Rethinking Islamist Terrorism
Dan Yankelovich

Participant
As I read the rich comments above, I see the following pattern emerging. I am sure others will see different patterns:

* We need to focus on our own internal problems before seeking to reform the rest of the world.

* We would enter into this focus not as a retreat from our desired position of being a (not THE) world leader, but because it is a more efficient way of doing so.

* The following message from Doug could be a useful first step in a more focused discussion:

Participant
It seems to me that we need, for a functioning democracy, citizens who know how to participate. That means participation opportunities at neighborhood, town, city, geo-region, state, and national. We do not have these. Add the separation of rich from poor in the US and we see that we have a major problem. To me, the first questing is, what forces have produced this condition, then, with some perspective on what we are up against, to begin to imagine and act on alternatives. Of course world events keep happening, and we have to assume that many, many others will be doing their part."

1:91) 02-SEP-2003 19:02 Participant

"I am not sure that "curbing terrorism" is a first priority goal."

I'm so glad someone said that! (Doug, in this case.)

Only when our leaders recognize terrorism as a symptom of other problems will we make any real progress toward eliminating it.

Don's suggestion: "We would enter into this focus not as a retreat from our desired position of being a world leader, but because it is a more efficient way of doing so. (Emphasis added)

That can be said, and should be said of many options on the table. Or, put differently, it isn't that our goals are different, but that our proposed methods are more efficient means to reach those goals.

Participant
Have the events of the past week in Iraq, Israel and the West Bank, changed anything about how the participants in this conference think about what our approach to Islam should be?

Participant
Columnist James Goldsborough writes: "Trouble is, we are stuck, grabbed and dragged in deeper, not by Saddam's men, but by the Iraqi people. Iraqis know their children will look back on this period as the French did after the Nazis were gone: 'What did you do during the occupation?' every child will demand of his father, who had better have the right answer."

Participant
What would that "right" answer be if you were a father in Iraq today?

Participant
Kip (re 1:89): None of the choices we're discussing is "as easy as it sounds." But surely your suggested substitute, a "choice between competition and cooperation," doesn't help a lot -- and for the reason you give: that it's a "kind of no-brainer."

Simple dichotomous formulations (like competition vs. cooperation) won't be very helpful in thinking about Middle Eastern politics -- or, indeed, in thinking about politics anywhere.

That's the difficulty all the Democratic candidates are having: they want to nail down either-or questions to throw at the Bush Administration, but they're trying to find either-or questions to throw at their many rivals for the nomination, too. In the process, they may succeed in making things nearly as complicated as they really are, which is good thinking. But then their political advisers will persuade them not to make it so complicated ("you don't want to run as an intellectual"), and they'll retreat to using either-or dichotomies. [When I find one that isn't taking that advice, I'll send him/her a political contribution.]

Participant
Which of these fatherly answers to Patty's question seems more likely?

Son, the reign of Saddam was in many ways a horror, and I secretly hated him. But my family came first, and he was one of us. When the Americans came, I took some guilty pleasure in their having driven Saddam from power, but they were bloodthirsty foreigners, ignorant of our culture and our ways, who destroyed our infrastructure, occupied our land, imprisoned, tortured and killed our people, turned our society into chaos....all the while trying to make us into their image...and I came to hate them. Through it all I tried to remain true to my Islamic faith, which told me to cling to our values, resist the obscene modern American ways, and fight to protect our national and religious heritage. I didn't injure or kill any of my fellow countrymen, but I did join others to fight the Americans with whatever resources we had. Although it took many years, we eventually drove them out. Now you can grow up in the land that has survived that evil occupation. We must never forget that terrible experience. Never forget.

Son, I deeply regret not having resisted Saddam in his horrifying reign, and was relieved when the Americans came to liberate us from his dictatorship. The Americans were surprised to find that not everyone welcomed them, but I did, and helped them whenever and wherever I could. They are a brave and generous people, who only wanted peace and security, for us, for themselves and for all the countries in our region. They wanted us to be a self-determining democracy, and we can thank them for the enlightened Constitution and system of justice we now enjoy. They worked furiously to repair the damage of the war and the decade of sanctions, going into deep debt themselves to make that happen. While it took them years, and they lost many soldiers, once they pacified the country, they left without attempting to exploit their victory by controlling our oil and other resources. We are prosperous and democratic society now, as are our neighbors, thanks to the Americans' foresight, generosity and bravery. I am now happy that you will never know the suffering that they freed us from.

Participant
Harlan: As usual, you state very well one of our main problems in the "culture" of our governance.

"Simple dichotomous formulations (like competition vs. cooperation) won't be very helpful in thinking about Middle Eastern politics -- or, indeed, in thinking about politics anywhere.

That's the difficulty all the Democratic candidates are having: they want to nail down either-or questions to throw at the Bush Administration. ---- . But then their political advisers will persuade them not to make it so complicated ("you don't want to run as an intellectual"), and they'll retreat to using either-or dichotomies. [When I find one that isn't taking that advice, I'll send him/her a political contribution.]"

You have heard me on this "note" many times here. But I cautiously suggest that http://blog.deanforamerica.com comes as close to meeting your search for something better as I have seen. It is far from a polished article, but it is an attempt to INVOLVE citizens rather than just TALK TO them.

Participant
Dick: I'm taking a great liberty here, but it's really an effort to answer your question. If the language were modified just a bit, as follows, I'd say the likelihood is 50-50, that both will happen, and that I'd not argue with either.

Son, the reign of Saddam was in many ways a horror, and I secretly hated him. But my family came first, and he was one of us. When the Americans came, I took some pleasure in their having driven Saddam from power, but they were foreigners, ignorant of our culture and our ways, who destroyed our infrastructure, occupied our land, imprisoned and killed some of our people, an allowed the worst of our people to turn our society into chaos....all the while trying to make us into their image...and I came to hate them. Through it all I tried to remain true to my Islamic faith, which told me to cling to our values, resist the obscene modern American ways, and fight to protect our national and religious heritage. I didn't injure or kill any of my fellow countrymen, but I did join others to fight the Americans with whatever resources we had. Although it took many years, we eventually drove them out. Now you can grow up in the land that has survived that evil occupation. We must never forget that terrible experience. Never forget.

Son, I deeply regret not having resisted Saddam in his horrifying reign, and was relieved when the Americans came to liberate us from his dictatorship. The Americans were surprised to find that not everyone welcomed them, but I did, and helped them whenever and wherever I could. They are a brave and generous people, who sought peace, for us, for themselves and for all the countries in our region. They wanted us to be a self-determining democracy, and urged upon us the enlightened Constitution and system of justice we now enjoy. They tried to repair the damage of the war and the decade of sanctions, going into deep debt themselves to make that happen. While it took them years, and they lost many soldiers, once they pacified the country, they left without attempting to exploit their victory by controlling our oil and other resources. I hope you will never know the suffering that they freed us from. [End of modified quote.]

I'd like to include the sentence: "We are prosperous and democratic society now, as are our neighbors, thanks to the Americans' foresight, generosity and bravery." but fear that it is hopelessly optimistic.

Participant
Ray, I certainly understand your slight modifications--removing words like "bloodthirsty" which of course I don't believe about us, but I was trying to write a script for an angry father, and I imagine that they are witnessing plenty of episodes that make us seem villainous.

When you say that you accept both, I take it you mean they are both plausible answers, or do you mean that the same events could be interpreted differently, depending upon the father?

Participant
In his Item 1:52 Fred states A dialog with Islam ought to include the formulation of a post-modern paradigm in which man would not be the final arbiter, and God would be brought back into the world-view and be given a proper role.

In his Item 1:75, Harlan states there is only the sensibly political idea that Organized Religions are not properly merged with political power.

Here we have two diametrically opposed belief systems, each with many millions of followers. Are these not essentially competitive belief systems? Where is the entry for the kind of dialogue that brings together, rather than separating?

I hear in this conference, the idea promulgated that "the other" needs to change their belief system, I have yet to hear anybody say I need to change my belief system.

The point I had hoped to make is that cooperation implies more than tolerance or compromise (both of which are rooted in competition). When one cooperates, one participates with and even identifies with the other. The lines of demarcation between you and me are not so well delineated in a cooperative relationship.

Participant
Kip: Let us assume that two facilitator/mediators offer their expertise to help settle the role of the United Nations in Iraq. One of them follows Fred's belief system, the other Harlan's.

Could you speculate how these two philosophies might help resolve the controversy I have defined above (or any other you think would be better for such a test)?

For such a test, would it be better for them both to work together, or each alone?

Participant
"When you say that you accept both, I take it you mean they are both plausible answers, or do you mean that the same events could be interpreted differently, depending upon the father?"

Both, actually. Were I an Iraqi father, I might interpret what I see either way, depending on my own personal location and experience -- and perhaps attitude. I really do think that there are many Iraqis who's perception of the truth is in either camp -- and, of course, many who are not at either end of the spectrum.

But you asked, "Which answer is the more likely". I had to remove the most extreme language in order to be able to answer.

One of our government leaders was quoted recently to the effect that most of Iraq is now fairly stable and almost peaceful. I assume that by "most" he meant in square miles. That may well be a true observation.

Participant
In item 100, kip says: "Here we have two diametrically opposed belief systems". He contrasts Fred's "God would be brought back into the world-view and be given a proper role." with Harlan's "Organized Religions are not properly merged with political power."

I see these two statements as potentially compatible, perhaps because God, to me, is not to be equated with organized religion.

"God" is "seen" by people in many different ways. About all that they have in common is a sense of authority beyond anything attributable to mankind, and to a large extent, ethical standards. I don't hear anyone arguing that these two attributes have no place in politics.

Participant
Kip: "cooperation implies more than tolerance or compromise".

I agree. It implies -- even requires -- mutual respect, which is not necessarily "rooted in competition".

A few months ago, there was a story in "Atlantic" wherein a useful distinction was made between "tolerance" and "respect", the former being equivalent to "I'm right, you're wrong, but I'll accept your right to be wrong". The latter, of course, acknowledges the possibility of truth and error on both sides.

Previous Page        Next Page

top