Posted on 08/09/2002 9:51:04 PM PDT by zapiks44
American response to Khan column
Let me give an American perspective on Roland Khan's opinion (MET 36 online). He is quite correct that there have been acts against individuals of Arab descent or believers in Islam (and in acts that show ignorance equal to bigotry – Sikhs) after the mass murder of Americans. Khan is also correct, though he doesn't quite phrase it this way, that the reaction of every American government official and religious leader and the overwhelming majority of all Americans is that such acts are reprehensible - full stop.
No American says: "Oh, you must understand the rage of Americans who have been the victims of (purportedly) Islamic terrorists for decades and were driven to bigotry by watching Palestinians pass out sweets to celebrate the murder of thousands of men, women and children who never did any Arab or Muslim harm."
Similarly, no American says: "Until these causes of American rage are removed it is inevitable that some misguided individuals will act violently." We know full well that those that make excuses for those who deliberately seek to murder innocents make it easier for terror to spread. Americans are not the only victims of this recent terror (and not simply because so many foreign nationals worked at the WTC). Societies that permit and excuse targeting innocents for death are inherently self-destructive. They help turn their children into mass murderers, they corrupt religions of peace into gospels of death.
Can there be anything more offensive to God than the claim that his desire is for us to murder hundreds of millions of innocent people and that he will reward us for doing so? What must it do to the soul of those who exult at these acts we all know are evil?
Forget the harm these mass murderers do to us if you wish. They do greater damage to Arab societies and Islam than any 'infidel' has ever done. Americans have a long, bitter history of racism. It is unquestionably our greatest failing as a nation and people. That is why we take hate crimes against Arab-Americans, Arabs, Muslims, etc. so seriously and deplore and prosecute them without excuses.
AMERICANS KNOW THEY ARE HATED Khan is incorrect in believing that Americans cannot understand either the fact that we are hated or the depth of that hatred. We know both of those things quite well. We disagree, however, about why we are hated by so many Arabs and Muslims.
Khan says it is because of U.S. policy toward Iraq and Israel. Let us begin with Iraq. The United States did not seek war with Iraq, indeed, it provided support to Iraq when Iran seemed likely to defeat Iraq in their bitter war. America went in when Iraq invaded Kuwait and seemed poised to invade Saudi Arabia.
Saddam Hussein would seem to be a poor candidate for an Islamic hero. He slaughtered the Kurds, oppressed the majority Shia population, was exceptional even among Arab tyrants for his brutality and authoritarian rule, launched wars of aggression (and theft) against two Muslim nations, and used poison gas against both his Kurdish citizens and Iranian troops. On top of all this he was secular and unobservant. His occupation of Kuwait was brutal.
While the coalition that defended Saudi Arabia from invasion and liberated Kuwait was multinational, no one disputes that Americans provided the bulk of the forces and took on the dirty jobs (i.e., the Marines' breaching operations) that were anticipated to cause the greatest casualties.
Hussein responded to losing by causing a massive oil spill in the Gulf and oil fires designed to cause an ecological disaster and destroy Kuwait's ability to restart its economy. U.S. troops were kept far away from Mecca and Medina and were ordered to keep their crucifixes out of sight. It was ok for us to die to protect and liberate Saudis and Kuwaitiis, but we were still infidels (except for America's substantial Islamic population).
IRRATIONAL WORLD One might think that in a rational world that Arabs and Muslims would see America as 1) helpful, 2) respectful of the host nations' sensibilities (e.g., insuring that Arab troops liberated Kuwait City) and Saddam Hussein as betraying virtually every principle that Islam embraces.
Moreover, look around the world, e.g. at Japan and Germany. The United States would have been willing to help rebuild Iraq, as we did these countries after World War II, and we certainly permitted oil sales that would have been ample to provide food and medicine.
Hussein, of course, refused to comply. Even today he will not account for the missing Kuwaitis. Bluntly, Hussein recognized that in the perverse situation of Iraq he would have greater power if he starved his population and denied it basic medicines. As always, he kills his people. Sanctions are solely his pretext.
Yes much, probably most, of the Arab world wants all sanctions against Iraq lifted. Iraq will then have no restraints about attacking its Kurds and Shia. Iraq will return to extorting Kuwait. Iraq will develop weapons of mass destruction. Khan thinks that we should do all these things because, if we also abandon our support for Israel, he assumes that Bin Laden will no longer want to murder us.
Khan's assumption is unlikely to be true. Bin Laden claims that we should be murdered because, as infidels, we polluted holy Mecca and Medina by agreeing to have our troops defend Saudi Arabia. Infidels are apparently quite bad on the pollution score, our troops "polluted" from hundreds of mile away.
If the United States were to stop supporting the sanctions, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would be unable to defend themselves. They would either fall within Hussein's effective control or invite the United States in as a long-term defense force. In the first case, America would face an enormously rich Iraq armed with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. At that point, Bin Laden is not our biggest problem. Hussein can do it himself or hire Bin Laden. Haters are very good at finding excuses to hate.
If Bin Laden can turn Americans risking their lives to save Arab nations from aggression into an excuse for the mass murder of Americans (instead of a reason for gratitude), then he can and always will find a pretext for murdering us. In the second case, Bin Laden would have the same pretext for mass murder that he has now: infidels in Saudi Arabia.
Similarly, the United States will never adopt a position on Israel acceptable to Bin Laden because America will never agree to the mass murder of Israelis, which is what Bin Laden wants. So, Bin Laden will always have his pretext to justify mass murder of innocent Americans.
If he is not dealt with, Bin Laden will eventually get hold of weapons of mass destruction and he will engage in mass murder of innocent Americans and Israelis. The death toll will be in the millions, not thousands. If we follow Khan's advice we will still lose our lives, but we will also lose our honor. There is, however, no chance that we will follow Khan's advice.
PROUD TO BE HATED BY THOSE WHO HATE AMERICA I noted that Khan erred in believing that Americans could not understand why we were hated by so many in the Middle East. We know full well that we are hated, but we think Khan is wrong as to why we are hated. We believe that the reasons we are hated reflect well on our society and nation. We have a saying that a man's character can be judged not simply by his friends, but by his enemies. The British hated my Irish ancestors: that reflected badly on the Brits, and well on the Irish. Who hates America with the greatest passion? Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, the most anti-democratic and bigoted Iranian leaders, and people who rejoice at the mass murder of innocent women and children.
We start with the presumption that it is likely we are doing something right if these individuals hate us and wish us dead. Americans know that we would be better off economically if we aided the destruction of Israel. Israel is an economic drag on the United States and has been for its entire existence. Arab states have mineral resources our economy needs.
We give enormous aid to Egypt despite its meager oil production, and with Israel gone we could stop that aid to Egypt (which is largely a 'sweetener' designed to facilitate peace with Israel).
We also knew that as Israel's greatest supporter we could increase the risk of terrorism against U.S. citizens. We were willing to bear that price. I trust that the Arab world is beginning to comprehend that we are still willing to bear that price – the mass murder of our innocents will increase U.S. support for Israel. As I've explained, Americans don't do this to become richer, or for any of the reasons attributed to us by the Arab press.
For example, it is a common theme in the Arab press that U.S. support for Israel is based on guilt. It is possible that such guilt was a factor in Germany, but it assuredly does not explain American support for Israel. Nor does the 'Israeli lobby'. If Arabs understood us better they would realize that we are proud of our support for Israel, proud that we stand on our principles even though we'd be somewhat safer and richer without Israel.
Further, American support for Israel is not uncritical. Many aspects of Israeli policy towards Palestinians and Israeli Arabs are criticized by Americans. Best friends challenge each other to live up to their best natures, they do not excuse abuses. Contrary to Khan's claims, the United States has been critical of many Israeli positions. Indeed, the mass murder (by purported believers) of our Marines, who came in with the support of much of the Muslim population of Lebanon, was made possible because we introduced the Marines, in part, to restrain Israel.
I know that virtually all Arabs and Muslims oppose our support of Israel, but there is a broad consensus in America that disagrees on substantive grounds. Arabs and Muslims may be able to convince us to modify our policies because we are wrong substantively. But they will not convince us through mass (or solo) murder. In particular, the Palestinians have a genius for getting it wrong if their goal is to persuade an American (or any other Western) audience.
Americans are revolted by religious leaders (of any religion) who justify or excuse the deliberate murder of innocents. Americans are revolted by those who celebrate the mass murder of innocents (or the attempted mass murder of innocents via Scuds). Americans are revolted when Islamic groups hand out ++The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion or modern variants of Nazi posters at Durban. Americans are repulsed that Arab and Islamic nations and NGOs SIMULTANEOUSLY want to single out Israel as the only nation worthy of note for its bigotry and hand out racist literature and notorious forgeries and have numerous 'religious' leaders openly preaching bigotry, hate and excusing (even encouraging) the deliberate murder of innocents.
If the Palestinians had a Gandhi or Martin Luther King who organized a non-violent movement they would have triumphed decades ago. (The dishonest rhetorical effort to redefine throwing rocks as "non-violent" is another self-inflicted Palestinian disaster from the American perspective – remember the expression we are taught as children is: "stones will break my bones.") Americans know what non-violence means.
In sum, following Khan's suggestion would require a betrayal of American principles. America will not abandon its support for Israel (unless Sharon resorts to the deliberate mass murder of innocents). The attacks on America have convinced virtually all Americans that only preemptive strikes against terrorists can be effective.
As a result, the Bush Administration is likely to end its criticism of preemptive strikes against Palestinian terrorists. Khan's (implicit) suggestion that America not hold state sponsors/supporters of terrorism accountable for their actions will not be adopted. Similarly, his (implicit) suggestion that America accede to terrorists like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein gaining control of weapons of mass destruction and that America adopt policies that will placate the Bin Laden's and Hussein's of the world will be rejected.
We will not sit back and wait to be murdered; we will not abandon our principles or allies; and we will not resort to deliberately killing innocents ourselves – no matter how despicable the provocation. You have seen the reactions of Americans to these acts of mass murder. They speak very well of our country.
William K. Black Assistant Professor University of Texas at Austin LBJ School of Public Affairs
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.