the universalism of liberty in our time. But it’s not too late! Where are the Reason exposes of Saudi’s, for instance, who bring slave labor help into the US as “housekeepers” and proceed to rape and abuse and isolate these sad victims from their right to choose and be independent? Where are the Matt Welch’s unmasking this evil practice? (See “Slavery a reality – even here” http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_2817908 And http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3937077,00.html) Nowhere among us, despite its recurrent prosecution in the US! Let us therefore takeup the old cause anew.
Now, if Islam is the problem, then we are not in command of the solution. We are relatively helpless – yet that’s realism. But we can keep the doors open to Islamic modernization and advancement by speading liberal ideas and a noble ideal.
If existential religious despair and political helplessness leads to terrorism, then by all means, why not embrace hope? Why not promote a targeted Pakistani Peace Corps (eg, have US and Pakistani-Americans involved) to counter Madrassas baleful influence in creating students of Jihad? Instead of Koran memorization, why not the handtools and building plans that Kennedy once eloquently put in the service against the third-world temptation of communism? Hence, the third revised libertarian plank of foreign policy, promote education and self-improvement abroad.
Ultimately, only Muslims can marginalize doctrines that sanction terrorism against apostates and infidels – only they can make their religion fit for a globalizing planet and admired in a peaceful international world.
Now, it will be objected: statists will corrupt this program, making it into an international welfare system. Probably. Surely existing international institution’s like the corrupt UN could use a healthy dose of liberal idealism. That it may fail is no reason not to raise the libertarians’ image and make us relevent to debates already in dire need of improvement. We already find our voices marginalized – why compound the mistake? Probable failure is no good reason not to sell our message of hope to those needing it.
Moreover, the second issue gives libertarian’s a healthy, moral lever with which to object to taxation and the expansive resort to statist force! And other synergies based on the morality of real self-defense also suggest themselves.
Therefore, I think strict isolationist libertartianism should be modified in adaptive ways to the new challenges of a post 9/11 world. This promises to not merely make libertarian values relevant today, but to revitalize libertarian thinking about policy-making. Libertarianism must be about more than making love and money, or the helpless rant “no!” How about “Freedom first! – and above all else.”
Obviously, the world is large and varied, and the consequences of liberty’s growth cannot be predicted with much precision. But let us return to first principles and complete the unfinished abolition of slavery. Dignity for Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Let us use US foreign policy to advance a program of freedom for all.
Thanks, Tom, for opening up the pressing issues of our time to re-examination. News of a new Arabic, pro-liberty web site going online on August is one step in the right direction!
One or two London bombers were motivated by – in addition to admiration of UBL – Muslim istreatment at club Gitmo, according to Friday’s London Times:
“He knew that excesses are being done to Muslims. Incidents like desecration of the Koran have always been in his mind.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1704235,00.html
Apparently, a portion of the many bodies and several hundreds of injuries we can thank Newsweek’s “Koran abuse” scandal for. (I knew it was coming, sad to say.)
Is it safe to say he did not know that more of such “abuse” was perpetrated by inmates themselves ? – not US personnel? Probably not.
Would such knowledge have mattered to him? Perhaps not.