Paul Staines points up another consequence of pursuit of democracy as an end in and of itself in the Middle East
The latest Al Qaeda action in Turkey is their logical response to the US pushing democracy into the Muslim world. Could it be that Al Qaeda is trying to push democracy out of its only Muslim stronghold? So much for the fly-paper theory (which smacked of an ex post facto rationalisation) that Iraq would draw in the world’s assorted Muslim terrorists into a military battleground of the Pentagon’s choosing.
It may be that in the future Istanbul will suffer more than New York and London. Ironic given that Turkey rejected intervening wholeheartedly in Iraq. Attacking Anglosphere interests in Turkey and other Muslim countries in the Western orbit seems to be the best response of the terrorists. Bombing HSBC and the British consulate in Istanbul is a lot easier than bombing Britain’s biggest bank in London.
My impression of Turkey from my last visit (pre 9/11) is that its elites have firmly decided their future lies with the western democracies, but a vocal minority side with the mullahs. I had lunch with an urbane sophisticated somewhat worldly banker, I challenged him about the recent arrest of opposition politicians, piously telling him that Turkey would never enter the EU if it did not respect political and human rights. Without hesitation he simply said:
Tell me, would you like to see 20 Islamic fundamentalist members of the European parliament?
I did not respond, it is an interesting point, democracy will certainly produce uncomfortable outcomes in Iraq as well.
Paul Staines
Ironic given that Turkey rejected intervening wholeheartedly in Iraq.
They didn’t just reject Turkish intervention. They tried to scupper the whole project by blocking a northern front, making thel US invasion longer and more costly. If the Turks hadn’t stabbed its nominal ally the US in the back with its on-again off-again attempt to sell access to the northern front, the 4th ID would have swept through the Sunni triangle “hot” and most of the resistance that we see now would not be happening.
So, really, its not ironic. Its perfectly predictable. Turkey is secular and Western-oriented, and therefor will be an AQ target regardless of what the Turks may do. Their little gesture of Islamic solidarity last spring helped set up a nasty guerrilla war next door. The fact that they are now absorbing a little shrapnel from the explosion that they helped facilitate should come as no surprise, to the Turks or anyone else.
So, really, its not ironic. Its perfectly predictable. Turkey is secular and Western-oriented, and therefor will be an AQ target regardless of what the Turks may do.
Exactly. And that’s why the rest of us in Europe are going to be a perfectly legitimate target as well.
Are going to be? Like you weren’t already.
On the Turkish front: c’mon… they’re a *democracy*, which is precisely why it was so hard to sway them. It would probably have been electoral suicide for the government to support the invasion (by all means, someone correct me if i’m wrong), so what were they supposed to do? Sacrifice their positions to ‘principles’ which they didn’t even necessarily believe in? All of us have leaders who compromise in order to be re-elected… care to examine steel tariffs or agricultural subsidies? Both those measures probably assist the terrorist cause too, helping to keep vast swathes of the globe in poverty (and attendent ignorance).
And is anyone really suggesting that these terrorist attacks wouldn’t be happening if Turkey had lent full assistance to the US? pfff…
You give Al Quaeda much more credit than it deserves. You give it credit for selecting targets acording to some grad strategy or logic. You give them credit for having the ability to strike at will where their logic dictates. You give them credit that they have some logic. All false.
They are just a bunch of totally crazy, nihilistic scum. No logic, no strategy, no comprehensible goal. They strike wherever they manage to put together a bunch of terrorists with the explosives. They strike where they happen to be able to.
The battle in Iraq is a microcosm for the ongoing war of good versus evil. From now on any country that even gives implied or tacit assistance to the US will be targeted. This is Jihad versus McWorld folks. Which side are you on?
Lets see they have hit Jewish targets and British targets, not much aimed at Turkish ones. Turkey has just got caught in the middle. I feel for them.
A_t–
And is anyone really suggesting that these terrorist attacks wouldn’t be happening if Turkey had lent full assistance to the US?
I sure wouldn’t–but the issue is: even though the Turks basically accepted the Chirac line (and even helped implement it), it didn’t save them from getting bombed.
Mind you, I thought your comment was very good.
Ouch, Andrew! Only if you think Turkish jews aren’t really Turkish.
And yet there’s a bunch of vermin marching around London right now, who are objectively on the side of the bombers. Bush, you see, is the real terrorist.
I wonder, if this had happened in London, whether the ‘protesters’ (read: pro-Fascist scum) would have found a way to twist it so that the West ended up being cuplable. All my experience tells me so.
>>I wonder, if this had happened in London, whether the ‘protesters’ (read: pro-Fascist scum) would have found a way to twist it so that the West ended up being cuplable. All my experience tells me so.
yeah, & meanwhile ‘patriots’ in the West will tell us the terrorists & all those who support them are just nihilists, born of some local insanity, & we and our self-interested dabblings & meddlings in their region had absolutely no part in the creation of such anger, and their ire’s only directed towards us because umm… i) we’re very visible, ii) they’re jealous, or iii) we represent all that they hate.
Both are wrong & simplistic. Of course we’re not to blame, but to portray this whole mess as utterly unrelated to Western policy over the last few decades is pretty naive. To argue that perhaps we should act in a more open & honest fashion in the future in order not to aggravate people/give them the impression we’re gigantic bond villians, using entire nations as pawns in order to increase our already-vast wealth, doesn’t seem entirely stupid. Obviously that’s not going to sort out the current situation, although it might help prevent the crazed “destroy the west” movement from gathering any more supporters.
I’m certainly not advocating that we hang our heads in shame, or blame ourselves but to deny any national role or culpability in arriving at this situation is denying reality to my mind, and locks out a whole raft of potential longer-term ways out of this nasty situation, through sheer obstinacy & rigid black/white thinking.
The issue of democratic Turkey voting in Islamist governments is not hypothetical. I distinctly remember (and this is within the last 10 years) the Turkish military intervening to ban the Islamist party. At the time, if I remember correctly, it was the largest party in parliament. I don’t think this is the only time this has happened.
And is anyone really suggesting that these terrorist attacks wouldn’t be happening if Turkey had lent full assistance to the US?
Well, nobody knows, of course. I am merely pointing out that there are similar attacks by the same groups right next door as part of a guerrilla/terrorist campaign, and suggesting that (a) the attacks in Turkey might be related to these similar nearby attacks and (b) that Turkey’s obstructionism contributed mightily to the current guerrilla/terrorist campaign.
“I don’t think this is the only time this has happened.”
Well Patrick, here is the news: the islamic party in Turkey is in power right now, the perime minister is the leader of that party. He has just proclaimed that the bombings in Istambul were a crime against the whole civilized world, and Turkey will fight agains terrorism along with it’s allies, the US and GB and the rest of the civilization. He is with us, not against us.
A_t :
behind your tortured phraseology looms the same old Marxist slogans – the West is to blame ! For everything ! The are capitalist (sort of) ergo guilty. They tried to prevent the spread of progress (communism) therefore they are guilty. They try to prevent the spread of murderous Islamist nuts – therefore Guilty !
If you are a third world corrupt mass murderer, that’s ok as long as you proclaim your hatred for the right party (the West).
Jacob, thanks for exposing the virulent anti-capitalism at the core of my thinking. There was me thinking I was quite happy with the capitalist system, but how little I knew my own mind.
Ah well… I’ll go search my soul, see if I can exorcise these Marxist demons of hatred & jealousy, shall I?
…. but if you fancy engaging in actual constructive debate, putting your opponent in an ideological box which you can then mock doesn’t usually achieve much. I make an effort to present a reasoned argument based on my own perception of the world, and not attached to any particular ideological movement. If you’d like to do the same, you’re welcome, & I’d be interested to hear your perspective on things. If you seek solely to discredit me by calling me a marxist, well that’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t make you look very clever.
A_t,
At your word then, you won’t mind me pointing out that the modern map of the Middle East is the joint creation of France and Britain. That includes Palestine. Sykes-Picot, Allenby, T.E. Lawrence, Orde Wingate, Gallipoli, Cstesiphon, Deraa, the Australian Light Horse, the Suez invasion, the installation of the Hashemites on the throne of Jordan, the creation of Lebanon, the creation of Iraq, etc, etc.
The failed policies of the Europe contributed decisively to the problem. Perhaps you are right in suggesting that Europe have nothing further to do with the matter. Let America take it’s shot. It’s probably better that way.
A_t
“I make an effort to present a reasoned argument based on my own perception of the world…”
I do not doubt that for a moment, that’s what we all do. (at least most of us…).
But we all absorb influences from around us; it is important to get to the core of one’s perceptions, or try to, at least.
What I’m trying to say is that when you search real hard for those mythological wrongs that may have caused the lunatics to go on a colosal spree of terror and murder you can’t find any, any big, big wrongs, comitted recently (lets not speak about the crusaders).
I say that this colosal hatred can be explained only by the residue of those 100 years of Marxist propaganda that everybody has been exposed to – denouncing the West a corrupt enemy because it fought against Marxism. That is what fires the hatred of the Arabs (mostly), along with the hatred of the demonstrators in London today.
I also guess that some of it, a little bit of it, creeps into your perceptions.
The West did not commit any atrocities against the Arabs. (we will leave for another day the Israeli-Arab conflict). The West (the British) actually started Arab nationalism, which was practically nonexistent before Lawrence of Arabia. The West established the Arab countries, after freeing them from the Ottoman Empire. (Brittain also created Pakistan).
The notion that “the West is rich, the third world poor” – ergo the West is to blame – is also of Marxist origin echoing the notion that if in a society there are rich and poor, the rich are guilty of exploiting the poor.
To sum up my opinion: claiming that the West is to blame is totally unfounded, such a claim is a residue of Marxist propaganda, even if you’re unaware of it, even if you reject most or all of the Marxist dogma.
‘”Tell me, would you like to see 20 Islamic fundamentalist members of the European parliament?”
‘I did not respond, it is an interesting point, democracy will certainly produce uncomfortable outcomes in Iraq as well.’
A good response might have been: would those be Turkish Islamic fundamentalists, or French?
islamic fundamentalism is incompatible with democracy, which – i assert – is a a moral a logical prerequiste for the self-determination of any nation.
therefore, no islamic state which subordinates individual liberty to scripture has any validity,
and none should be a memebr of any group of nations- such as the EU – that professes to be commited to democratic ideals – including the UN.
“islam” means submission, and to the fundamentalist practioner/believer this means that she/he must submit to God. and the mullahs.
this is incompatible with a democratic system which recognizes that the inidivdual is sovereign, and that the state derives its powers from the people.
only a state that is constituted in such a way that it recognizes that its citizens are sovereign can be justifiably termed “self-determined.”
all other states are determined through corcion and a usurptation of the rights of the people, and are therefore by definition illegitimate.
illegitimate governments should not command the respect of legitimate nations, and legitmate nations should actively pursue any and all means for liberating the people in those nations from the chains of their enslavement.
Surely the “Islamic fundamentalists in parliament” question is ill-posed? –as I think Paul Staines implied. Fundamentalism is a broad spectrum. And there’s no reason to assume that democracy must give liberal results.
Someone can have fundamentalist beliefs and still be willing to play by parliamentary rules because they accept the world cannot be instantly converted and those rules have some legitimacy. If they belong to a fundamentalist tendency that cannot accept anything in the current world, then it would be impossible for them to stand for a blasphemous election.
What of the IRA option–using parliament as just one more means to the great end? I’d say that puts you in the first, the realist, camp. And I don’t see that Islamic fundamentalism of the realist kind is any more of a problem than the myriad other sorts that the world has to offer. Certainly not in the West, where I almost welcome it, as yet another competing authoritarian creed may weaken the others by example.
Our problem, and Turkey’s, is not quasi-fundamentalists who want to go into parliament, but the uncompromising who want to drive out pluralist and secular institutions from the Moslem world, and destroy, now, everything they regard as an affront to their faith.
The actions in Turkey don’t disprove the “flypaper” theory – they just show that al Queda is on the run and just striking where they can, rather than where they want.
Lacking the resources to go after the USA at home, and losing personnel and material in Iraq at an accelerating pace, they’ve just struck where the can…
It is hard to see how the bombing it Turkey advances AQ’s cause. Now the Turks are really pissed, support for the war shot up in England, and they have more Muslim blood on their hands (not that killing Muslims ever seems to hurt support for Islamism).
I tend to think Mark hit it. This looks to me like pure opportunism, divorced from strategic reality od centralized command and control.
Jacob… I take it you wouldn’t be angry then, if a foreign government had propped up the corrupt oligarchy that ran your country for years, because said oligarchy was pliable & ‘friendly’ if paid correctly… you don’t think that might make anyone in your country angry at all? No, didn’t think so. Must just be the ghost of Marx after all.
I never said the poor/rich divide was anything to do with the West per se; certainly didn’t suggest it’s our fault, or that we should take the blame. I know this resentful model is probably adopted by many who hate us; I’ve never denied that, but by lumping me in with those who believe in it, you’re making a whole bunch of assumptions about my beliefs & opinions, which you know near-to-nothing about. Tell me what you think, not what you believe I think, because so far your guesses have been way off.
Also, leaving the Israeli-arab thing for another day (as everyone including our benighted leaders seems inclined to do) is ignoring one of the fundamental reasons the West, & the US in particular, is resented across much of the Muslim world. I know it’s only affected a small number of muslims directly, but hey… Al Quaida’s terrorism “only” killed a few people in New York, yet I feel strangely involved; I want to see a world where that will never happen again, I want to see the leaders & planners behind this atrocity punished, & not just because of the fear that it could happen to me or people I love at some point. I know it’s a horribly complicated matter, but I can’t see how we’re to stop, or at least slow, the the recruitment of more virulently anti-western young men without pushing for some kind of resolution on that front.
So yeah, aside from manipulation of regimes and perceived bias in a horrible conflict which kills hundreds of civilians a year, no, we’ve not done a thing. Oh, and that’s forgetting the natural suspicion people might have of nations which until recently occupied their lands & essentially held them as vassals; enslaved countries. The people of the US still have a little chip on their shoulder about the whole Boston tea party thing, unjust taxation etc., yet you’re asking peoples who were subjugated far more humiliatingly, and much more recently, to just forget all about it, wipe the slate clean & view us with fresh, innocent eyes. Judging by the amount of crap that gets talked about WWII round here, I’m not convinced it’s very easy to wipe a bad reputation from folk memory. I’m not suggesting we’re even a tiny bit as evil as we’re made out to be; I know we’re not. I love our way of life, & hope most people can benefit from it, or something close to it, in the future.
Your position however seems bizarre… is any criticism of the West & our governments’ actions permissible, or does it all just amount to Marxist rejectionism? Does one have to go along with everything that’s been done, & deny any wrongdoing? Does suggesting we had anything to do with the creation of this phenomenon, not in order to attibute blame or assign guilt, but to look for ways out of this nightmare, amount to treason or blindness? Can you be so certain none of our actions, however unwitting or innocent, have had any effect on the unfolding events, given our global reach & the fact that our politicians are not renowned for behaving in an impeccably moral fashion, even towards those who could remove them from office at the next election?
Seems pretty weird.
“Does suggesting we had anything to do with the creation of this phenomenon, not in order to attibute blame or assign guilt, but to look for ways out of this nightmare, amount to treason or blindness? ”
Well, go ahead and suggest – what did the West do wrong ?
The West propped up corrupt dicattors ? which ones ? Weren’t the West’s pet kings in Egypt and Iraq overthrown in the 1950’ies by young Marxist revolutionaries Nasser and Qassem (backed by Saddam), propped up by the USSR, despite the West ? Wasn’t the Shah in Iran overthrown in 1978 with support from Carter ? Nice, free, beautiful republic they got there – here you have indeed something to blame the US for (a little).
Or is all the hate justified because the West denied Saddam the conquest of Kuwait ? Was that the big crime of the West? Or was it that the US deployed troops to Saudi Arabia, so as to deny Saddam the conquest of that country ?
The legend of the “wrongs of the West” doesn’t hold water, except under a Marxist metacontext.
So – “suggesting we had anything to do with the creation of this phenomenon… ” is maybe no treason – but surely blindness.
“but to look for ways out of this nightmare…”
You are welcome, go ahead and look, by all means. Everybody looks for ways out of this nightmare. But if you start from false premisses your ways won’t be worth much.
Anyway what do you suggest – that we refrain from interfering with these righteous souls, and let them hatch their terrorist plots, and develpe their WMD’s undisturbed ?
(As I said, we’ll leave the Israel debate for another day, not because it’s irrelevant, but because it’s too long. I’ll only say thet your apparent premise that it’s all the fault of the West is dubious).
As to the “occupation” in Iraq – seems most Iraqis are happy with this occupation, happier than with Saddam’s thugs occupation.
Jacob, you’re being very selective in your middle-east history:
“Or is all the hate justified because the West denied Saddam the conquest of Kuwait ? Was that the big crime of the West? Or was it that the US deployed troops to Saudi Arabia, so as to deny Saddam the conquest of that country?”
You omit to mention that until he did invade Kuwait, we were big buddies with him, all through the gassing of the marsh arabs etc. etc. Our countries only turned against Saddam when he fucked with our commercial interests. You think the locals are unaware of this? A local observer would conclude (probably correctly) that our governments have basically acted in an amoral self-interested fashion in the region. It’s easy enough to see how this amorality could be interpreted as ‘evil’ in the right minds.
Now, our foreign policy direction *may* have changed, & we may now be in a new era of governmental righteousness, where we only support democracy, & condemn/seek to overthrow tyrants wherever we find them, but i somehow doubt it.
Similarly, did we protect Saudi Arabia (run by a corrupt, contemptible regime) out of the goodness of our own hearts?
We in the west, Americans in particular, and myself included, find it very hard to imagine what it would be like to have your country dominated by another; manipulated to suit it’s needs. Looking at the resentment generated by the UN etc. having a say in some American affairs, i’d guess that if by some weirdness, another nation was capable of manipulating the US government for it’s own ends & did so, a portion of the American people would wish to start exacting revenge.
It’s no more complicated than that; you can try & paint our governments as pure-souled, guiltless “hey, we’re only here to help” people as much as you like, but that’s not the reality of the situation. We’ve not even exerted *slight* pressure on the more cooperative tyrants in the middle-east to democratise, so imho we haven’t got a righteous foot to stand on.
Tell me honestly though, do you really believe our governments have acted only honourably in the middle-east? If you can honestly answer yes, then fair enough, your thesis stands, but i think you’re fooling yourself. If the answer’s no, then you have perhaps *some* of the roots of the problem (for once & for all, i’m NOT putting the blame for all of this mess on us; I do feel the respose is utterly stupid, & have absolutely no truck with any bastard who wants to blow people up).
Paul:
I have a rather more optimistic interpretation of all this and I think the success of the war on terror may be greater than you allow. It seems to me that since 9/11 the terrorists have opted for distinctly soft targets: nightclubs in Bali, synagogues in Turkey, etc. Equally horrible, of course, but a retreat by them nonetheless. They don’t attack Bush in London, for instance. It also calls into question their strategic judgment in my mind. Why make additional enemies of the Australians and the Turks? We’ll see how Turkey reacts but I’ve seen Midnight Express: Turkish prison will make Camp X-Ray seem like the Ritz.
A_t,
The US tries to do what is best for it’s own interests, as she should, though mostly she fails and does dumb things. That’s what all countries do. So what ?
Can you be more specific – what exactly did the West wrog, against the Arabs ?
The US had a relationship with Saddam ? Yes. Becuase of that grudge against Iran’s ayatollas for the 400 day hostages ordeal. The US judged she would hate to see Iran devour Iraq, so the US helped (a little) Iraq + Saddam survive the 8 year war against Iran. Was that an action against the Arabs or for them ? Was it against Iraq or for them ? Was it a blunder ?
What else ?
The Saudis. Did the US install that corrupt Saudi dinasty there ? No. The British ? No, the British found them there ruling in the desert before WW1, and used them to fight the common enemy, the Ottoman turks, helping them gain independence. Is the US preventig the saudi people from overthrowing the fat princes ? I don’t think so. Seems that as corrupt as they seem to us and undemocratic, the Saudi people are happy with them, and there is no resistance to that rule. Would you wish that the US starts some regime change there, forcing on those saudis a regime it thinks appropiate ? The US should distance themselves from that ugly dinasty, but that is really not what could explain terrorism.
“…hard to imagine what it would be like to have your country dominated by another; manipulated to suit it’s needs…”
What manipulation exactly ? Giving 2 bn $ a year to Egypt ? Or driving the British and French away from Suez in 1956 ?
You are full of general terms -“manipulation” “domination” but where is the beef ?
what do you mean ?
“Tell me honestly though, do you really believe our governments have acted only honourably in the middle-east? …”
They have acted as they acted everywhere. They acted normally. The commited blunders maybe, but not more than everybody, and no atrocities. Instead of asking such general vague and rhetoric questions – you must pinpoint exactly what the West did so terribly wrong that it may justify or explain, even a little, this terrorist suicidal madness.
You speak in unsubstantiated generalities, that is what made me think I traced a whif of Marxist rhetoric.
Anyway, you are welcome to offer some specific sugestions – what should be done now ? Return Saddam to power ? Leave Iraq in chaos to be grabbed by Saddam or some similar thug? Retreat behind the oceans and give terrorists a free hand ?
Come on, say what’s on your mind.
Jacob, you’re being ridiculous. Suggesting I want the return of Saddam is exceedingly disingenious, when all I was asking was that you consider some viewpoint other than “the West has always acted honourably in the Middle-East”.
You appear to believe the West is utterly without fault, and see no reason for anyone ever to have got angry with our nations, or to be suspicious of our governments’ motives when they proclaim a moral crusade & set about making sweeping changes. I disagree. I see little point in discussing this further, since I’m not about to believe our governments are squeaky clean, even under the fearsome threat of being branded a closet Marxist, and you seem to be equally entrenched in your faith in the benevolent-towards-all-people nature of our governments.
Mr. Dean,
Arguing that Turkey not permitting troops to enter Iraq spoiled a chance to nip the ‘insurgency’ in the bud is not convincing. You could just as well argue that an even quicker collapse of Saddam’s forces would have led to that many more supporters of the Baath regime who gave up their defense of Baghdad to become indistinguishable from the general population.
If Saddam had any strategic sense, he would have invested everything in mounting an offensive during the occupation but was too busy trying to be a player in an international game to think clearly. Instead of throwing his army away, he should have scattered them as the US approached Baghdad. Our speed saved the ‘insurgents’ from the stupidity of Saddam.
A_t
“I was asking was that you consider some viewpoint other than “the West has always acted honourably in the Middle-East”.”
Nowhere did I say that.
What I said was:
“The US tries to do what is best for it’s own interests, as she should, though mostly she fails and does dumb things. That’s what all countries do. So what ?”
I said that trying to put some of the blame for this insane wave of Islamist death worship at the feet of the West is false, and that is what people do under “hate the rich” Marxist iduced mentality.
I predict Al Queda will be a global irrelevance within 4 years.
Jacob…
a) where did i talk about blame? I’ve been careful to avoid that term; you can be partially responsible (however unwittingly) for something coming about without being ‘to blame’.
b) “Mostly she fails & does dumb things”, yeah… it’s easy to say that in a kind of “hey, what the hell” way, from your situation, protected from most of the dumb things except perhaps a little repressive legislation. Think of how much shit the federal government got for Waco. Waco ain’t nothing compared to the ‘mistakes’ the US has made abroad over the years; it’s just that they weren’t American citizens, so making a fuss to the government wasn’t so easy. You don’t live under whatever dictator the US funds, or in a village where the US accidentally bombed people etc. None of this is “the US is evil!”; I understand this isn’t some concerted malicious effort, & mistakes are easy to make, but just that you should understand that these “little” mistakes won’t look so little to the people involved in them.
That’s all I’m saying; you can have causation without blame; to me, blame implies either intent, or at least consciousness of what the consequences were, & you can acknowledge the US’ mistakes may have caused some trouble, some of which may have come back on it, without being a marxist. Marxism might motivate some people to arrive at similar conclusions to mine, but it’s by no means the only way there, & I’d argue I’m not fuelled by the same venom as the people you’re thinking of.
Cobden… I sincerely hope you’re right! The cool thing is, you could be.
If we all just got to the point and noticed that we are in a war with terror and that people are going to die. This is about power and who’s got it and if we keep on fighting for this we are going to kill each other and then what will we be left with, an empty world with no one to fill it.
This is about power and who’s got it and if we keep on fighting for this we are going to kill each other and then what will we be left with, an empty world with no one to fill it.
As opposed to us not fighting and what we will be left with will be a world with only Islam left to fill it? I vote we fight and just make sure we kill a whole lot more of them than they kill of us.