Still we are the bad guys.

During the Cold War it became popular for radicals to portray moderates as western puppets to establish their own legitimacy and even accused US backed moderate governments of being anti democratic or ignoring human rights while ignoring the actions of regimes like Libya, Syria and revolutionary Iran which had far worse records. And I believe that is part of the impossible dilemma for the US. When we help friendly governments we are accused of undermining revolutionary movements in Islam, but when we pressure those Arab governments into improving their actions in democracy or human rights (which we also do) we are accused of being imperialists (see Eddin Ibrahim on google if you don't believe me). During the 70's to the 90's whenever there has been a conflict between moderate governments and Islamic movements we did not take sides. In Iran's 79 revolution, the US wanted to Shah to stay in power but we instead restrained him from being tougher than he was. After the revolution (before the hostage crisis) Jimmy Carter attempted a conciliation with the new government, that unfortunately caused the radicals to seize the embassy with a sign that said "No moderates served here". The only time the US has ever really been involved countering an Islamic rev movement was Afghanistan.

Lets look at some other examples:

1-End of the Arab Israeli War in 1973 the US rescued Egypt by forcing Israel into a cease fire.

2-US saved Arafat from Israel in Beirut in 1982 and arranged safe passage to Tunisia.

3-The US was willing to support Arafat and the PLO while overlooking their history (our bad) of terrorism, anti Americanism, and alignment with the Soviet Union (you'd think we would learn after Castro).

4-Despite Palestinian backing of Iraq during the War the US sponsored a peace process with Israel, pushing for an agreement that would have created a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem (See how Arafat has pissed all that away).

5-Our support of Afghanistan against the Soviets.

6-Saudi Arabia from Iraq

7-Bosnia and Kosovo from Yugoslavia (Not Europe's finest hour for peace).

8-Muslim Pakistan against India

9-Muslim Turkey against Greece

10-Accepted Syrian control of Lebanon (a neutral action)

11-On a racial basis we supported Arab Iraq against Persian Iran (and believe me the Arabs like Persians only a few notches above Jews).

12-Arab oil tankers against Persian Iran (yes also in our best interest but remember they often coincide).

13-Somalia where the US is trying through humanitarian efforts (and no compelling state interest) to help a Muslim people under warlords (I really don't see any Arabic states stepping up to the plate on this one either).

14-When US oil companies holdings were nationalized by Saudi Arabia, Lybia and others we showed an amazing amount of restraint.

15-Soviet collapse would have been a golden opportunity for a purely pragmatic movement into the Levant.

16-We have not used our overwhelming strength to directly dominate the Gulf and gulf states.

17-Since 9-11 the US has also taken great efforts to show the world (and the US) that Islam and Arabs are not US enemies.

So really with the exception of our support of Israel, during the last 50 year in 11 of the 12 major conflicts between Islamic countries and non Muslims, Muslims and secular enemies, or Arabs against non Arabs the us has always sided with the former.

So why the kick in the huevos?

The real record is disregarded but why?

1-Well first I think while we fail to understand the region fully, Arabs failure to understand the US has been significantly greater. Seems the the Middle East always thinks the US wishes to conquer or wipe them out (part of the xenophobia adopted from the earlier Mongolian invasions), but also because its what they would do, if they could.

2-I believe that we also forget how tightly information is controlled in the area. Ostensibly Al Jazeera is the first Arabic news station not controlled by a state. So you can see its easy to manipulate the hoi poloi via constantly being fed false information without any real tertiary access to accept differing viewpoints.

3-Then all our actions are distorted by this tightly controlled media. The US is blamed for the suffering of Muslims that it protected in Kosovo and Bosia. Humanitarian aid in Somalia is shown as an imperialistic anti Muslim move defeated by heroic resistance fighter (ie see warlords that brought starvation to the country in the first place).

4-The more dangerous threats that the US protects them from is downplayed. Saddam Hussein looted Kuwait, vanalized it, threatened invasion, tortured and repressed his own people, chemical weapons guy, fired (wildly inaccurate) missiles against population centers, wants a nuclear weapon (so he can say "whos your daddy"). And with all that, Arab leaders in the Middle East tell their people the US is partially responsible for his actions.

5-There is that constant need for Arabs to reduce all US actions down to one single stupid item. US supports Israel, so all the US does is wrong, and all that anti American Arab groups do is right. Regardless of the ambivalence the US has in regard to Israel.

Note without number 5, you would still have four other key elements that make US policy almost impossible and untenable in the Arab world. Also note that this is generally domestically produced (relative to the Arab world) and usually outside US influence.

For radical Islamic groups anti Americanism has been an easy way to aspire to legitimacy and muster support. Generally these though have been rebuffed in establishing a theocratic states (exception being Iran), so they foster a type of xenophobia among different Muslim groups who see Islam differently and also against heathens in general who they claim seek to destroy Muslims.

Then again anti Americanism is just as useful for oppressive regimes. Instead of responding to demands for democracy, living standards, human rights, less corruption less incompetence, the leaders prefer to blame the US (see Palestinians for a perfect example of this). The governments do the "national unity or shut up routine" (and yes we do it to in times of crisis, but not for decades at a time and it almost never props up a presidency for very long). Of course by taking the anti US route, these groups also make sure their opponents don't use the same tactic. So while Saudi Arabia and Egypt receive weapons and protection from the US they have also promoted the ever popular US whipping boy scenario through various policies and through state controlled media (which is very anti American). Hey if America can be blamed for Iraqi deaths because of sanctions, who is going to remember the siezure of Kuwait? Iran uses the tactic to get the US out of the Gulf and to keep focus away from their two biggest weaknesses. 1-Iranians are not Arabs 2-Iranians are generally Shia and not Sunni. Domestic reformers are called US puppets and hence delegitimize them. Syria uses anti US sentiment to distract the people away from reforms that Assad promised (but quickly abandoned).

For the Palestinians its great cover for their own rejection of peace and compromise and a method of mobilizing the groups when necessary. It also gives the leaders themselves cover for rejecting US policies they disagree with claiming their hands are tied because of the passion of the people (course that never stops tough action when the leaders feel their own self interest is at stake).

Of course then there are the Arab anti American intellectuals and journalists who feel the need to vent their anger at government approved targets instead of risking personal life and limb by criticizing their own governments for its failures. Yes we are the whipping boy.

Now this is not to dismiss all anger towards the US. But lets be accurate here. The reactive violence of the middle east for their grievences is completely disproportionate. Arabs and Muslims have suffered less from US policy than most other groups. But none of these other groups comes anywhere near the level of violence and hatred the Middle East regularlly spews out. Arab states don't really have a basis for complaints. They have grown rich off the US economy and US influence over Arabic economy is limited at best, so they can't legitimitely argue that Arabs are poor based on US policies. We certainly don't make or break nations. Since the Pro-shah coup in 1953 there is not a single US covert action to change a Middle eastern regime. Only in Iraq has the US an attempt for an overthrow, and so far we are really doing a great job there aren't we? Fact is most other countries in the world, including Europe have a better case at being angry towards the US than the middle east, but you won't find Europeans caling for terrorist attack from their minarets.

Really it comes down to using the US to disparage good ideas that arise from the US. In essence anti Americanism is really a negative response to gobalization and westernization.

Finally there is an established false dichotomy. To portray the US as an enemy it must be made to be the bully. To ecourage challenging the US it must also be portrayed as weak. Radical Islamic groups and states are frustrated because the US, to a certain extent is feared and some even see alliance with us as a desirable outcome. If America is powerful why fight it and the people it protects? So radicals must somhow show the US to be both horrible and helpless, and that it will not do anything if it is attacked.

So if the US does little to respond to attacks anti Americanism is encouraged by the belief it is meek. Look at the key themes in Osama Bin Laden, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Kussein and others, they do not say attack the strong America, but attack America because it is weak. Hafez Assad once said "It is important to gain respect, rather than sympathy." Bin Laden agrees once commenting that people always back the strongest. The Iraqi minister himself also commented that Western weakness in confroning Hitler encouraged Nazi aggression. Saddam has consistently interpeted US conciliation as proof that the US is weak, after all, if it were not so, why negotiate? (from Saddam's point of view). In a speech in Feb of 1990 Saddam has said the Arab world has three options.

1-Arabs can give up
2-They can wait until Europe is stronger and play Europe off the US
3-Unite behind a strong Arab leader that can defeat the US.

Guess which option is still foremost in his mind?

He went on to say that the US has shown "signs of fatigue, frustration and hesitation" in Vietnam and Iran and had quickly run away from Lebanon (see Lebanese Barracks bombing and its aftermath) when marines are killed. Experience has shown that if Iraq acted boldly the US would do nothing, he concluded. He still believes that to this day otherwise why pull back before reaching Baghdad?

So what should the US do in the face of this conundrum? With the benefits of developing anti Americanism on a domestic basis, how do we convince Arabic leaders not to do this? Even if the US withdrew support for Israel, pulled back from Iraq, Arab newspapers will not sing the praises of the US. It will however encourage radicals to even greater heights.

I think the first thing the US needs to do is understand that no public relations efforts, mea culpas, appeasement or policy shifts will do anything to change anti Americanism. The systems in place will simply adapt and change the content but not the tone of anti Americanism, so the sytems that produce this sentiment must themselves be rooted out. This includes Saudi support for the Arabic schools that forment these hate policies (masras I believe they are called). And more importantly the US should be steadfast in its support of its own interests and the interests of its allies which includes a support of Israel and developing stronger ties with moderate Arab states which should be "encouraged" to do more publicly to justify US support.

But hey, thats just me.

A book that brought this to the forefront for me was "Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle East", I highly recommend it and while it is not the easiest read it goes into a great deal more insight and analysis than is offered here.

God forbid you counter the intellectual points raised.  Better to keep going back to minor talking points. 


Usama bin Ladin isn't he only terrorist, but guess what, he was the one that planned and organized 9-11, the issue at hand, and apparently the point you forgot.  Most of the other terrorist networks did not work so well.  Why not scream at the Baader Meinhof gang too whie you were at it.

Usama bin Ladin was involved directly in 9-11, not other terrorist groups (though the most wanted terrorist at the time hid out in Iraq, Abu Nidal, but then you don't want to hear that either.  ).


AS I have stated it is not a fact, and declaring it so simply reflects your limited doctrine.  The Ayotollah originally did not feel it was proper or worth the action, it wasn't planned, it was a group of radical students whose back ground tended to me Soviet edged education than anything else.



You will have to excuse me, cotton tends to be an Egyptian export.  More to the point, it seems you didn't read my post, and you certainly did not respond to it.  The issue was explained in my post.



He was never politically justified, again read my post.  One crazy person?  You mean like Hitler?  Was Hitler politically justified?  Please spare me the ridiculous method by which you revert to talking points.  My posts showed how there is really very little political justification. 


No, their thought processes are similar, a feeling that the west was weak, that a dicatorship or caliphate must be established for the promised or chosen people, that any means to establsh it is justified, including genocide.  The only difference is Hitler was elected, bin Ladin hopes to be chosen as Caliphate.

But then someone who is ignorant of the issues, the culture and the religion of Islam wouldn't know that.


Thank you lord Chamberlain.  I am sure in your mixed up world Usama bin Ladin is incredibly successful. 

I agree with that point.

The second part shouldn't be there. The hostage crisis in Iran WAS in responce to US support of the Shah, but not weapons sales, as you pointed out.

There are many reasons to be pro or anti US, but he very vast majority of US influence in the Middle East has actually been beneficial, as my post pointed out while you contemplate your navel.

Classy.

OswaldTheOsprey

Perhaps he is allergic to condescending attitudes.

OswaldTheOsprey

If that were so, he would suffer from self induced anaphylactic shock