This column is an excellent response to the notion that the war in Iraq has only served as a boost to Al Qaeda -- the so-called "blowback" argument.
I've long believed the war on Islamic terror has to be fought on a two track basis. The first, and most obvious track, is killing and arresting terrorists. This has most obviously manifested itself in the war in Afghanistan and the hunt for AQ members in that region.
Such a strategy, however, is insufficient to achieve victory. More terrorists will always be coming down the pipe. The ultimate solution -- the longer-term goal -- is to eliminate the breeding grounds of Islamic terror. Those breeding grounds are predominantly found in the Middle East, where authoritarianism and a lack of tolerance for dissent have long been the order of the day. It is a swamp badly in need of draining. This is what the U.S. is attempting to do in Iraq.
Unlike the first track, however, this track is a more long-term endeavor that yields heavy initial costs with few immediate or apparent benefits. The death and destruction are obvious. Less so are the changes in attitudes taking place and the taking hold of concepts like democracy and human rights. But they are occurring. One example is the rising influence of secular parties. After initially voting for religious parties in the January election some Iraqis are now reconsidering.
More broadly, support for terror in the Muslim world is on the decline as the results of this poll indicate. Why? Here is the view of one Arab journalist:
Indeed, the war in Iraq has forced Arabs and Muslims to face some uncomfortable truths. Saddam was not the popular leader of Iraq, nor was he a modern day Saladin. Most Iraqis do not support terrorism and would rather take part in elections to air their political grievances. The existence of the Jewish state of Israel does not mean that Arabs can not participate in democracy as leaders in countries such as Syria claim. Terrorists are not pious noble figures fighting for the dignity of Muslims. Rather they are thugs who target mostly Muslims and do not spare women or children.
These facts are prompting Arabs to re-evaluate long-held beliefs. Cracks in the status quo -- the same one that fosters terrorism -- are appearing:
I've long believed the war on Islamic terror has to be fought on a two track basis. The first, and most obvious track, is killing and arresting terrorists. This has most obviously manifested itself in the war in Afghanistan and the hunt for AQ members in that region.
Such a strategy, however, is insufficient to achieve victory. More terrorists will always be coming down the pipe. The ultimate solution -- the longer-term goal -- is to eliminate the breeding grounds of Islamic terror. Those breeding grounds are predominantly found in the Middle East, where authoritarianism and a lack of tolerance for dissent have long been the order of the day. It is a swamp badly in need of draining. This is what the U.S. is attempting to do in Iraq.
Unlike the first track, however, this track is a more long-term endeavor that yields heavy initial costs with few immediate or apparent benefits. The death and destruction are obvious. Less so are the changes in attitudes taking place and the taking hold of concepts like democracy and human rights. But they are occurring. One example is the rising influence of secular parties. After initially voting for religious parties in the January election some Iraqis are now reconsidering.
More broadly, support for terror in the Muslim world is on the decline as the results of this poll indicate. Why? Here is the view of one Arab journalist:
“The Muslim community is watching the news the whole time and they are seeing that many people are dying out of terrorism and they don’t believe that this is related to their religion -- that no religion in the world will justify the killing, the horror, and the terror that is being created by those so-called Muslim fighters. The media is portraying the true image of terrorism, the ugly image for terrorism and people can't take that any more,” Abdulrahman said.Exactly. Supporting Osama Bin Laden is fun and games as long as he is killing Americans on the other side of an ocean. When Muslims in the Middle East become the overwhelming victims, as is currently the case, it's a different story. Every time Islamic radicals blow up more women and children the legitimacy of their cause is further undermined. The above quote, mind you, was made before the recent bombings in Jordan, which only served to further alienate Zarqawi and Al Qaeda.
Indeed, the war in Iraq has forced Arabs and Muslims to face some uncomfortable truths. Saddam was not the popular leader of Iraq, nor was he a modern day Saladin. Most Iraqis do not support terrorism and would rather take part in elections to air their political grievances. The existence of the Jewish state of Israel does not mean that Arabs can not participate in democracy as leaders in countries such as Syria claim. Terrorists are not pious noble figures fighting for the dignity of Muslims. Rather they are thugs who target mostly Muslims and do not spare women or children.
These facts are prompting Arabs to re-evaluate long-held beliefs. Cracks in the status quo -- the same one that fosters terrorism -- are appearing:
"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."Yes, there is much violence and ugliness and not-unjustified talk that the U.S. is destabilizing the Middle East. But then again, that's always been the point.
No comments:
Post a Comment