The nature of terrorism

One of the blogs I like reading is the Moderate Republican, written by a guy named Dennis. The entries are usually interesting, though he unfortunately rarely responds to questions posed in his comments' section.

One of his pet themes in recent weeks is criticizing liberals who he sees as being apologists for extremists. In one sense, he has more than a little merit (as I explained more thoroughly here). Al-Qaeda and its ilk are far more theocratic and repressive than even John Ashcroft could dream of being. I can't see how anyone who considers themself a progressive could possibly have the tiniest bit of sympathy for these killers, thugs and theocrats.

Then again, I don't exactly see a lot of liberals and progressives waxing eloquent about how noble these extremists are. So Dennis' premise could well be a giant straw man.

Some of the anti-American rhetoric, particularly its fervor, doesn't hold water. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is immoral both in principle and in conduct. But why do, say, Moroccans object so vehemently to the Israeli occupation while so eagerly defending their own occupation of Western Sahara?

Dennis cites Oliver Roy who correctly notes:

if the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are at the core of the radicalization, why are there virtually no Afghans, Iraqis or Palestinians among the terrorists?

Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian question is a great smokescreen that Arab regimes use to deflect their people's attention from their own government's repression, corruption and incompetence. However, that doesn't automatically render the Israeli occupation justified.

Dennis spends a lot of time demolishing some of the facile left-wing arguments relating to the war on terrorism but there's one thing conspicuously absent from his writings: a positive vision of his own. He clearly has problems with the Bush administration's overreliance on naked militarism. He also objects to facile "Withdraw from Iraq tommorrow and cease all support for Israel and the terrorists will immediately become pro-American" approach pushed by some on the far left. But while rubbishing the existing approaches, he fails to produce suggestions of his own. And he's repeatedly failed to respond to my challenges for another way, even though one is clearly needed.

While Dennis does make some good points, it would be nice if he recognized that terrorism doesn't happen in a vacuum. Foreign policy decisions have consequences. The US invaded and is occupying the (formerly) sovereign country of Iraq. Justified or not, this has consequences.

The US offers unconditional, unquestioning support for Israel. Justified or not (and I'm a firm believer in Israel's right to exist and that it's used as an easy scapegoat by Arabs but that we shouldn't support everything they do uncritically), this has consequences.

Fighting terrorism is clearly not as simple as withdrawing from Iraq, cutting links to Ariel Sharon's government and suing the terrorists for peace. However, Dennis needs to stop pretending that the foreign policy plays absolutely no role. He needs to stop pretending that no reasonable Arab could possibly object to belligerence, bullying and domination.

Imperialism has consequences. Imperialism is very messy and very costly. There's a reason the French and the British and the Portugese got out of the empire business. As long as the US remains in that business, we will be vulnerable. It's that simple. This isn't making excuses. It's time-tested reality.

Terrorism will not be defeated by blowing the most extreme elements to bits. For every one you blow up, three will be angered enough to join the destructive cause. Extremism has always flourished or shriveled based on the support and cooperation they receive from non-extremists.

Terrorism will be defeated by winning over moderates and starving the extremists of the oxygen they need to thrive. This does not involve appeasing the extremists, who would be appeased by nothing less than total capitulation anyway. This involves developing a foreign policy that protects the physical security of American CITIZENS but without showing casual and reckless disregard for the dignity of other peoples.


Update: Dennis offers a partial response here.


Update 2: He gives a more comprehensive response here.


Update 3: Those who read French might be interested in this editorial written by the editor of the French daily Le Monde. Though the paper is a bastion of the French establishment left and bane of neo-cons everywhere, it echoes, perhaps even more forcefully, many of the same points that Dennis and I have made in our exchanges. It belies the myth that the mainstream left acts as apologists for terrorists.