What Motivates al Qaeda? (a) American Mid-East Policy or (b) A Hatred of Freedom/Modernity?
I had a lot of discussions about that question with friends of mine after 9/11. Some of my liberal friends wouldn't even consider (b). Many conservatives, of course, argued vociferously that to answer (a) was to take the side of the terrorists and "blame America first."
In this short, extremely interesting piece, "The Two Faces of al Qaeda," Raymond Ibrahim argues, in effect, that the smart answer was (a), but the true answer was (b). Al Qaeda, according to Ibrahim, makes a different case depending on who its audience is: when addressing Westerners, it pushes the (a) line; but when addressing Muslims, it pushes (b).
I've always thought that the smart answer was "some of both," anyway (though that was of the nature of a guess, whereas Ibrahim has something approaching actual knowledge). Liberals who ignore (b), and conservatives who ignore (b), are about equally deluded in my book. But this particular liberal delusion may be even more dangerous than the conservative analog. My guess goes something like this: the real reason is closer to (b), but (a) provides a kind of excuse/stalking horse. We could rob al Qaeda of an important advantage if we'd get our ME policies straightened out...but ultimately we are, in fact, dealing with a bunch of people who, well...dare I say it? Hate our freedoms.
I had a lot of discussions about that question with friends of mine after 9/11. Some of my liberal friends wouldn't even consider (b). Many conservatives, of course, argued vociferously that to answer (a) was to take the side of the terrorists and "blame America first."
In this short, extremely interesting piece, "The Two Faces of al Qaeda," Raymond Ibrahim argues, in effect, that the smart answer was (a), but the true answer was (b). Al Qaeda, according to Ibrahim, makes a different case depending on who its audience is: when addressing Westerners, it pushes the (a) line; but when addressing Muslims, it pushes (b).
I've always thought that the smart answer was "some of both," anyway (though that was of the nature of a guess, whereas Ibrahim has something approaching actual knowledge). Liberals who ignore (b), and conservatives who ignore (b), are about equally deluded in my book. But this particular liberal delusion may be even more dangerous than the conservative analog. My guess goes something like this: the real reason is closer to (b), but (a) provides a kind of excuse/stalking horse. We could rob al Qaeda of an important advantage if we'd get our ME policies straightened out...but ultimately we are, in fact, dealing with a bunch of people who, well...dare I say it? Hate our freedoms.
posted by Winston Smith at
7:34 PM
11 Comments:
The fact that Al-Qeda is headed by a few hundred medeval nut jobs doesn't mean that our Mid-East policy isn't insanely fucked and needs to get unfucked like tomorrow. We really don't have anything to fear from the crazies if they are marginalized within the Muslim world, and that'd be a lot easier to do if we weren't killing, detaining and torturing Muslims by the bucketload.
ultimately we are, in fact, dealing with a bunch of people who, well...dare I say it? Hate our freedoms.
"Freedom" being the key word here. It can also be read as "license."
Even the ancient Greek philosophers thought the purpose of the state, for the health and sustainability of its underlying society, was to encourage and foster "virtue." [Our Founding Fathers, altho relatively unreligious themselves, agreed with that proposition, see Washington's Farewell Address.]
And so, we run into the question of human nature. It's the secular West's [read, mainly Europe's] contention that the Muslim world will eventually prefer its (worldly, illicit) pleasures to its pains. Especially in opposition to al-Qaeda/Taliban Puritanism.
A chancy bet, but I agree with this analysis of man's nature (The Fall), but can any society, west or east, cohere with hedonism as its basic principle?
The Greeks and the Founders thought not, that self-governance in respect to freedom requires self-governance of the individual, which can be read as "virtue."
Can the Western World's attempt at balancing freedom and license be read as "virtue," civic or otherwise? We shall see. Even in modern Europe, where "tolerance" is seen as the highest of virtues [and is largely mandated by law], a necessary cohesion on the part of its constituent societies is in doubt, what with millions of Muslims living under Islamic law inside their borders, and watching little TV except from Pakistan and North Africa.
We have to give America some props here---by most accounts, partly because we're an ocean away from the Muslim world, and mostly because of our own, truly tolerant culture, anybody and everybody is welcomed to become fully an American.
I might make the political argument that the Cheney-Bush administration has done a good job of keeping us safe from Islamist terrorism, but I do believe that America as America has done the real job of keeping us safe from Islamicist funkheads.
America was founded on virtue [see John Adams' quotes], and by virtue it sustains.
1. Matthew: Who denied that our ME policy is contributing? And the fact that there's an audience for their craziness suggests that the problem is more than "a few hundred Medieval nut jobs."
2. Well, I semi-agree with you, Tom, as long as you don't (falsely) assume that virtue is inherently religious.
But the source of the problem at issue is, largely, the sacred free market. It's the free market that has turned sexual liberation into mass-marketed lasciviousness of a kind that raises even my eyebrows. Without MTV, BET, etc., etc. hawking the basest forms of sexuality to kids (really: KIDS) 24/7, our problems in this regard wouldn't be nearly so severe. (And, of course, that's the face of America lots of the aQ wackjobs see and hate.) I'm about as un-hung-up sexually as you can get, and much of it still turns my stomach. "Be a vapid slut!" seems to be their motto and message to both males and females. It's enough--as a friend of mine has said--to make you want to join al Qaeda...
Liberals are pretty hopeless on these issues, but conservatives aren't any better. Torn between (a) free market fundamentalism that holds it as an article of faith that any interference with the holy market is evil, and (b) puritanical christian fundamentalism that, well, hates our freedoms, we probably can't even hope for a solution to come from the GOP.
How to solve the problem? I dunno. A better moral theory might help. If people realized that morality has nothing to do with religion, that'd be good. It'd be good if people understood that, although we have the RIGHT to do anything that doesn't harm anyone else, that doesn't mean we should do it. And that, though God isn't watching you, and won't judge you at the end of time, that actually makes your choices and actions here and now even more important. And that you don't have to be a sex-hating fundamentalist to think that you shouldn't act like those dimwits on television.
But this is a serious problem that cries out for a serious solution--not half-assed blog comments. Sadly, though, I've got nothing better to offer.
They hate us for our freedoms, so let's just get rid of our freedoms. Problem solved!
Sorry. Didn't mean to be so glib, but I wouldn't seriously consider using Al Qaeda's standards of propriety as my guide for behavior. I mean, I'm all for changing some policies that happen to offend Al Qaeda, if they are unjust to begin with. But why should we care if our freedom to behave as we wish offends these people? I just don't see how Osama Bin Laden's opinion should even matter to me.
More generally, I don't think that, as Tom implies, hedonism is our organizing principle. However, the freedom to behave in a manner of one's choosing IS one of our organizing principles.
And neither was America was not founded on the basis of virtue, random quotes from Adams and Washington notwithstanding. In fact, the very organization of our government was designed on the basis of men *not being angels*, according to Madison; the belief in a distinct LACK of virtue underpinned the entire rationale for the founding of the United States. There is a mountain of evidence in the Federalist Papers pointing to the fact that the founders saw Republican government as constraining the worst impulses of mankind.
And though I usually agree with you Winston, I disagree that this is a serious problem. I don't think it's the government's job to promote virtue, make me a better person etc. I think it's government's job to promote justice and protect my rights. So while I think some things like honesty, gratitude etc. are morally required, it's not the place of government to enforce this behavior.
Morality exists independent of government, and it doesn't matter whether you call it religion or something else. Once it's enforced via government coercion it ceases to be morality; it's just enforced conformity.
And the Greeks and Romans didn't fall because of licensiousness, but because of corruption and imperial overreach.
"And so, we run into the question of human nature. It's the secular West's [read, mainly Europe's] contention that the Muslim world will eventually prefer its (worldly, illicit) pleasures to its pains. Especially in opposition to al-Qaeda/Taliban Puritanism."
I would also respond to Tom here that there may be some who believe this, but the West is hardly monolithic in this regard. Personally, I would allow THEM to decide which they prefer. Since I consider the consent of the governed to be one of the pillars of political philosophy, short of ongoing genocide or crushing of the populace, I don't think it's our business how they decide to organize themselves.
I also don't think that it's specifically hedonism and debauchery that the West is putatively promoting. What it is promoting, among other principles, is the idea that one is free to pursue his own desires provided they in no way harm another. That all those things which some find morally reprehensible might occur with this freedom is incidental.
That the most reactionary Islamists focus on this one result of personal liberty doesn't mean that we should extinguish the liberty because some of us don't like what some do with their freedom.
Free speech is a good example - the fact that some of the things people say might be offensive is no reason to prevent them from saying it. Of course, others have the right to counter offensive speech, point out its offensiveness and even hold the speaker up to ridicule. But the power of government should not be brought to bear to censor such speech. To paraphrase Mill, the solution to bad free speech is, more free speech.
I certainly agree about Madison and the constitution, in fact wrote the same thing awhile back.
However, is a nation simply its government? I don't believe it is---it's a society first.
And for the record, Washington'e Farewell Address certainly acknowledges that morality can be separate from religion [read, revelation]. So does Aquinas, BTW.
Oh, I agree that a nation can be more than just it's government, but in the realm of what is to be circumscribed using the power of government, there needs to be care taken that society's desires don't unnecessarily infringe on the rights of individuals. This was what Madison feared in a *tyranny of the majority*.
Social rejection and shunning are fine if they merely express society's normative preferences, but the coercive power of the state should only be brought to bear where the protection of rights is concerned.
Anonymi: good points, IMHO, esp. on the Founders' recognition that men are decidedly un-virtuous... (Though there's some Madison quote trying to claw it's way into my head on this...)
Also:
Hedonism is obviously not the most important thing to most Westerners...but you can't tell that by watching television and movies. To the extent that that's the face we're presenting to the world, it's no wonder everybody thinks we're a bunch of idiots and psychos.
OK, I see your point guys. You're right. The face we're showing the world most of the time, through most of the media, paints a, shall we say, less than flattering picture of us.
And while it's not the *official* position of the United States that this is what we stand for, it is ostensibly a reflection of what we spend a lot of our time on. Thus, Tom's distinction between society/culture and government is apt; large segments of our society culture are puerile at best.
Plato's Laws, anyone? Too moldy to be of any real use, certainly. We shall link to the Wiki, then, as the modern age renders us all too busy for the real thing, this correspondent included.
I'm not exactly sure which part of the _Laws_ you're alluding to...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home