There are people out there who maintain that jihadist terrorism against the West is a product of Western policies. Many who advance this line of thinking do so because it reinforces their preconceptions that the West is an exploitative, profit-hungry monster whose every action is intended to enrich itself, or its elites, at the expense of the less fortunate societies of the world. But occasionally, we hear rhetoric of this kind accompanied by genuine arguments. Such is the case with Robert Pape, a professor of political science at Chicago, who penned
an op-ed in today's Times. Because Pape's views are grounded in argument, not ideology, they are particularly ripe for refutation.
His essential point is this: most Al Qaeda suicide attacks since 2002 have been perpetrated by citizens of countries allied with the U.S., or in which the U.S. maintains a substantial military presence, and against the citizens of the U.S. and allied countries. He concludes that Al Qaeda's principal aim is to drive America and its allies out of Muslim countries and that Al Qaeda may well collapse if it were not able to draw recruits from such countries.
In other words, foreign occupation by America and its allies is the problem. Ending foreign occupation is the solution.
To begin with, Pape's sample is fundamentally skewed: he considers only attacks that have occurred since April 2002, and only one very specific type of terrorism - suicide bombing. The attacks on the U.S. embassies in Africa, the bombing of the USS Cole, both World Trade Center attacks -- all of these occurred prior to the massive American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Could it be that Al Qaeda's recent choice of targets is purely tactical? Is it possible that it has assumed the mantle of resisting foreign occupation because it is such a resonant idea in a part of the world that has been regressing for the past 1,000 years? Because it excites the minds of normally secular Arab nationalists? Because it wins them sympathy in certain quarters within the West?
If ending the presence of foreigners in their territory is the goal of Muslim extremists, they have pursued exactly the wrong course of action. Islamic terrorism against the West has brought far greater Western meddling in the affairs of Muslim states than before. It has transformed what should have been (to paraphrase Friedman) a Muslim-Muslim problem into a Muslim-Western problem.
Consider the case of the Palestinians: Hamas and Islamic Jihad are two of the most prolific terrorist groups in operation in the world today. They have successfully convinced many that their actions are a response to Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. But here again, Palestinian terrorism (if not suicide terrorism) long predates the occupation, which began in 1967. Moreover, if the goal is to remove Israelis from the West Bank and Gaza, blowing up busses in Jerusalem is precisely the wrong strategy. The second intifada has destroyed the Israeli peace movement, brought a hard-line general to power, undermined worldwide sympathy for the Palestinian cause, and made Palestinian independence -- in the West Bank at least -- a much more remote possibility. The more pragmatic amongst the Palestinians realized this long ago. But still, the attacks continue. Israeli occupation is not the cause of Palestinian terrorism, it is the excuse for it. Just as Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon did not quell the Hezbollah terrorists intent on Israel's destruction, so the Gaza withdrawal is unlikely to satiate the blood lust of terrorists there - if anything, it will increase it. (This does not mean I oppose the Gaza disengagement, but that's another story).
Israel's occupation that began in 1967 provided terrorists with a workable justification for their acts. The same is true of Al Qaeda. After Iraq and Afghanistan, any attack on the West could now be construed as a response to American atrocities committed against Muslims.
The fundamentalists who kill and murder masses of civilians are far more ambitious than Pape gives them credit for. Like Palestinian terrorist groups, Al Qaeda seeks the establishment of an Islamo-fascist theocracy, the reinstatement of the caliphate, and the rollback of Western norms of tolerance, pluralism and democracy. We need look no further than the Taliban to see what Al Qaeda victory would bequeath to the world.
It is imperative to understand the relationship between American policies and Islamic terror that writers like Pape are so intent on obscuring. American policies in the Middle East may increase the attractiveness of radical theology, but it isn't responsible for its very existence. I might agree that when Israel attacks a terrorist operative, or when America launches an offensive in Falluja, it heightens anti-American feeling in the Arab world. But that anti-American feeling, manifest in terrorist atrocities in Western cities, existed long before. Just as any change in Israeli policy will only whet the appetite of the Islamists (nothing will encourage them more than perceived victory), any change in American policy will only exacerbate the problem. That is not to say that we needn't constantly re-evaluate our policies, particularly when they effect such murderous outcomes. Nor is it to say that American should not push Israel to end its occupation, or that American troops should stay in the Middle East indefinitely, or that America should not end its support for tyrannical regimes, work to end poverty or alienation or any of the other reasons often cited for the anger of many Muslim youth. We should do all these things, but we should do them because they are the right things to do and on our own terms, not because we think they are effective counter-terrorism strategies. And we should begin those efforts in the parts of the world that are the most pacified to show that it is those societies that don't dispatch their youth to kill Westerners that are going to reap the benefits of Western assistance. America must show the world that terrorism is a losing strategy, not an effective way to elicit political changes.
Pape writes that after 9/11, Al Qaeda recognized that "it would be more effective to attack America's European allies, thus coercing them to withdraw their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and increasing the economic and military burdens that the United States would have to bear."
That is the most compelling reason of all for the Europeans NOT to withdraw.
