Glenn Greenwald links to Britain’s former chief intelligence official observing what was, really, the logical result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:
Britain’s support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan radicalized many Muslims and triggered a big rise in terrorism plots that nearly overwhelmed the British security services, the former head of the domestic intelligence agency said on Tuesday.
Giving evidence to an official inquiry into the Iraq war, Eliza Manningham-Buller, former MI5 director general, said the U.S.-led invasions had substantially raised the number of plots against Britain.
“It undoubtedly increased the threat and by 2004 we were pretty well swamped,” she said. “We were very overburdened by intelligence on a broad scale that was pretty well more than we could cope with.
Greenwald then observes:
So if I understand this deeply esoteric and surprising concept correctly, what causes many Muslims to become radicalized and want to mount violent attacks on a particular country is when that country brings war, bombings, and other forms of destruction and interference to the Muslim world. Who knew? British Muslims became “radicalized” and “swamped” that country with Terrorist plots only after watching the Government attack two separate Muslim nations. Add to that things like lawless detentions, Guantanamo, a torture regime, attacks in places like Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen and others — all on top of two occupations in the Muslim world that will extend for a full decade at least — and only the densest among us (or those who actively desire high levels of Terrorism threats for their own interests) will fail to see how the very policies justified in the name of fighting Terrorism are the ones most exacerbating that problem.
Greenwald then preemptively addresses the familiar rebuttal to the argument that our foreign policy can fuel radicalization, a rebuttal that I previously described as the “Absolution Dodge.” According to the Absolution Dodge, terrorist attacks, radicalization and anti-Americanism pre-dated the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and will outlive the end of each occupation, therefore, it is pointless to view these events as causal factors in increasing radicalization. Rather, such attitudes are formed out of jealousy and animosity toward freedom. Thus, we do not need to adjust our foreign policy in order to mitigate these negative effects. Greenwald:
And, as always, those who have been told that American interference and violence in the Muslim world began only after 9/11 should read about Mohammad Mossadegh; Joy Gordon’s new book on the devastation brought by American air attacks on Iraq in the Persian Gulf War and especially the decade-long sanctions regime that followed; our endless support for continuous Israeli wars and occupation in that part of the world; and our decades-long support for tyrants from Egypt to Indonesia]. The issue is causation, not justification, and it’s as crystal clear now as it was in 2003 when the U.S. Government itself recognized it.
That list isn’t even exhaustive. Some additional thoughts from me on the Absolution Dodge:
The pundits that use this simplistic formulation are usually doing so in order to shield unwise and flawed foreign policy choices from criticism. The recognition of the durability of some level of anti-Americanism/extremism/terrorism quickly morphs into a fatalistic call to inaction. “Why change our foreign policy when nothing is going to completely extinguish anti-Americanism, extremism or terrorism everywhere?” As if complete eradication is the only viable goal, and as if the intensity of the anti-Americanism that exists in the world – and whether or not it leads to radicalization or cooperation with radicals – is irrelevant.
Many purveyors of this faux-wisdom go even further than bemoaning the lack of total solutions by attempting to altogether de-link the anti-Americanism/extremism/terrorism from any past, present or future actions on our part. Instead, these the source of these phenomena is attributed to some vague combination of jealousy, envy and the inevitable hostility directed at the lone superpower.
While there undoubtedly is, and always will be, some of this baseless animosity toward America, attributing the lion’s share of anti-Americanism to these caprices is wrongheaded – though it has its uses when seeking to dismiss legitimate concerns of blowback from present or future foreign policy endeavors (such as, say, military confrontation with Iran). If they hate us for our freedoms, what does it matter if we bomb another Muslim country? [...]
At the risk of stating my own tautology, this “all or nothing/blameless” view is not conducive to crafting good policy. While some level of anti-Americanism/extremism/terrorism will exist no matter what policies US Presidents (past, present and future) adopt, that does not mean that our policies cannot have a positive impact on the degrees of each and that we should not consider this outcome in our decision making process. Even small adjustments in the intensity and pervasiveness of anti-Americanism/extremism can be meaningful.
And certainly, not invading or attacking yet more Muslim nations is an adjustment that would have considerable benefits. Speaking of which, the neocon war drums are nearing one of their periodic crescendos, this time with Iran in the crosshairs.
Related posts:
recent comments