Rethinking Islamist Terrorism
Dan Yankelovich

Participant
I would like to become George Bush's speechwriter:

Fellow Americans: Since September 11th, 2001, a day seared in our memory, we Americans, all of us, have wholeheartedly undertaken a mission to safeguard our beloved country from ever again experiencing such an atrocity, and to make the world safe from terrorism. That mission has required that we move in two directions at once. One was to use our unmatched military force to quickly dispatch those who perpetrated that evil act, along with those who aided and protected them, and further to liberate a people dominated by a cruel dictator known to be a dangerous threat to his neighbors and to the world. At the same time, we undertook a major humanitarian effort, not just to supply these oppressed people with the basic necessities of life, but with institutions and democratic governments that would be responsive to their hopes for a better future.

I am proud to say that we have succeeded in both efforts. Our military actions were brilliantly successful, and we have indeed begun to put in place the much needed schools, hospitals, and law enforcement, as well as the necessary governing bodies to guarantee the installation of a democratic process, one that can be a model for all of the Middle East.

As we have stated from the beginning, we went to Iraq only to accomplish those objectives. Not to colonize it, not to create an American empire, not to impose our way of life, not to steal its oil riches, but only to make it a safer place for its people, for its neighbors, and for all in the world community who now no longer fear that weapon programs exist there that could create a fiery holocaust.

It has never been our intention to remain in Iraq for one day longer than it was necessary to set those processes in motion. We have always recognized the importance of this effort being one of international cooperation, and indeed are grateful for the assistance of the coalition that accomplished the liberation. Moreover, we have always assumed that the UN would play an increasing role in the stabilization and peacekeeping necessary to facilitate the democratic processes now in place.

The time has arrived for us to end our military presence there. It is time for the Iraqis themselves, with the help of the UN, to take over the the policing and governance. We want always to be seen as liberators, not occupiers. We now need to focus our attention and our financial resources, in cooperation with the UN, on continuing the humanitarian efforts necessary to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan into the great nations that their histories show they once were, and I am sure can be again.

There will be those militant groups who, mainly for their own interests in ruling these countries, will continue to create incidents of death and destruction. Dealing with that threat, however, as Secretary Rumsfeld has indicated, is not appropriate to the US military, but to the police--which is the proper role for the UN and the Iraqis themselves. With the UN in charge, however, these violent groups will no longer have as their justification the presence of American military. We will have made it clear to all the world that we meant what we said. We are there to liberate, and nothing more.

I am pleased to announce therefore, that Secretary General Kofi Annan of the UN will present to the UN Security Council our request that they take over the policing and peacekeeping activities in Iraq as soon as possible. Our troops will remain only long enough to make the transition a smooth one.

I must remind you, however, that the world remains a dangerous place, requiring not just a secure homeland but military readiness. We may well need to bring military force to bear once again in order to protect vulnerable innocents, safeguard democracies and guarantee human rights. That, not empire building, is how America, and my administration, intends to employ its strength, and to sustain its leadership in the world.

I look forward to the day, very soon, when we can open our arms and our hearts and welcome home our victorious troops, honoring those brave men and women for the sacrifices they have made to make the world a better, safer place.

Good night, God Bless You and God Bless America.

Participant
Dick, your speech for George W. Bush is excellent. Like a good presidential speech-writer, you manage to make what we should do now look like it was what we had in mind right along.

One part of your speech couldn't be used right away, because we are stuck with the security responsibility for quite a while yet. But we could be starting right now the buildup of a UN peacekeeping force, while transferring the political, economic, and social development functions -- and a start on the police training, too -- very soon.

Your speech would be easy to edit to take account of these changes. The hard part will be bringing in soon the other nations with the relevant kinds of expertise. Fortunately we are blessed just now with a wise and persuasive UN Secretary General -- if we were just willing to clear the path for him to organize the U.S. mostly out of there. That would take a number of months -- but the way things are, the drawing down of U.S troops and other inputs will take a number of years.

Participant
Harlan, do you mean American troops as part of a UN peacekeeping force? Do we know how much of the violence we are now facing is the result of anti-American sentiment, and how much simply results from those parties being thrown out of power? It seems that there may be many different groups aligned against us, with somewhat different motivations. I wonder if some or most of it would disappear if there were no American troops there. Would the UN want us as part of that force?

Now that the violence is escalating, and better organized, it looks somewhat less like a peacekeeping exercise than a real war. I guess lately we are losing troops at a rate greater than in the war itself.

There is perhaps some "unwarranted optimism" in the idea that we can bring that hopelessly divided country under democratic control through military action.

Participant
Dick says, accurately: "I agree we haven't begun to figure out how to use our financial resources in non-military ways to create a better world."

Doesn't bother you that we are strongly critical of the use of military force in Iraq, not having figured out the alternative? It bothers me! Doing nothing is hardly an option. Of course I agree that there ARE alternatives. Figuring out what they are, or were, should be among our highest priorities.

Dick says: "I wonder if some or most of [the violence in Iraq] would disappear if there were no American troops there."

Were the American troops there to be removed instantly -- an absurdity of course, but just to make my point -- there would be a lull in the fighting for about 48 hours, and then the violence would resume, Iraqi against Iraqi. At least that's my opinion.

Unfortunately, to move ahead we have to start from here.

Participant
To be clear, I didn't mean immediate withdrawal with no other peacekeeping force in place. I was just wondering whether having identifiable American troops as part of that force would be more of a problem than a help. However, we can pretty much count on internecine warfare, no matter what. That is what Saddam, with his oppressive dictatorship, was able to keep in check.

Participant
On US troops in support of a UN force: We have frequently participated in UN peacekeeping operations, doing the kinds of things that we know how to do or have the specialized equipment to do. I saw this personally in the Congo peacekeeping operation in the early 1960s, where we provided crucial airlift and also had a US Air Force attaché flying over the terrain in Katanga to help make sure the Indian, Malay and other forces were where the UN command (Ralph Bunche, at the time) thought they were, doing what the Security Council had authorized them to do. In future, I would guess that US Special Forces will play similar supporting roles. We can't, don't need to, put our capacity for airlift or intelligence or whatever under "UN command" to be very useful enabling the UN to do what we've agreed should be done.

When we help get the UN militarily involved anywhere, it's usually because we don't want to do it under the American flag, or it would be inappropriate for the US to be in the lead. (The US should have made that judgment early about the postwar "civil affairs" function in Iraq.)

Participant
Ray, I don't think that the fact we haven't figured out a way to use our financial power to bring about peace is reason not to criticize the military action. Some of us, more and more of us, are in deep disagreement with the decision to invade Iraq. It had nothing to do with terrorism, and in fact took the impetus away from diplomatic, or more creative approaches. State Department is playing catch up, while the military situation worsens, with not even an idea of who we are fighting. Other approaches could be designed, but where is the US or UN group working on such designs? Why, could it be our very own ILF?

As an exercise, it would be interesting to see how we might approach the reduction of terrorism if we had a back up budget of, say, two trillion dollars. What would be the basic assumptions or guiding principles? That, after all, is what this conference is all about.

Let me begin with what should perhaps be our first consideration. As you might guess, it is paradoxical.

We cannot buy our way to peace. With intelligent spending, however, we can buy a lot of what we might consider the necessary infrastructure, and the incentives, that would bring the world much closer to peace.

Participant
Dick: there are hints in the Press that Bush has now decided to duplicate another Marshall Plan. This would be like a street hot dog vender trying to duplicate a class 1 restaurant. All the more reason for ILF and other such groups trying to launch discussion as you have suggested.

Participant
>> Some of us, more and more of us, are in deep disagreement with the decision to invade Iraq. <<

The place I take issue with you, Dick, is that I think anyone who is strongly and repeatedly critical of what Bush has done is obligated to offer, or at least suggest, an alternative. And I don't buy just "by alternative means" or "diplomatic means" as sufficient cover for the critic. (Lots of alternatives, diplomatic and otherwise, were in fact employed -- not to say wisely, or exhaustively.)

I, too, opposed the invasion of Iraq -- both times, in fact. But outside of this company I don't say so, because I'm not prepared to answer the obvious question: "What should Bush have done instead?"

>> Where is the US or UN group working on such designs? <<

Surely you wouldn't expect Bush and Co. to tell us.

>> Why, could it be our very own ILF? <<

That was exactly my point! <g>

Participant
There are really two questions, Ray. What should Bush have done about 9/11? And what is the alternative to invading Iraq?

The second one is easy. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, or 9/11. We are under no obligation to supply an alternative to that action. It just shouldn't have happened. It is complete folly. Now that we are in that mess we need to do something, but that something is what I spelled out in my version of what I thought Bush should say in his next speech.

What should he have done about 9/11? Well that's what we have been discussing and will undoubtedly discuss further. Since 9/11 was expressly motivated by concern about our troops in Saudi Arabia and our one-sided support for Israel against the Palestinians, those issues are where I think Bush should have concentrated his foreign policy. (There is nothing I would enjoy more than digging into the specific actions we should take there, but I can't get anyone interested.) Instead of spreading fear, he should have added comfort and perspective. Homeland security is largely pointless, except for preparing for massive emergency needs. We need to beef up our intelligence administrations greatly. And we need to pursue, through intelligence, diplomacy, and police action, the perpetrators--not through invasions. Mostly we need to find a way to remove ourselves as a target, and instead of doing that, he has increased our vulnerability, along with the vulnerability of others, as we saw today in Saudi Arabia. And, of course, we need to be multilateral, learning to make friends of enemies.

But he was pursuing a very different agenda, entirely politically motivated, enabling him to accomplish changes that would never have been possible without 9/11. He just exploited that event, enlarged it as best he could, called for a war on terrorism, (perfect for his purposes because it keeps us on a wartime footing forever), and we were led down the garden path. The Democrats let him get away with it, and still are. Both you and I knew it at the time and said so. If you look back at the discussions we were having two years ago, you can see that we didn't buy any of that hokum. We knew what to do then, but demagoguery prevailed.

Yes, we should do our best to create an alternative scenario. I'm all for it.

Participant
>> what is the alternative to invading Iraq? <<

I can't agree that we could have -- should have -- dismissed this issue as not our concern. The former regime WAS a threat to peace in the Middle East, long term, and it would have been in our best interest to address THAT issue. How Bush (or his successors) should deal with that kind of a problem is worthy of serious consideration and debate.

As previously noted, I agree with your model speech for Bush, going forward.

>> There is nothing I would enjoy more than digging into the specific actions we should take [in Israel and Palestine], but I can't get anyone interested.<<

Well, not entirely so . . . .

Participant
Ray, I don't think you need to be the least bit defensive about criticizing the invasion of Iraq to anyone. We had no business there. Rather it is those people you are talking to who are supporting the war that need to be on the defensive, for God's sake. What a mess they have made. Millions of people around the world warned us about this foolish act. But if you hand your friends your agreement that the US "needed to do something about Iraq" then you deserve whatever junk they throw at you. If you will recall, there was a UN inspection team at work, not complaining--they wanted more time, Saddam was essentially cooperating. We just didn't believe him because he had ignored UN resolutions. But no more than Israel had, and Israel went to some lengths to deceive the inspectors about their developing nuclear weapons. Maybe we need to review the history--why Saddam threw out the first inspection team, what Iraqi civilians were killed by whose poison gas, from whom they obtained WMD earlier, etc. We went into Iraq for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism, or any threat to our homeland. Much greater threats existed elsewhere. The threat to peace in the Middle East (and here) was not in Iraq as much as it was, and is, in the West Bank. Does anyone paying attention really doubt that at this point?

Do you think we could mount a discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian issue, Ray? I don't.

Participant
If we want to list the assumptions we need to make as we create a better plan for curbing terrorism, I'd be glad to participate. I started with one, encouraging the use of financial incentives. Here is my next one:

We must assume that while there are people in scores of countries that do not wish us well, and some are members of networks that plan terrorism against us, we do not have any nations as enemies. We must treat them as friendly, even if their leaders disagree with our ways.

Participant
My third assumption: While the violence is horrifying and generally inexcusable, the causes the terrorists represent are often legitimate, and require attention.

The fourth is really a corollary to the third: "Terrorist" is a term used so broadly that it masks real differences among those being so labeled.

Care to join me in suggesting a list?

Participant
Five: Most homeland security measures are either a waste or actually counter-productive, creating fear, not security. Our vulnerability is so vast, that very few security measures are effective. That money should be spent on constructive peacemaking activities.

(How difficult would it have been for terrorists to start the California wildfires?)

Participant
I'm not sure, Dick, that creating a list of "assumptions" is the most constructive way to proceed toward the identification of a more enlightened foreign policy. (That's what the consideration of alternatives would be, isn't it?)

A better approach, in my opinion -- and I may have suggested this before -- would be to list "Good" and "Bad" characteristics and behaviors of foreign governments as we perceive them. Give each country a "score", say from 10 down to zero.

We might then list (if thought necessary or useful) the things we do in our relations with foreign nations -- thinks like "most favored nation status", mutual defense treaties, etc.

My thought is that after our good/bad list has been carefully thought out, we would make it public. We would do everything we can to help those nations with a score of 10 (if there are any), and we would do nothing to help those with a score near zero. In between, we would measure our cooperation and support by the standing of each country on our scale of friendship and admiration. No threats; no seriously negative treatment; just a withholding of our cooperation and support on a carefully measured basis.

I can, of course, point out many difficulties that would likely be encountered, but I haven't thought of a more rational, peaceful way to exert our influence on the rest of the world. Perhaps some of our leaders would be tempted to improve our own score on our own scale. That would be something!

Participant
Ray, I didn't think that I needed to make a case for establishing assumptions, but maybe I will sometime.

Other than the fact that there are more than 200 nations to rank (whew!) I find one a major problem for me, a position you take that is opposite to one I would take. I would think that the nations we find most troublesome are the ones we should attend to most vigorously. If we reward some, and not others, we effectively punish them, turning them more against us than ever. Not all nations that receive a low ranking would even want to be high on our list. Sort of like some people who felt proud to be on Nixon's enemies list. It seems to me that our foreign policy should be making friends of enemies. I'm not a believer in rewards, anyway. When I say financial incentives, I mean that we join warring parties, or enemies of the US, in imagining a desirable shared goal. Then using our financial resources, help them get to that goal--e.g. Palestinians and Israelis. While Bush has lost some friends for us, I think we don't really need to worry much about our friends, just our enemies. Cooperation with our friends is already our policy. But today the commander of our forces in Iraq refers to those still fighting us as "savages". Maybe a good war fighting policy, but not a good foreign policy.

Participant
I'm puzzled and confused by your comment #236, Dick. Most of it appears to me to be consistent with what I've suggested.

You are dismayed by the fact that there are more than 200 nations to rank. So what? It doesn't have to be done all at once. All I'm saying is that we should help each nation that asks for help in proportion to their sharing of our values and goals.

I didn't mean to suggest that the amount of vigor we put into the effort should depend on anything but our self-interest. We don't need to DO much with respect to Canada and the UK, for example -- or Scandinavia.

And what if some don't want to be high on or list? If our foreign policy should be making friends of enemies, but without rewards, then what do you propose to DO about them?

To advocate that "we join warring parties, or enemies of the US, in imagining a desirable shared goal" is neither a clear course of action nor contrary to anything I've suggested.

Participant
I thought you meant that if we ranked a country low--say China, or Syria, or North Korea, we would ignore it, giving our attention and our resources to those countries who come closer to our values. The low ranking countries are the ones that are our potential enemies, aren't they?

When you add the idea that we should help countries that ask for our help, that places a different emphasis. I don't think Iran would ask for our help. But who knows?

But isn't there something that gives you pause when you insist that a country accept our values? These ancient countries may think our values are materialistic, our democracy corrupt, our morals questionable, our participation in international cooperation low, our attitude bullying--even our actual human rights practices clouded by incarcerating a larger percentage of our population than any other country. Would they be mistaken? Don't we have much to learn from these other cultures?

I guess I don't quite follow your logic. If we don't have to DO anything about the countries that we rank high, and we refuse to do something about the countries we rank low, just whom are we doing something for?

Participant
Ray, I know that you find my suggestion that we clarify our assumptions to be not sufficiently action oriented, but I think that effective leadership in foreign affairs is dependent upon a clear and coherent understanding of the fundamental ideas that govern our national posture, in this case our posture toward the curbing of terrorism. With a strong posture, wise actions will more easily flow. Our national problem has not been inaction, but lack of understanding, perspective and vision. I don't think that the current administration would share any of the assumptions I have put forward, but my guess is that this group would. What does that mean? Isn't that proof that we need to clarify those understandings before taking action? My assumptions would lead to a very different set of actions.

For example, if, to take a couple of my assumptions, we were to accept the idea that the causes the terrorists espouse are legitimate, we would act quite differently. Also, if we regard our vulnerability to terrorist acts as permanent and largely indefensible, then we would direct our financial resources quite differently. I think each of the assumptions has built into it rather clear indications for action (or in some cases not acting). Instead, our leaders, in action-oriented responses to terrorism, are going off in many directions, half cocked.

The role of think tanks is to think. Thinking is in short supply in our leadership. That's what we in the ILF are supposed to do. And that's what you did with your suggestion. I'm only arguing your point that assumptions are not action oriented.

Participant
>> I thought you meant that if we ranked a country low we would ignore it. <<

We can't afford to ignore ANY! Especially those who differ greatly.

>> I don't think Iran would ask for our help. <<

Agreed. They might, however, ask that we do something, or stop doing something. "Ask for help" was a poor choice of words; I should have said, "Ask (or more likely "demand") something of us."

>> But isn't there something that gives you pause when you insist that a country accept our values? These ancient countries may think our values are materialistic, our democracy corrupt, our morals questionable," etc.<<

No. First of all, I don't "insist". I mean to exert just a little pressure in directions of which we approve, and to do it logically and not in such short-term-self-serving ways -- e.g. how much oil do they have?

More important, though, is the way in which we prepare our description of what we consider "good" behavior. That is a formidable task! It is also a task that would have side effects, influencing our own behavior. The effort would pay off in many ways.

And, Dick: I said nothing to suggest we have nothing to learn from these other countries! Of course we do! For one thing, we'd find that out as we work at the task of examining what we think is "good".

>> just whom are we doing something for? <<

Anyone who needs our help, but we don't stretch the same amount for everyone.

Participant
Listing assumptions we should make would be useful. (Your 5th, by the way, isn't an assumption. It's just an expression of opinion. While I agree with it, I doubt that it has value as a foundation for proceeding.

An examination of our assumptions -- openly acknowledged and hidden -- would be a necessary part, I expect, in any effort to define "good" behavior on the international scene.

>> If we were to accept the idea that the causes the terrorists espouse are legitimate, we would act quite differently. <<

Sure! But stating that idea publicly and in those terms would get us nowhere. The causes the terrorists espouse are thought by most people to start with one cause -- destroy the infidels! Most people don't think of the terrorists' "causes" as being associated with our exportation of immoral entertainment, for example.

If we expect to persuade anyone, we must start from THEIR point of view and lead them toward something else -- not just throw our point of view at them.

There I go, talking as if I were a psychologist!! Tch! Tch!

Participant
Everyone interested in this conference should make it a point to read the essay by George Soros in the December issue of the Atlantic Monthly. It's probably available on line somewhere. Perhaps someone could find it and create a link.

It's an important statement!

Participant
Ray, all assumptions are opinions, that's why they are called assumptions rather than truths. My fifth is clearly an assumption, grounded in reason, and indeed in experience, even if we only considered the Israeli situation. The fact that most wouldn't agree with it doesn't make it not an assumption. Most people would not agree with any of my assumptions. In any case, our assumptions are our own, not necessarily to be published, but the basis for our posture, our decisions, and our actions.

Previous Page        Next Page

top