The Wrong Take Away Message
Last week, a number of different blogs (including Andrew Sullivan's) posted a photograph of two gay Iranian teenagers taken moments before they were executed for the "crime" of homosexuality. The pictures are disturbing in a way that no amount of words can be, a chilling reminder of the barbarity that springs from Islamic fanaticism. Not surprisingly, the photograph provoked a strong reaction from bloggers and readers, particularly those who personally identified with the Iranian teens. Sullivan, for example, wrote the following:
Underlying Sullivan's comments is an assumption, which is widely shared among conservatives, that a large percentage of the American Left does not yet grasp the nature of the threat we face, and must therefore be constantly reminded how evil our enemy is. Sullivan clearly thinks that there is a significant divide in this country between those who think we must aggressively fight terror and those who don't. I simply don't agree. I think there are some people on the fringe Left who are more interested in finding excuses for terrorism than getting serious about fighting it. Similarly, there are people on the fringe Right who would rather seal our borders and deport all Muslims than fight terrorism abroad. But neither of these positions is particularly relevant to the terrorism debate because the vast majority of Americans fall into a much more reasonable center.
Sullivan's assumptions obscure the fact that the real debate in this country is a strategic one, not an ideological one. All serious-minded people agree that Islamic fanaticism poses a very real and dangerous threat. Those who oppose the Iraq War largely do so on strategic grounds. It's possible, after all, to understand the nature of the threat we face and still believe that invading Iraq was a strategic blunder, a poor use of our military resources. That's a perfectly reasonable position.
Indeed, one could make a convincing argument that invading Iraq has significantly strengthened the power of Iran's current regime, making events like the one depicted in the photograph more likely. The invasion of Iraq certainly radicalized Muslims across the globe, and may well have increased internal support for the hard-liners that currently rule Iran. Moreover, the difficulties we've encountered in Iraq have all but precluded any military options for dealing with Iran, which turns out to have been the much more dangerous regime all along.
Also, it's worth noting that the sort of event pictured in that photograph likely goes on in countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as well, and they are both our "allies" in the War on Terror. I mention this not to diminish in anyway the barbarity of the event, but to point out the rather large disconnect between the horror of the photograph and the need to support the War on Terror as it is currently being waged.
Sullivan suggests that liberal Americans are in need of a call to arms, that they need to be jarred out of their complacency. I disagree. I think most Americans, including liberals, largely understand the nature of the enemy we face. We all lived through 9/11 just like conservatives did. The heart of our disagreement is not whether we need to stop Islamic fanaticism, but how best to accomplish that goal. I think the primary message to take away from the photograph is that there are signficant collateral consequences and opportunity costs associated with any particular military strategy. For better or worse, invading Iraq has greatly reduced America's ability to engage in any other significant military endeavors for the foreseeable future. We must always be mindful that we are waging a war with limited resources, that making one move can foreclose others and lead to a host of unexpected consequences. The terrorism debate should be a strategic one, not an ideological one.
"Gay Americans seem to me right now to be far tooThis sort of analysis, however, has frustrated many. For example, a reader of this blog commented yesterday (via email) that Sullivan seems to be saying that "liberal and democratic homosexuals, who are all assumed to be against the war on terrorism, need to look at these images and see what we are up against, and the righteousness of the cause." I agree with this reader; Sullivan's comments make a number of assumptions that don't seem to be accurate or logical.
complacent. I'm amazed that we haven't seen more
targeting of gay clubs or venues by Islamist fanatics.
And I'm saddened that more gay organizations haven't
rallied to the war against Muslim religious fanatics.
This is our war too."
Underlying Sullivan's comments is an assumption, which is widely shared among conservatives, that a large percentage of the American Left does not yet grasp the nature of the threat we face, and must therefore be constantly reminded how evil our enemy is. Sullivan clearly thinks that there is a significant divide in this country between those who think we must aggressively fight terror and those who don't. I simply don't agree. I think there are some people on the fringe Left who are more interested in finding excuses for terrorism than getting serious about fighting it. Similarly, there are people on the fringe Right who would rather seal our borders and deport all Muslims than fight terrorism abroad. But neither of these positions is particularly relevant to the terrorism debate because the vast majority of Americans fall into a much more reasonable center.
Sullivan's assumptions obscure the fact that the real debate in this country is a strategic one, not an ideological one. All serious-minded people agree that Islamic fanaticism poses a very real and dangerous threat. Those who oppose the Iraq War largely do so on strategic grounds. It's possible, after all, to understand the nature of the threat we face and still believe that invading Iraq was a strategic blunder, a poor use of our military resources. That's a perfectly reasonable position.
Indeed, one could make a convincing argument that invading Iraq has significantly strengthened the power of Iran's current regime, making events like the one depicted in the photograph more likely. The invasion of Iraq certainly radicalized Muslims across the globe, and may well have increased internal support for the hard-liners that currently rule Iran. Moreover, the difficulties we've encountered in Iraq have all but precluded any military options for dealing with Iran, which turns out to have been the much more dangerous regime all along.
Also, it's worth noting that the sort of event pictured in that photograph likely goes on in countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as well, and they are both our "allies" in the War on Terror. I mention this not to diminish in anyway the barbarity of the event, but to point out the rather large disconnect between the horror of the photograph and the need to support the War on Terror as it is currently being waged.
Sullivan suggests that liberal Americans are in need of a call to arms, that they need to be jarred out of their complacency. I disagree. I think most Americans, including liberals, largely understand the nature of the enemy we face. We all lived through 9/11 just like conservatives did. The heart of our disagreement is not whether we need to stop Islamic fanaticism, but how best to accomplish that goal. I think the primary message to take away from the photograph is that there are signficant collateral consequences and opportunity costs associated with any particular military strategy. For better or worse, invading Iraq has greatly reduced America's ability to engage in any other significant military endeavors for the foreseeable future. We must always be mindful that we are waging a war with limited resources, that making one move can foreclose others and lead to a host of unexpected consequences. The terrorism debate should be a strategic one, not an ideological one.
posted by A.L. at 11:39 PM
1 Comments:
I agree with you in general, but I do think there is a significant portion of "the left" that sees terrorism as threat conjured up by the right. Plus there are those that see terrorism as a threat caused primarily by American policy, so that if we simply changed those policies, terrorism would go away.
The problem, of course, is more than simply terrorism; it is extremism in general based on a radical interpretation of Islam that is the ultimate problem. While US policies have certainly contributed to creating a mindset that supports extremism and terrorism (not necessarily the same), there are much deeper issues involved. I don't think we need to go spreading democracy at the point of a rifle, but I do think we should be concerned about the spread of a philosophy that is so antithetical to liberal values.
While I do agree that liberals, for the most part, understand that Islamic extremism is dangerous, I see too often a desire to elide the issue of extremism in general by using a form of ethical relativism. I'm all for trying to "understand" the motivations of terrorists, but I think that some liberals come too close to excusing terrorism.
Let me make it clear that I am not defending the way the Bush Administration has chosen to fight terrorism. I think Iraq was a terrible mistake and I agree that the war has contributed to the terrorist mindset. But I think too many liberals want to see the war (and/or the Palestinean issue)as THE CAUSE of terrorism. I'm not one that thinks the terrorists exist because "they hate our freedom." I don't think they care one way or the other. But I also think this is a philosophy that is much more pernicious and has much deeper roots than simply specific US policies. They see Bush as the enemy rather than the Islamic extremists. As a result, I think there is a tendency to blame terrorism entirely on Bush's policies rather than seeing it for what it is---an extension of an extremist, reactionary,violent philosophy.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home