If You Think "They" Hate Us Because We're "Over There" Read This
Why do certain Muslims continue to want to attack the U.S.? The two reasons most proffered are as follows.
Reason #1: They hate us because of our "freedom." It's tempting to think that those who adhere to what can arguably be characterized as a totalitarian world view, if not a totalitarian religion, would hold a "free society" in contempt. Hitler's Nazis despised the ostensibly democratic Weimar Republic of Germany, which they eventually overthrew. They despised the other democracies that existed as they rose to power in the 1930s, democracies which they ultimately attacked and, with the exception of Great Britain and the U.S., conquered - at least for a while. So one might suppose that those who follow the totalitarian philosophy of Islam - or at least the radical Islamic groups - would despise the U.S. as representative of a rich, successful democracy. Some people take all this and conclude that because they despise our democracy, they attack us.
Frankly, it never made much sense to me. Perhaps they resent the fact that Western democracies, most especially the U.S. are rich and economically successful, as opposed to the countries of their origin. The idea that countries whose historical roots lie in Christianity would be economically dominant makes them seethe with hatred and motivates them to want to kill us so much that they're willing to kill themselves to get at us. That makes a little more sense to me than them killing us simply because we're "free."
Reason #2: They hate us because we're "over there." The U.S. government has armed forces in the Middle East and other Muslim countries. Those armed forces have fought wars that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Muslims living in those countries, many of whom were civilians.
To be clear here, we're not blaming our soldiers. Most of them simply do what they're ordered to do, not that such obedience precludes any moral culpability for any actions taken. But setting aside those instances where a soldier or soldiers might act in a reprehensible manner, or those orders that might be clearly identified as morally wrong, we suspect most of the time the soldiers follow orders in good conscience, something we might summarize as "doing their duty."
That leaves us with those issuing the orders, and we're not talking about officers in the military here. We're talking about those whose bidding the military does: the U.S. government. Remember, in our system, the armed forces follow government policy. Politicians ultimately call the shots.. The military simply executes government policy. And government policy consists of more than military action.
For example, U.S. foreign policy has enforced sanctions that in some instances have resulted in not only hardship but death, perhaps most infamously the sanctions on Sadaam Hussein's Iraq. When then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeliene Albright was interviewed by a reporter concerning the sanctions:
Well, if you don't think so, then you don't buy the argument that they hate us because we "over there."
Frankly, I've been inclined, based on common sense, to think Reason #2 made more sense than Reason #1. But when I read this recent story, I've reconsidered somewhat:
So Italy's not "over there," far as I know, and yet they're a target.
Which begs the question: If we stopped being "over there," would we be less of a target? If we pulled our troops out of every Muslim country and stopped trying to interfere, manage, or manipulate the internal affairs of those countries, would these murderers cross us off their list of people to kill?
I don't have a definitive answer. I still believe that our government's presence everywhere does create resentment on the part of those who don't benefit from that presence, who may suffer because of that presence. It's just common sense to think this, isn't it? But I'm not so sure about the idea that pulling out our troops and severing the puppet strings with which the U.S. government manipulates certain governments will necessarily exempt us from the wrath of those who openly declare war on everyone who doesn't agree with their totalitarian vision of a world subjugated under Shariah law.
Reason #1: They hate us because of our "freedom." It's tempting to think that those who adhere to what can arguably be characterized as a totalitarian world view, if not a totalitarian religion, would hold a "free society" in contempt. Hitler's Nazis despised the ostensibly democratic Weimar Republic of Germany, which they eventually overthrew. They despised the other democracies that existed as they rose to power in the 1930s, democracies which they ultimately attacked and, with the exception of Great Britain and the U.S., conquered - at least for a while. So one might suppose that those who follow the totalitarian philosophy of Islam - or at least the radical Islamic groups - would despise the U.S. as representative of a rich, successful democracy. Some people take all this and conclude that because they despise our democracy, they attack us.
Frankly, it never made much sense to me. Perhaps they resent the fact that Western democracies, most especially the U.S. are rich and economically successful, as opposed to the countries of their origin. The idea that countries whose historical roots lie in Christianity would be economically dominant makes them seethe with hatred and motivates them to want to kill us so much that they're willing to kill themselves to get at us. That makes a little more sense to me than them killing us simply because we're "free."
Reason #2: They hate us because we're "over there." The U.S. government has armed forces in the Middle East and other Muslim countries. Those armed forces have fought wars that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Muslims living in those countries, many of whom were civilians.
To be clear here, we're not blaming our soldiers. Most of them simply do what they're ordered to do, not that such obedience precludes any moral culpability for any actions taken. But setting aside those instances where a soldier or soldiers might act in a reprehensible manner, or those orders that might be clearly identified as morally wrong, we suspect most of the time the soldiers follow orders in good conscience, something we might summarize as "doing their duty."
That leaves us with those issuing the orders, and we're not talking about officers in the military here. We're talking about those whose bidding the military does: the U.S. government. Remember, in our system, the armed forces follow government policy. Politicians ultimately call the shots.. The military simply executes government policy. And government policy consists of more than military action.
For example, U.S. foreign policy has enforced sanctions that in some instances have resulted in not only hardship but death, perhaps most infamously the sanctions on Sadaam Hussein's Iraq. When then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeliene Albright was interviewed by a reporter concerning the sanctions:
"We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."Pretty shocking and awful stuff, isn't it?
Well, if you don't think so, then you don't buy the argument that they hate us because we "over there."
Frankly, I've been inclined, based on common sense, to think Reason #2 made more sense than Reason #1. But when I read this recent story, I've reconsidered somewhat:
ROME—Italian police on Friday issued arrest warrants for 18 people suspected of being part of a group that organized attacks in Pakistan, and said they believe the group may have considered an attack on the Vatican.I'm pretty sure Italian troops aren't stationed in Muslim countries - at least not in significant numbers. I don't think the Italian government's policies present major problems for Muslims. And yet elements of Islam wanted to attack sights in Italy. Putting aside the planned attack on the Vatican, which we must assume represents and attack on "Christianity" in some way to their twisted minds, why would they attack places in Italy? When they attacked that publication in Paris, it was supposedly because of a cartoon depicting Muhammad in some sort of derogatory light. But Italy?
So Italy's not "over there," far as I know, and yet they're a target.
Which begs the question: If we stopped being "over there," would we be less of a target? If we pulled our troops out of every Muslim country and stopped trying to interfere, manage, or manipulate the internal affairs of those countries, would these murderers cross us off their list of people to kill?
I don't have a definitive answer. I still believe that our government's presence everywhere does create resentment on the part of those who don't benefit from that presence, who may suffer because of that presence. It's just common sense to think this, isn't it? But I'm not so sure about the idea that pulling out our troops and severing the puppet strings with which the U.S. government manipulates certain governments will necessarily exempt us from the wrath of those who openly declare war on everyone who doesn't agree with their totalitarian vision of a world subjugated under Shariah law.
Comments