Rethinking Islamist Terrorism
Dan Yankelovich

Daniel Yankelovich
Hi everyone. I enjoyed reading all the rich and varied comments, and I apologize for not participating sooner. I've been overwhelmed with the task of completing the paper from which the excerpt was taken. Since I'm in the midst of drafting, I'll content myself for now with just a few comments and questions, and get back to others later.

Participant is correct in his observation that I am toying with the desirability of a change in American policy that would extend the hand of friendship (and substantive assistance) to Muslims of many varieties, especially those who recognize that terrorism will undermine their own dreams and hopes. This includes friendship with Islamists who have a vision of Islamist democracy that would make us uncomfortable, e.g., not separating religion and politics.

Except for our relations with Turkey, our government has been hostile to Islamist governments, seeing them as replays of the Iranian revolution. For example, when the generals in Algeria decided to call off the election in 1991 in which a new Islamist Party seemed ready to win national victory, we supported the generals. The election was called off and declared invalid. The civil war that ensued cost more than 100,000 lives. This posture, clearly, is the opposite of friendship, and it one of the major causes of Islamist anger at us.

Arguably, the most legitimate complaint that Islamists hold against us is that we have consistently supported autocratic regimes who have kept Muslim societies in a state of backward poverty, corruption and decay. (Participant calls attention to this tendency, one that most Americans would deny). We have done so for a variety of reasons, some of which are no longer relevant -- for example, in the search for allies in the cold war.

With the cold war behind us, our situation has changed radically. In the past, before 9/11, it might have been credible to argue that relations with autocratic Muslim governments served our national interests. Now, however, the very opposite may be true. Our ties to autocratic governments may inflame the very Islamist movements that give rise to terrorism. Pragmatically, it may well be in our national interest to assist Muslim aspirations to escape from out from under autocratic repression.

From the comments of some participants in the dialogue, I get mixed messages that would be valuable to review and critique. Walt Anderson holds the hopeful view that all being in a state of flux and motion in the Muslim world, perhaps we can find a positive response to a shift in our own attitudes,-- from treating Islamists as enemies to a willingness to support all forms of democracy, including Islamist democracy. On the other hand, Farhad's downbeat comments about the Iranian clerics makes this sort of approach seem naive. Participant's skeptical question has the same effect. What position should we take? I think we have more to gain than to lose from a policy of friendship that is careful to adapt itself to the unique features of different Muslim societies.

It is clear, I believe, that we need some sort of non-governmental policy that does not depend on state-to-state relations. Here is where our government goes most badly off track. State to state relations hardly affect the sprawling Islamist movement where relatively autonomous clerics encourage terrorism and give it religious sanction. I like the Participant and the Don Strauss observations that the religious community can be important in beginning to build a bridge between the cultures, (while possibly keeping certain religious preferences within national bounds).

Participant
What I like best about Dan's approach is that it deals with removing the US as a target for terrorism, which nobody else seems to be talking about. Why that's not an obvious strategy, is beyond me. Instead we pump billions into homeland security and keep doing the things that will incite terrorists--as the report coming out today concluded, the hostility toward the US has grown with our misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Participant
Don, re your question (and invitation) in 1:33, I don't want to prove you wrong, only to urge you to consider that it may be premature to judge efforts to establish democracy in Iraq a failure. I think we absolutely must support moves toward democracy there. The alternative would be to support another tyrant, which, as Dan points out, is what we have generally done in the past -- not only in the Middle East, but all over the world.

A pragmatic policy of friendliness toward Islamic democracy would probably also mean doing business with governments such as Iran's that are a long way from what I would call true democracies, in hopes that over time they would evolve toward adopting better practices concerning the rights of minorities and human rights generally. Human rights are the global trend and the already-accepted framework laid down in numerous conventions adopted by nearly all nations -- the task now is to get governments to live up in practice to what they have already accepted in principle.

And while we're at it we have some serious work to do at home, since the US at the present time is anything but a model of how to hold onto your values of due process in a time of crisis.

Participant
In the aftermath of bombings yesterday, there seems to be a seachange in the writings of columnists about the US ventures in the Middle East. Somehow yesterday's tragedies were pivotal in bringing about that change, that crossing of the line, from concern and disagreement to fear and anger. All of a sudden, pundits are recognizing that the US strategy REALLY HAS produced just the opposite of its intent. Hatred of the US, and its inevitable consequence--Terrorism--are now recognized as growing exponentially. Even writers who agreed with the invasion of Iraq, after yesterday, are outraged at our behavior there. Those that questioned the administration's program from the start, have today made a quantum leap, reaching a new level of shock and wrath and despair. The situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel continue to deteriorate, but yesterday was especially telling, making rational strategies of the sort we are building in this conference more and more difficult. A deeply discouraged NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd says, "now we just have to slug it out."

Participant
One way of viewing this worsening condition is that it may improve the reception of alternative proposals such as are emerging from this conference. I fear, however, that just the opposite is in store. Increased terror may only escalate and harden the existing militarism in Iraq. And should terrorism reappear in the US, it will surely lead to further loss of civil liberties, and, paradoxically, a likely return of this administration to office.

More experts are saying that we are likely to be in Iraq for ten years. Many are calling for a doubling of our troop strength, rebuilding efforts and aid programs. If the current cost of our adventure there is four billion a month, doubling it for ten years will cost almost a trillion dollars. But then, what's one more trillion when the latest prediction is that we will eventually be in debt for forty-two trillion!

Participant
If I read it correctly, yesterday's NY Times lead editorial called for building massive concrete barriers around every public building in Iraq.

I always wonder what it is that makes us think we can beat the guerrillas or the terrorists through military or security measures. Have we learned nothing from the futile posture taken by Israel? Is it the opinion of this forum that we can win a "war on terrorism"?

Previous Page        Next Page

top