|
|
|
|
Letters from Readers
From: Peter Wlodarski
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004
Subject: "The Sources of Terrorist Conduct" by J. Michael Barret
I would like to add a little to what J. Michael Barret wrote in his recent article "The Sources of Terrorist Conduct". I would like to suggest the causes of the war, and, once those are understood, to show a way to weaken the enemy without firing a shot.
I suggest that there is one primary cause and three secondary causes for the fundamentalist Islamic terrorism which we now face.
The primary cause is that the West is a threat to their self identity. There are four reasons for this.
[1] fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with the West
[2] their religion pervades all aspects of their culture and identity
[3] our political, economic and cultural dominance
[4] their failed Islamic societies
The three secondary causes are:
[1] Their inevitable ancient antagonism toward the West due to the Crusades. Few people will take a punch and not hit back when the opportunity arises.
[2] They can plausibly convince themselves that we are in fact evil, and so make it easier to justify hating us, because we have blood on our hands, i.e., Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden
[3] Our support for Israel is a constant source of irritation.
The terrorists often say that we wish to destroy Islam. In a sense they are right. We will destroy Islam, but not by choice. At least, it is the strict fundamentalist form of Islam that is under threat from us. This is because it is incompatible, even alien to our (pervasive and encroaching) Western culture.
Followers of fundamentalist religion accept their religion as the only source of their identity. It pervades all aspects of their lives, personal, social and political. If their religion is under threat, then it is their very identity which is under threat. People will kill to protect their identities.
The incompatibility between the West and fundamentalist Islam is most obvious in regards their treatment of women, e.g., covered head to toe, not allowed to work or to leave the house without a male family escort, etc. To understand further, it is necessary to understand why these restrictions on their women exist.
I believe these restrictions are the logical result of their culture's weak laws against rape. It is my understanding that it is all but impossible to convict a rapist in their societies. If so, then it is logical that the women would protect themselves in such a fashion since it limits the opportunity for rape. If the laws won't protect them, then they have to protect themselves in other ways. This suggests a plan of attack against this component of the threat to their self identity.
We might somehow influence their cultures to adopt modern, strong laws against rape. Perhaps the way to do so would be to introduce them to DNA testing technology. Strong rape laws would decrease the need for their women to be restricted, which in turn would make Islam more compatible with the West, which would help to alleviate the threat they feel to their identity.
Sent: Nov 6, 2004
Subject: Barrett's article on the sources of terrorist conduct
Henry:
I just read J. Michael Barrett's interesting article on the "sources of terrorist conduct." Barrett's use of George Kennan's "long telegram" and "X" article to frame his analysis of the terrorist threat is both creative and very useful. He is right to compare our current conflict with Islamic terrorism to our previous conflict with Soviet communism. He is also right to point out the need for a grand strategy to win this conflict. President Bush has such a grand strategy-- it has been popularly called "preemption," and it focuses U.S. and allied efforts on defeating terrorists of global reach and the states that support or harbor them. It also focuses our efforts on the goal of spreading freedom and democracy in the region of the world from which the terrorist threat arises. In this sense, Bush's strategy more closely resembles James Burnham's strategy of "liberation" than Kennan's "containment" policy. Bush believes that the Islamic terrorist threat will only end when freedom and democracy develop in the Islamic world. In other words, the people of the Islamic world must be "liberated" from their Emirs, Sultans and Sheiks before we will have permanent peace with the Islamic world. Barrett's piece seems to hint at this when he writes about diminishing the appeal of radical Islam as well as defeating the terrorist aggressors. Barrett's piece is also consistent with Norman Podhoretz's recent lengthy article in Commentary magazine wherein Podhortez makes a compelling argument that the war on Islamic terrorism is "World War IV." Podhoretz, like Burnham, views the Cold War as the Third World War. I think Barrett would agree.
Keep up the good work publishing such interesting and thought provoking articles in American Diplomacy.
Francis Sempa
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004
Subject: Please pass to Dr. Handley
Dr. Handley-
I read with interest your summary of the Naval War College conference on Homeland Security and Combatting Terrorism, especially since I was the kick-off speaker.
I would disagree with your categorization of Admiral Crowley's comments. I don't think he necessarily spoke to the issue that clearly though, so I can see why his comments were misinterpreted. The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is at least in part a law enforcement operation; the key caveat is that it cannot ONLY be seen as one. We must also have military and judicial options on the table if we ever hope to possibly win the GWOT. In fact, US policy today is still to use traditional law enforcement measures unless those measures are unworkable given the specific circumstances of the case, i.e., the default is the law enforcement paradigm. But other options must be kept at our side as well, and not forgotten about. The 9/11 attacks were undoubtedly crimes, but our response cannot just be one of punishing the perpetrators and their conspirators; we must reach beyond them if we ever hope to prevent further attacks. From my personal point of view, I feel confident that we have already foiled additional attacks.
I have spoken with Admiral Crowley on these issues before; I feel confident that he agrees with the position I outlined in my presentation and above. In fact, within the current Administration I would say that there is a unity of vision that we must look at terrorist attacks beyond the traditional law enforcement paradigm. There may be a 'deep divide', but that divide is between the Administration and its opponents, not within the Administration itself. In fact, I think a lot of the 'divide' is just rhetoric. I would expect a Kerry Administration to continue the basic path of this Administration (not because of anything the candidate has said, but only because I believe that faced with the intel stream, no President could possibly pick another path to fighting terrorists).
To clear up one last point of confusion: the Homeland Security Council is not a part of DHS. The HSC is a White House organization that exists solely to provide the President with policy advice regarding homeland security initiatives, which often reach far beyond the realm of DHS into DoState, DOJ, HHS and others. The HSC was the first office headed by Tom Ridge before the cabinet dept was created and stood up in 2003. HSC is the homeland parallel to the NSC, and works side by side with the NSC on a daily basis since many of the issues overlap.
As for me, I have left my White House position for the front lines: Baghdad. I?m currently serving as the Senior Advisor to the Iraqi Department of Border Enforcement. Two months down, 10 more to go.
I hope this email finds you well. I was excited to see your article on UNC's servers, since Carolina is my law school alma mater.
Regards,
Ryan Stiles
Henry - I do like yr latest editorial re the non-partisanship of career FSO's. Definitely as it shld be - a good point indeed to make in yr journal. I remember my father, H.F.Arthur Schoenfeld, whose last post was as Minister to Hungary in the 1940's, was as non-political as one cld be, & rightly so.
We survived Hurricane Frances thank goodness & were spared Ivan - wh I gather did not spare NC as far as rain goes. We live in turbulent times one way or another, don't we!!
Haven't done any new writing -or you might have heard from me! - but am still working on a book. Will let you know when that comes to fruition.
Best regards - Bobbie Bergesen
NOTE: A somewhat abbreviated version of this letter by Kerem Bilgé commenting on an article by Louis Janowski appeared in the Foreign Service Journal. The complete letter appears here with the permission of its author and the Foreign Service Journal. –Ed.
Date: May 10, 2004
Dear Editor:
As I read Louis Janowski’s article, "Neo-Imperialism and U.S. Foreign Policy", I found myself remembering an old line: This isn’t right, it isn’t even wrong.
In many cases, Janowski is simply ill-informed. He argues that the narcotics situation in Afghanistan is worse without the Taliban in power. The Taliban was up to its eyeballs in the narcotics trade, running it as a monopoly. Now it is a free-for-all, its corrosive effects contributing to regional instability, terrorist financing and the worsening HIV crisis in Russia. However, we are in a much better situation with a friendly government in Kabul, greater U.S. engagement in the region, and with terrorist training camps having been shut down. Likewise, Janowski recycles the old myth that U.S. foreign policy before the 1940s was "isolationist". To the extent we ever were, that only meant we stood aloof from intra-European disputes. There are many labels one can apply to American activities on the Barbary Coast, in the Pacific, and in Asia during the nineteenth century but "isolationist" is hardly one of them.
The article is also full of inconsistencies. The U.S. is wrong to work with authoritarian Central Asian countries in order to operate in Afghanistan and wrong to have bolstered Saddam (a Soviet client) in the 1980s to prevent Iran winning the Iran-Iraq war; but should be more "evenhanded" in our treatment of Israel and the dictator Arafat (closing in on the tenth year of his five-year term). The U.S. is unwilling to pay for foreign affairs institutions, but spending on such items wrecks the budget anyway – an odd reading of the relative weight of such discretionary items versus entitlement items in the federal budget.
What is worse is Janowski’s habit of using often-perjorative buzzwords without definition. Janowski asserts that U.S. policy is being reoriented "along neoconservative lines". What is a "neoconservative"? Does Janowski know? Every month, or so it seems, someone rushes into print with a new breathless explanation of some secret cabal behind the policies of the Bush Administration (the idea that the Bush Administration is behind the policies of the Bush Administration is apparently too prosaic). They are all Straussians, we are told, or Trotskyites, or neoconservatives, or Texas oilmen, or Bible-thumping fundamentalist Christians, or a bunch of J-E-W-S. We need to be debating actual ideas, not arguing over who had lunch with Richard Perle.
Janowski alleges that U.S. policy is to create an "empire". What is an "empire"? Ja-nowski does not provide a definition. Over the past two years, the United States has employed a variety of means to deal with what it defines as threats to its security, and has shown a willingness to use military force to do so even when it lacks the explicit support of an international organization or the support of all of its traditional allies. This is an empire? It sounds like the definition of an independent nation-state. There is a curious new idea that the nation-state as such is obsolete and/or dangerous; that military action is illegitimate, certainly if it occurs without UN blessing; and that international organizations are not instruments to serve the interests of their members but instead represent a higher form of political organization to which member states must defer. In this view, the United States might count as an "empire". Is this how Janowski feels? If so, he needs to come up with some arguments to justify it.
Janowski says the Bush Administration "conjured up" a link between Iraq and al-Qaida. There is considerable evidence of such a link. If Janowski disagrees, he needs to show why. Janowski argues no such link is possible because Saddam was secular and al-Qaida is jihadist. By this logic the Nazi-Soviet pact, U.S. assistance to the Afghan resistance, India’s cooperation with the Soviet Union, and Louis XVI’s backing George Washington over George III were equally impossible. Janowski argues Iraq and al-Qaida have "little in common other than shared anti-Americanism". I think that’s what matters.
Before our invasion, our Iraq policy consisted of indefinitely stationing large numbers of troops in Saudi Arabia; endless air patrols over the northern and southern thirds of the country; a Swiss cheese sanctions regime under which Saddam mysteriously grew richer and stronger, rising from the ashes; an inspections regime that Saddam first treated as a shell game and then contemptuously refused to treat with in any form; continuing support by Saddam for terrorism; continuing attempts by Saddam to develop WMDs; and continuing attempts by Saddam to dominate the region. This was an untenable situation. Janowski neither acknowledges this nor suggests what he would have done differently, nor discusses what should be done now. He just baldly asserts that there were no WMDs. The ideas that Iraqi WMDs were moved elsewhere or effectively hidden, or that the WMDs were dismantled by Saddam to "ride out" the new round of inspections, receive not the slightest consideration or acknowledgement.
Janowski exhumes Cordell Hull and exhorts us to concentrate on international economic affairs, leaving behind "obsolete" political-military paradigms. The United States, on a firm bipartisan basis, tried something like this in the 1990s, cutting the Foreign Service, CIA HUMINT and the military while also virtually obliterating public diplomacy. While we sipped our lattes and watched our stocks, the international jihadist movement grew stronger and stronger within the Islamic world, defined us as an existential enemy, and began a series of attacks culminating in 9/11. Surely what we need is an integrated foreign policy that brings together political, military, intelligence and public diplomacy objectives – not an exclusive focus on our balance of trade.
Lastly, Janowski used Talleyrand to characterize those who disagree with him as "stupid". Janowski deserves our thanks for his twenty years of service, and has valuable experience to share as we confront foreign policy problems. Yet he has not grounded his arguments in the facts and has decided to insult those who do not share his views. This is unfortunate.
Sincerely,
Kerem Bilgé
FSO in training for Baku
(previously served in India, Portugal and Washington with shorter assignments in Uzbekistan and Turkey)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004
Subject: letter to the editor
Dear Editor:
The Patriot Act is essential to the War on Terrorism. If anything, the Patriot Act needs be made stronger. Since its induction, the Patriot Act has busted dozens of plots. If the Patriot Act or a stronger version was in place before 9/11, maybe the worst terrorist attacks in the history of the United States would have been prevented. Fighting the War on Terrorism without the Patriot Act is like the United States military fighting wars without tanks, fighter jets and high tech weaponry and instead fighting on horseback with swords. Fighting the War on Terrorism without the Patriot Act is not fighting the War on Terrorism at all.
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004
Subject: Laurence E Pope
My daughter was born in Vietnam on January 10, 1970. A Laurence E Pope was Vice-Consul at the Embassy in Saigon and signed my daughter's Dept of State birth certificate. Just for "old times sake" I was interested in trying to contact him. Is that possible? plowry@carolina.rr.com
Thank You,
Pete Lowry
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:06:36 -0400
To: Pete Lowry <plowry@carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Laurence E Pope
Mr. Lowry,
Reference your inquiry, we have no records that would reflect the name in question. Undoubtedly Mr. Pope is retired by now, but he is not listed in the roster of Amer. Fgn. Svc. Assoc. members. So I suggest, without any guarantees, of course, you just might be able to obtain information from the Dept. of State retirement people:Office of Retirement (HR/RET)
Rm. H-620, SA-1
Dept. of State
Washington, DC 20037The e-mail address there is <retirement@state.gov>.]
Good luck and best regards,
Henry E. Mattox, Ph.D.
U. S. Foreign Service officer, ret.
Editor, "American Diplomacy"
http://americandiplomacy.org
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Subject: Carlton Coon
The arabists in the state dept. always seem ready,eager, and willing to offer up the stock answer to the quet for peace in the middle east: If only the jews would go away.Obviously the folks at state were trained at the quay d'orsay in appeasement diplomacy.If only those poor benighted czechs,er,jews would give in a little.
Bob Mandel - Ventura CA
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Subject: Re: The Implications of an Independent Kurdish State
Dear Henry,
Given my early suggestion that the U.S. support an independent Iraqi Kurdistan as an honorable worst case exit strategy from the ideology and greed driven blunders that have created the current dangerous mess in Iraq (see my letter to the editor dated 24 April 2004), I read Mr. Jones thoughtful and eminently reasonable commentary on the subject with great interest, but also a rising sense of unease that I could not not at first identify. However, upon reflection I think I hit on what I found so troubling in Mr. Jones implicit cost benefit calculus regarding an independent Kurdistan vs. the national interests of the United States: its very dispassion and reason reminded me of similar discussions of the reasons why the WWII Allies decided that the contribution to the greater good of victory over Nazism of our having broken the German military codes, should take precedence over the possibility of trying to save the lives of Jews and other victims by bombing the rail links going into Auschwitz and other death camps.
In my mind, to get free of having one's life and liberty entirely, and exclusively subject to the cost-benefit calculus of others - no matter how logical and reasonable those calculations might be (as in the illustration above) - is the primary justification for distinct peoples who have either been forcibly expelled from their homeland to face oppression and even genocide in their adopted lands, (like the Jews), or forcibly dispossesed of their rights and oppressed and even murdered within their own land (like the Kurds), to use all means - both diplomatic and military - to gain (or regain) sovereignty over their homeland. In this sense it strikes me as completely appropriate for the Kurds - if betrayed despite a demonstrated willingness to accept a place in truly democratic federal Iraqi republic - to make common cause with the Israelis. After all, what is the crime of the Kurds other than that Providence placed them on land that Britain chose to divide among four nation states to be ruled by people of their arbitrary and self interested choosing, and that also is placed at the headwaters of the regions' water supplying rivers and atop a substantial pool of oil?
My question to Mr. Jones would be, if the outcome in Iraq is that 3.5 million Iraqi Kurds should find no alternative but to establish a long overdue independent state; and that this new state may attract the the allegiance of the additional 17 million Kurds similarly oppresssed for generations in neighboring Turkey, Iran, and Syria, how did it come about that this seemingly just and proper redress of massive wrongs done to the Kurdish people would constitute a "nightmare" for the United States?
Sincerely,
Marc A. Anders
New York, NY
Date: 19 May 2004
Subject: American Diplomacy
Dear Mr. Mattox,
Yesterday, our president said that he is committed to the security of Israel. When will Israel feel secure? If they have all of Palestine, would they feel secure?
I am sure you have read about what is going on in Rafah, Gaza Strip. How many more home must be destroyed? What will happen to these homeless people?
Perhaps you know of someone who can write about what does our president mean when he says he is committed to the security of Israel?
Thank you so much for your many articles in American Diplomacy. I find them very informative.
Sincerely,
Margo Y. Kaiser
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Date: 22 May 2004
Subject: Iraq is a Four Lettered Word
To Editor Henry E. Mattox,
Like you, I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. I felt then, as I do now, that Iraq was a tinder box of religious and nationalist tensions, which we would be fools to become responsible for. Nothing that has happened since the invasion began has changed my mind on that point. The results of that invasion have only served to reinforce my original opinion. The President after in effect telling all our allies to buzz off is in the position of begging others for help, which he is not likely to get. He and his neocon friends have made a fine mess of things without an exit plan worthy of the name. Eighty percent of our army is now bogged down in a no win situation with casualties mounting each day. The Iraqi people have been abused with war and badly handled afterwords. I fear the only solution to the resistance we have encounted is a brutal repression that is not keeping with the ideals of American democracy or human rights and will only make us more enemies. The longer we stay the more brutal we will become.
The UN is righfully reluctant to jump to our aid after we rejected their finding on WMD and acted unlaterally. The State Department accurately predicted the aftermath of the war. Our so called leaders have no excuse. As President H. S. Truman said the buck stops here. The fact that there is no easy exist answer should have acted as a deterrent to our ill considered invasion. The fact that it did not says more about our leadership than they would like to admit. I doubt they have any idea of how to rid themselves of this debacle. The popular idea of staying the course reminds me of Vietnam and that long prolonged agony. It is clear we are not wanted in Iraq. Like you, I say let's get out. The question is how.
At the end of WW II when we set up the Marshall Plan we asked the Europeans to provide a us with a recovery plan that we would help finance. Today there is no one person or party that we can look to as the legitimate leader of Iraq. Clearly elections for a constitutional convention must be held the results of which we must accept. Then we should give them whatever financial assistance they need within reason to set their house in order. That is the least we can do as an honorable nation. But of course that is a bone in the administration's throat because they have an agenda of their own, which includes permanent military bases and oil.
Lyle Sykora
Lake Carroll IL
25 May 2004
Subject: Reaction to Iraq is a four letter word
Dear Mr. Mattox,
In response to your article about Iraq, I have the following remarks.
You state that the invasion of Iraq has failed and that the only netto result is the provocation of Al Qaida cum suis.
To the first, the failing invasion of Iraq, I'd like to distinguish between motives and action. Contrary to the heated discussions in the press about WMD being the motive for war, I'd say that was only the juridical motive, necessary for both US and UK electoral bodies to give the go ahead for war. But there were more reasons, like regime change, civil rights, human rights, democracy, but also the belated support for the shiite majority after the failing support of Bush father in 1991, the killing of the Kurds and their failed rights to self-determination, the irrisponsible war with Iran in the eighties, the attempt to kill the presidents father. Above all the absolute certainty of Wolfowitz and others that democracy in Iraq would inevitably bring the whole region into the sphere of democracy, human rights, economic succes so that hatred for the West would wane. We would live together in peace and harmony.
In order to promote this action, this war, succes was needed. How to achieve this succes? Someone who thinks in terms of fights between good and evil will one day come to the conclusion that, in order to achieve the right thing, the political tools you use needs to be one-way, hard and unrelentless. It turns out that the right thing needs to be harder in its ultimate dealing of politics than the evil politics ever dares to be. Once you, the righteous-one, realise that, you look for the best way to go into this war. Hence Bush's cutting out of allies like France and Germany, who have their own economic and political agenda, no less suspicious than that of Bush. But true, the frase ' If you're not with us, you're against us' is a very primitive one, not heard of since the years of Hitler. Real friends like Britain, Spain, Holland, and so on, were really surprised by this. At the same time this way of dealing politics looked very sure and promising once you accepted and let in the battle between good and evil as existing and real.
In hindsight you might ask how such philosophy could have been so blind to mean such a meager force to the battle-grounds. For all of the analyses made over the last year, it turns out that the US-administration wanted the best result against the lowest possible price. I'm really surprised that Bush, once you accept his goals as ligitimate, dared to wage this war in such a way. It makes you think wether he understood the harsh stance he took himself. Did he? How can you possibly stabilise and democratise a country of 25 million, realising the internal battle-grounds between shiites, sunnis and Kurds as well as the regional environment like Iran and Syria, let alone the Palestinians?
To the second, Al Qaida being provoked, the following. These thugs already declared war, as an organisation, in 1997 on the US. 0911 this threat was materialised by means of an attack at the three fundamentals of any state anywhere in the world: its administration (Bush himself), its military and its economic centre. In any war these targets are aimed by any enemy. Given the motivation of the agressor, namely the battle against the decadent West and the wish for the reemergence of the pre-industrial, pre-enlightened, pre-civil society era by attacking the religion it al emerged from, Christianity, it uses very deliberately its enemies own legacies (planes) against its enemies own governing, military and economic structures. 0911 was an insultment which is still underestimated. Even by Bush!
What he wanted was indeed a hard reaction. In that he was right. But the actual fullfilment was weak. Weak because he alienated and puzzled his allies in the West. Weak because he sent an army which was only a quarter the size it should have been for Iraq alone, 10 times as large to occupy Iran and Syria, both fundamental players in regional politics, as well. How did Bush come so far as to underestimate his own objectives?
First see Bush realised Al Qaida and Iraq were not different isues. Of course regime change would have meant an opportunity to bring at least human rights and self-determination to Iraq. But it would also bring democracy. Not only to Iraq but more importantly, to the region itself, the base (Qaida?) of islam. Because that's the battle that's going on: islam versus Christinity and all of its off-spring: capitalism, communism, industry, commerce, civil rights, enlightenment, western science, womens-rights, the Son of God, nihilism. Yes, islam cannot cope with all these different spheres of thinking and being. We ourselves have too much trouble dealing our lives these ways. But islam reacts to it by declining ALL of this. Because the West and its ways made life too complicated. Because they cannot grasp it.
So how would you attack an enemy like the West. First try to divide your enemy and scare them by unrelentless attack and good timing, like the bombings in Madrid in april. In that Al Qaida succeeds: they convinced Europe it's the US that's going wrong. Why did they choose the US as its target? Not so much because they're the strongest in the world, but they're the strongest christian nation in the world. Now what is that supposed to mean?, you think.
Religion: the first human being to accept God as the only single God was Abraham. He had Hagar and Sara as his wives. Sara did not permit a second wife in the household. So Abraham sent the more mature of the two into the desert, together with her son Ismaël, father of the Arab nation, and a bag of money.
History: 130 AD the Romans sent the jews, children of Sara, out of Israël, the majority to southern Europe, a small portion to the south, Mekka, Jemen. Mohammed learns from the jews Abraham's lesson of the only and undivided God and got provoked by the jewish claim of being Gods chosen nation. He decided the jews could not be God's choosen people after all and let out in the Quran God would choose another nation, suggesting the Arabs. After he 'got' Gods Word, he waged a 100 years war against 'Abraham's wrong choice' in casu the jews and its off-spring, the Christians. Since the jews were already dispersed, the christian enemy remained. So the whole of the Middle-East, Persia, the whole of North-Africa and Spain, all the land where christians lived, was conquered and 'converted' to islam. Accept for the Byzantine Empire. It seemed too strong for that moment. The Turks would do that 700 years later. But then... how about the West than? Well..... the West was non-existent at that time!!
Mohammed's armies went to France only to find a heathen nation, here and there an occational Christian. Not aware of England and its christian inhabitants, from where in the following hundreds of years, Western-Europe became christianised. In 732 AD Mohammeds armies were defeated at Poitiers, France, by Charlemagnes grand dad. Allthough kings were christian, it should be noted that the majority of people in Europe were not at that time, a possible explaination why further attacks remained small.
One can ask wether there is just some jealousy about the achievements of another culture, like the West, or that there's a more fundamental pain aching. Like Abraham being misled. Or something? Anyhow, it should be noted that islam rejects not only gays, womens-rights, but also points a second place to jews and christians. There's nothing sacred in that. We call it resentment! We all know that's not the way to live your life. Accept for the islamists. Here in Holland, slowly the message is coming through there's nothing holy about islam, but that it indeed resembles Hitler's theory of the Übermensch ruling the rest by extermination and subjugation, the literal meaning of islam as we know. Islam is a political theory rather than a religion.
So where do I stand? I'd say: don't underestimate this enemy. Bush got this right. But he should not have fallen into the trap set for him: a reaction so strong in which he alienated his closest allies. A strategy by his enemy not seen by him, nor by France, Germany or the Spanish nation. Or you. We really should become aware that islam is reviving a war against an enemy it fought 1400 years ago: Christianity. We should also be aware that, although the West is a christian culture, we ourselves were not part in that war than, and have thus no collective memory about this war or islam. Our identity is historically not formed by these islamic wars. Islam is alien to us, Westerners, as is Christianity nót to islam. Do you recall the American outcry after 0911: "Why do they hate us?" Well: you couldn't have known!
It turns out that all the major tenets of Islam is opposed to all Christian and Western thinking. We, the West, have had many wars and revolutions. Especially after the great battles of the 20th century, we hold values of individual freedom, honesty and of humane treatment. We do not judge as quick as we used to. Now we slowly realise that islamic values were already rejected by us even before we got acqainted with them: we rejected subjugation, hypocracy, beating of wives, the shooting of one's own daughter or sister. Through our own history we've learned to place the individual, how deviant his or her behaviour might be, in the centre of civil law, as long he or she does not do any material harm to others, that all are equal before the law; God being the judge of one's personal behaviour in the hereafter. How long did it take us to come this far? At the cost of how many millions of lives? Now Osama came to tell us we' ve got it all wrong. Would you believe it?
We' ve done many wrongs. But also many good things. If I would critise the West, I wouldn't say we were any better or worse than others, as humans that is, but we do everything mega. So the wrongs are mega as well. That's what Auschwitz taught us. Once we go mad, it turns out really wrong. That's why the US and UK were seen not only as liberators from nazi-occupation, but as the ones who maintained humane attitutes during WO II.
That's why I, apart from critisising Bush for rushing too fast into a war in too much an unprepared way against a much too shrewed and unscrupulus enemy, now decline this war in Iraq: the pictures of humiliation, torture and possible murder that came out over the last couple of weeks are in direct opposition to the goals the US had during WO II, namely the saving of a humane character to the West. The US, at least Bush, to my opinion, lost the foremost reason to wage this war, namely to bring humanity to the islamic world. He should have been prepared for such things. Now the US must save what can be saved and leave. But how?
This unscrupulous enemy will remain. Its already there for 1400 years. It's not true Bush provoked Al Qaida. What's true is we're slowly becoming aware of yet another totalitarian ideology. This time not from our midst, like nazism or communism, but from outside. And it recognises in us an enemy we never knew we were. Now we do.
Marc Bouwman
Holland
To the Readers of American Diplomacy: The reversal of words in the hackneyed expression Better Dead than Red which appear in the title of my study of the Russell amendment was my error. Moreover, I was traveling when the editors noticed and submitted a query. When I did not respond immediately they assumed I had a reason for the word order.
jerry k. sweeney, professor and head, department of history, south dakota state
Date: May 5, 2004
To the Editor,
In his commentary, "The Hole In the Doughnut", which seeks, among other things, to draw parallels between U.S. and Israeli actions/reactions to terrorism, Mr. Coon states with obvious passion, "We refuse to distinguish between politically motivated terrorism and ordinary crime." If we take the most recent case of "politically motivated terrorism" in Gaza, where Palestinian gunman deliberately attacked a civilian vehicle and knowingly shot to death all of it's occupants - a pregnant woman and her three daughters, I can't for the life of me understand how this act can be distinguished from "ordinary crime".
Moreover, with the possible exception of the U.N. General Assembly whose judgments Mr. Coon seems to put so much store by, I can't think of any court or code of law in the United States (or anywhere in the civilized world) that would recognize that distinction. Has the poisonous animosity toward the Jewish State (not, of course, in any way to be construed as anti-semitism) risen to such a level that otherwise distinguished and high minded people can no longer rule out the premeditated murder of innocents as a respectable tool for redressing political grievance? In such a world, how will we distinguish between civilization and barbarism?
In closing I'd like to offer the following words of wisdom last seen on the walls of the Mayflower Doughnut Shoppe in New Rochelle, N.Y. ca. 1959:
As you ramble on through life
whatever be your goal.
Keep your eye upon the doughnut,
and not upon the hole.
Marc A. Anders
New York City
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004
Subject: To The Editor re: Iraq Is A Four Letter Word
To the Editor,
I read your editorial "Iraq Is A Four Letter Word" with interest and—given the adverse course of recent events in that country—I can understand your frustration and the impulse to say " Enough of this policy that unintentionally but clearly provokes extremists in the rest of the Muslim world—a policy that provides propaganda ammunition and inspiration to al-Qaeda and other radical elements. Enough!"
I too have had enough of the Iraq policies of this administration—but for very different reasons. I've had enough of a war policy that sacrifices precious lives and the very worthy goals of national defense, opposition to genocidal tyranny, and nation building because of slavish devotion to idealogy and corrupt cronyism. For example ideology dictated cutting taxes in time of war and drastically cutting active duty troop strength which meant deploying inadequate military force to both win the war and make a lasting peace and also means that those troops are forced to extend deployment, unforgivably jeopardizing safety and morale. As for cronyism, behind all the posturing by France, Germany, and Russia about the fine points of international law, I believe it was the administration's blatant and uncompromising cronyism in awarding reconstruction contracts that foreclosed the possibility of cooperation from these other nations who saw their major contracts with the former Iraqi regime wiped out with no offer of compensation (not to mention the end of their lucrative arrangements under the soon to be publicly disgraced U.N. "Oil for Food Program"). Did we think they would just swallow the loss of tens (if not hundreds) of billions of revenue to their beleaguered economies for no better strategic reason that that we just didn't feel like sharing? If that theory sounds like supposition, how can we explain the administration's disastrous support of Ahmad Chalabi—a man known for criminal business practices and viewed by locals as a 'pseudo-Iraqi' at best—as a major representative of the majority Shiite community?
In addition, I find that I cannot agree with the premises implied in your remark, "Afghanistan, yes; Iraq no!" The first part is clear enough—the Taliban were openly giving refuge, aid, and comfort to al Qaeda. But I do not hold with the "criminal law" approach you and many others imply (towards Iraq in context of our current problems with Isamo-fascist violence) that seeks to apply essentially Western rules of evidence and legal procedure, and so finds fault with attacking Iraq because clear evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of direct connection of Iraq to al Queda has not been found. My position is that we are at war against a deadly enemy that has cleverly learned to take advantage of our most cherished norms of behavior and so makes war on us while hiding behind the sovereignty of nations who must—to varying degrees—clandestinely support these hostile activities while professing adherence to international norms of conduct. The fact that this is war—not just crime—is born out by the fact that we have sustained two attacks on our sovereign territory with substantial loss of innocent life (Perhaps I've been reading too much Patrick O'Brien, but I believe that a nation's warship - in this case, the U.S.S. Cole—is still considered the sovereign territory of that nation and that an attack on such warship—wherever it may be - may properly be considered an act of war against that nation.) It seems to me that in time of war common sense (not to mention military doctrine) dictates that an invading army (as we are in Afghanistan) cannot tolerate the presence of an undeclared hostile force in or near it's field of operations. Can anyone question that Iraq under Saddam was hostile and a potential threat to our forces operating anywhere in the Middle East and - even when given ample opportunity to allay our reasonable concerns, steadfastly refused to do so? Now I see that everyone is a genius in 20/20 hindsight, but - given what we did know about Iraq and WMD at the time—would it have been responsible to take the risk that our forces in the field could be attacked with WMD whether by Iraq directly or because such weapons were made available by Saddam to al Qaeda through the good offices of our "friends" in Syria and Pakistan etc.—whether or not we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq would do so?
I'd like to make two points in conclusion. First, if as you say, our invasion in Iraq inflames Islamic militants and serves to bring them into the open in Iraq or other ground of our choosing so we can find and kill them, I say that's a good thing. The events of 9/11, Madrid and other places prove that nations cannot be made safe from terrorism by just playing defense. Second, Even if the American electorate shows the good sense to bring in a new administration which is committed to the war on terror but unhampered by the baggage of ideology and cronyism, it may already be too late to salvage the bungled mess that has developed in Iraq (for example by getting other nations to join us). In that case, I do not agree with the position that "we own the place" and are obligated to stay—that is the mentality that so devastated us in Viet Nam. It makes no sense to die fighting for the freedom and well-being of people to afraid or ignorant to fight for themselves. That is a waste of life.
Rather, having redeemed in blood our debt to the Shiites for abandoning them to their sorry fate after the Gulf War, if decent, moderate Arabs of both sects will not stand up with us against the thugs, We should salvage that which is unambiguously positive from our effort and sacrifice—a free and independent Kurdistan, defended by Kurds under the protection of a continued coalition enforced no-flyzone and commitment to their ongoing defense if attacked by any of their neighbors. The southern border of the new Kurdish homeland would of course include Kirkuk and its oilfields. It's an historical fact that Iraq is an artificial nation created by the British without regard to the rights and preferences of the people living there. Certainly world public opinion will not be less sympathetic to the Kurd's right of self-determination than they are to the Palestinians?
Having deposed a criminal dictator and established a free and democratic majority Islamic republic in the heart of the Middle East, we can honorably withdraw the bulk of our forces to prepare for the next battle in the war on terrorism.
Afghanistan,yes; Iraq, yes, yes; Bush, no, no, no more!
Marc Anders
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004
Subject: recent editorial
Dear Henry,
I very much liked the editorial on Iraq. There are two options or alternative senarios - either we are facing the remnants of the old regime, etc or we are facing something like a popular uprising that will get worse the longer we stay. In the first case, we can regain control but in the second we cannot. I think that you expressed the dilemma very well. We are in real trouble with no good outcome. Simply staying on will create more and more enemies in the country. Leaving is difficult and the UN would be crazy to get involved. What would the organizastion gain? I do not think that Rummy, Wolfie and the boys would ever turn over control of their war.
Hope that you are doing well.
Alex De Grand
North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
To: hmattox@mindspring.com
Subject: Editorial on Iraq
Henry:
I just read your thought-provoking editorial on the situation in Iraq. As always, it is well written and well argued. I agree with you that we should recognize that it is highly unlikely that a "democratic" Iraq will emerge from this anytime soon, if ever. Our policy should have stability and order, not democracy, as its principal goals. It is becoming apparent that Syria and Iran are, not surprisingly, attempting to influence who ultimately fills the power vacuum left by the overthrow of Hussein's regime. Neither country wants a democratic or pro-American Iraqi regime on its borders. This fact, coupled with the internal divisions within Iraq (Sunni, Shia', Kurdish, etc.) and the influx of Islamic militants is frustrating, to say the least, U.S. and coalition efforts to restore order and promote democracy.
I disagree, however, with your contentions that the war has provoked Islamic militants to take up arms against us and has made us less safe in the "war on terror." Islamic militants have been "at war" with the United States at least since their 1979 seizure of Iran. As some 9-11 commissioners pointed out, Islamic terrorists have attacked us periodically since that time, and until the 9-11 attacks we reacted to these assaults in a piecemeal manner. As Bob Kerry stated, war was being waged against us, but we failed to wage war in return. The war in Iraq did not create more enemies for the United States, though it certainly brought more of them to Iraq.
There is no easy solution to the current instability in Iraq. We probably should substantially increase the number of forces in Iraq and gradually—very gradually—construct and train a new Iraqi security force. We may have to establish some sort of confederation government, giving significant autonomy to separate regions within Iraq. Our military activity should be complemented with vigorous diplomacy, especially toward Syria and Iran. We must persuade them that their continued efforts to frustrate our policies will be self-defeating. Obviously, this is easier said then done. It will take much patience, and involve much risk.
Francis Sempa
From: Jack Nixon
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004
Subject: Letter from Niger
Dear Henry,
from time to time in the e-mails which publisher Bart Moon frequently sends me about articles featured in successive issues of American Diplomacy I have noted the comment, "our editor, <hmattox@mindspring.com>, invites your thoughts and comments." Therefore I am sending you the following comments on J. R. Bullington's "Letter from Niger, April 2004."
I thoroughly enjoyed reading every page of Ambassador Bullington's article on Niger in the April issue of American Diplomacy. It took me back to Niger's neighboring country, Chad, where my wife, daughter and I were stationed for nearly 41&Mac218;2 years (February 1974-June 1978) and acquired vivid memories of days of dust and mangos. I had an ice cream freezer ordered from the J. C. Penney Company catalog, and often made mango ice cream which we and our guests much enjoyed. Our worst year with the harmattan was 1977, when the long-awaited rainy season got a rather late start. Sometimes the vast clouds of extremely fine dust resembled fog billowing from the Pacific into San Francisco and across the bay, enshrouding everything, a phenomenon that I had often observed in an earlier period of my life. I certainly agree with Ambassador Bullington that the work of Peace Corps volunteers is more far-reaching and effective than any of the complex and administratively overloaded foreign assistance programs delivered by the Agency for International Development. During my relatively long sojourn in N'Djamena the only AID-financed foreign assistance projects that produced tangible results for the pathetically poor native Chadians were those, basic and direct, carried out by Peace Corps volunteers and the personnel of nongovernmental organizations such as CARE and the Seventh Day Adventists. For example hardworking, dedicated Peace Corps volunteers went into villages and drilled wells, providing Chadian villagers with a reliable source of potable water. Using AID-donated PL480 "Food-for-Work" products, CARE personnel encouraged rural Chadians to build schools which improved the future chances of large numbers of children. Meanwhile the overall AID economic and social development program "monitored" by techicians who seldom, if ever, were in direct contact with the people of Chad, continually floundered midst management concepts, requirements for feasibility studies, a vastly complicated project planning and approval process and frantic efforts to get funding for specific projects "obligated" before the end of each fiscal year. Aside from their participant training aspects, I cannot recall having seen any of these projects produce results that could seem to represent an improvement in the lot of the Chadian population. What Chad really needed then, and perhaps needs now, as do Niger and other Sahel countries, are Peace Corps volunteers like Carol Grimes, not AID contractors doing expensive "studies" that often—at least in my experience of 30 years ago—end up on a shelf ignored and collecting harmattan dust.
Greetings to you and Shelley from Jack and Geneviève
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004
Subject: Steven Gieseler's article in American Diplomacy
Henry:
I am very impressed with Steven Gieseler's new article in American Diplomacy. It is well written, well researched and well argued. As someone who leans more toward the "realist" school of international relations theory, I nevertheless agree, as would many realists, that the internal structure of a regime, as well as the world views of those individuals who establish and implement the regime's policies, have a significant impact on a nation's foreign policy. The internal structure of a regime and its leaders' wotld views will affect, but not wholly determine, how that regime perceives its national interests. Realists should always include such factors in their analyses of international relations.
Keep up the good work publishing such interesting and thoughtful pieces.
Francis Sempa
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004
Subject: Powell can't get off the hook
Henry,
Your current editorial is so perfectly on the mark that I hesitate to take issue with what some might think to be a matter of secondary importance. I do not.
"Administration spokesmen, including regrettably Secretary of State Powell, have found it necessary to pull back from assertions...." Indeed, but why "regrettably" in his case only? Why suggest that something different might have been expected this far down the road, when Powell has from the start, even after having been supplanted as the President's primary foreign affairs advisor by Cheney, Rumsfeld and, in his own house, Bolton, been inseparable from the disastrous policies described in the editorial?
Like many others in the foreign affairs community, I clung for longer than was justified by the facts to the hope that "our" Secretary would succeed in exercising a braking force on the runaway imperialist express. But this is the man who most recently, and shamelessly, proposed that Saddam Hussein "never had the intention not to have the intention...." What more do we need to know?
It is certainly regrettable that Powell has proved to be a dismal failure as Secretary of State (notwithstanding the endless praise he gets from the Foreign Service for efforts on its behalf). Let's stop pretending otherwise. There are no good guys on this team.
With regards,
Alan Berlind (FSO, Ret)
Date: 12/29/03
Sir,
I just want to point out an error in the article entitled The Promise and Peril of Our Times by Alexander Mr. Haig. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Haig and was surprised the error made its way through the proof readers.
In the article, Mr. Haig states that the United States should have acted before al-Qaeda spread its cells. He went on to state that the world's response to acts of terrorism (pre 9-11) had been weak, erratic and just plain disastrous. Mr. Haig cited a few examples, and herein lies the error. He cited, " Beirut, Doha Towers, World Trade Towers and the Kenya Embassy."
I believe Mr. Haig meant to cite Khobar Towers instead of Doha Towers. Doha is in Qatar. Khobar Towers were in Saudi Arabia The air base outside Doha, known as Al Udeid Air Base, does not contain any tower-type apartment buildings. As far as I know, no significant terrorist activity has taken place in Qatar. By significant, I mean on the size of Khobar Towers and Beirut.
I find the error simply academic. However, I do feel a sense of duty to point out the error for correction to properly honor those service members that paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Respectfully,
MICHAEL W. CARL, USAF
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003
Subject: Ambassador Palmer's Work on Africa
Henry,
Ambassador Palmer's scholarly work on the Problems and Prospects of Africa certainly brought me up to date on an area where I spent much time in the 1960s. I'm sure our readers will gain knowledge from it.
Regards,
Carl Fritz
21 October 2003
In reaction to Mr. Jones article about the Israeli build wall, I have the following remarks.
Mr. Jones gives 4 possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, from two-state-solution via binational to 'creeping annexation'. He fears the latter will come true unless "The only agency capable of stopping the construction (of the wall) is the US government, which has shown no interest in doing so".
I hold the opinion that in a fierce fight as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the US indeed should not. There has been an opportunity 10 years ago. The spirit was right, the accord seemed ok. Bad enough Rabin was murdered. This only showed how shaken the extreme right in Israel was by this proces. The murder of Rabin and the rejection of peace can not be labeled other than as a major crime.
On the other hand it proved that militant sites of a party in conflict could not be ignored. Since both parties have militants as well as doves, stalemate seems to be the only natural outcome. Neither party is able to come with a credible solution, nor is neither party able to control their centrifugal forces, so that possible civil war would be avoided. Because that's the hard choice either or both parties have to make: peace through concession, civil war or annihilation of any civil life of one of the parties by the other one.
We kwow the extremists, such as Sharon, are not unwilling to comply with the solution of annihilation of civil life. If the US government were to avert from the Sharon's policies by withdrawing support to Israel, it could very well end in averting support to the state of Israel as such.
Two parties that are not able to solve their problems together, need outside help. Both need an adviser and supporter in their rightfull needs as nations. For Israel this help comes from the US. It's OK for the US to support Israel. What other country would or could?
The problem really is that the Palestians do not have the luck of having a trustworthy, reliable, strong supporter. The Arab world is divided, unable and/or unwilling to help.
Be aware too of the extra dimension a decision of any Palestinian leader to solve the conflict by any kind of concession also entails solving somehow the religious problem of the Templemount. With that, such a leader not only has to decide for the Palestinian nation, which would be a political decision, but he would also decide for the whole of the islamic world, which would mean to be a religious decision. That's the Palestinian dilemma: they need to decide for themselves as a nation, but cannot do otherwise than deciding for the islamic world at the same time. Who would dare to take such a decision? Arafat could not! You might call him a coward. But would you dare to tear away your nation from the body you belong to?
In response to a letter of Mr. Heichler 18 months ago (in the archived Letters to the Editor) I stated that it would not be to the Israeli's or the US to solve the problems for the Palestinians. I set up a short genealogy of the reasons why Israel came into existance. I than suggested for the nations which lay at the root of the Israeli-state-to-be, namely Germany, France, Russia and others, to come forward and to plea to the Muslims, the Arabs an Palestinians in particular, for the Israeli state to be in their midst.
I really think there can be no other solution (except for annihilation of one or both parties), then for the main European countries taking on their rol as mentor, advisor to the Palestinians. Europe has to go a long way to appease the Muslims. Particularly difficult since European countries are harbouring large muslim-minorities over the last 30 years. Even more difficult since muslims have a fundamental different mindset to religion and politics. Europe has to speak to the heart of muslims by proclaiming their responsibility, rather guilt, to the problems the Palestinians are now in.
Europe, Germany in particular, should make it clear that even though the Israeli's are the one fysically attacking them, they are not the one's who are responsible since the Israeli's as a nation have the natural right to fight for its existance.
What could it entail, Europe coming over to the Arab muslims to apologise? Are we to expect major attacks by terrorist. Could be. It could also mean that muslims will be touched by this recognition of historical and actual guilt. It could set minds in a different mode. It could lead muslims to see that the Israeli's are not their enemies after all. Sadly enough, that would also entail a lot of religious discussion about the rights of what nation to what.
More important is the realisation of an awareness of Germany, France and Russia to pick up their role as an advocate for Israel by paying up in all possible and needed ways to the Palestinians and the Arab nation. That would mean historical responsibility. Can they do it? Do they dare?
Since march this year, there has been a breach within the Western alliance. Both US as Germany, France and Russia (what coincidence, or is it?) are drifting apart. New political and economical differences are developing. Or is it only a major game? It would be bad for Israel if the two were really to break up. A new identity for Europe could unite Europe, its own differences for hundreds of years cause to too many wars itself. Breaking apart the western alliance would not only be bad for Israel, it would be a major threat to world peace since the muslims themselves will look for alternatives. Possibly through terrorism.
The other day Arab scientist within the UN reported that the Arab world is somehow decaying. Many regimes have turned into more oppressive regimes than they already were since 0911, fighting terrorism as the excuse. How are 1.3 billion believers to change their mindset in such humiliating conditions. That needs careful rendering of politics. That means building up trust by showing ones milder and caring sides. That's not for the Israeli's to do because they are under threat and not guilty of the situation they are in. That's not for the US either, since they are to support and mentor Israel. They try to mentor the Arabs as well. But that's not their task to do really. It's waiting for the Europeans to finally wake up and work the peace the finally reached for themselves, thanks to the same US, they were ready to admit 6 months ago.
Marc Bouwman, teacher in history
Delft, The Netherlands