Posted on: Sunday, September 12, 2004
COMMENTARY
We're losing: Not knowing reason for attacks ultimately will make us lose
| • | We're winning: Military, political gains show U.S. can win a difficult war |
| • | When teaching students about 9/11, start with empathy |
By John B. Quigley
We are losing the war on terrorism. This summer, the State Department issued an alert to Americans in the Middle East and North Africa, warning that they are at risk of attack. If Americans cannot safely live or travel in that region, it is hard to conclude that we are winning the war on terrorism.
The reason we are losing is self-deception. We have not correctly identified the reasons behind anti-U.S. actions. As a result, our tactics are ineffective and may even be counter-productive.
After Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration explained to the public that evil forces hate American freedoms, and that these enemies can be defeated only by being eradicated physically.
That analysis misses the point. Anti-U.S. actions stem from a perception in the Middle East that the United States harms the region by pursuing its own political and financial interests.
The negative sentiment toward the United States is based not on who we are but on what we have done.
After World War II, we solved the problem of Jewish displaced persons in Europe by promoting a European Jewish state in Palestine.
In Iran in 1953, we overthrew a democratically elected government that wanted Western oil companies to leave a fair share of their profits in Iran.
Under the Eisenhower doctrine, proclaimed in 1957, we took opposing Soviet influence as a central factor in our Middle East policy. We wanted friendly governments to let us take the oil and to side with us in the Cold War.
We tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the government of Syria. In Lebanon, the CIA secretly financed friendly candidates for the Parliament. When that manipulation led to civil war in Lebanon, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent in the Marines to help our friends.
None of this history is taught in our high schools. So when President George W. Bush proclaims that the problem is Islamists who hate democracy, he gets applause.
Our 2003 invasion of Iraq is taken as a further instance of intervention for our own purposes. To Osama bin Laden's recruiters, the invasion was a huge gift.
Our financial and political backing of Israel is a key reason for the negative sentiment that produces anti-U.S. violence. Congress is cowed by pro-Israel political action committees, which target members who don't toe their line.
Congress keeps voting billions in aid for Israel no matter what Israel does to the Palestinians.
The Bush administration has sunk to new lows recently in its support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's one-sided solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In August, Sharon announced plans for massive new construction in Israeli West Bank settlements, indirectly financed by U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Even though this construction violates the "road map" the administration itself wrote for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, the White House has uttered not a word of criticism.
This latest Israeli outrage, and the administration's support for it, will yield bin Laden new recruits. The administration is more concerned about getting itself re-elected than about protecting the public.
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry could, if he chose, expose Bush for deceiving the public on what is behind anti-U.S. terrorism. But he has given no indication that he will. The only presidential candidate who has addressed the matter is Ralph Nader.
Until we get a change in our Middle East policy, expect more State Department alerts.
John B. Quigley is a professor of law at Ohio State University.
