How Bush's Policies in the Muslim World Played into Terrorists' Hands -- Can Obama Reverse Course?

I just returned from Jordan where I attended a seminar on Islam and American Foreign Policy. What struck me most is that the more you talk to leaders from the Muslim world - the more you study the polling of Muslim attitudes - the clearer it is that George Bush didn't just get the "War on Terror" a little wrong. The basic thrust of the "War on Terror" was 100% wrong - 180 degrees off the mark.

In fact, you could argue, that if Osama Bin Laden himself had designed the strategy, it is hard to imagine how - in its essentials - it could have done more to play into the hands of the small fraction of Muslim extremists who resort to terror.

Bush's policy seemed to presume that if the military could just track down and kill enough Islamic radicals and terrorists, terrorism could be wiped out. But even the Bush administration understood that the small, hard core of Muslim terrorists depends upon support from a much broader group of radicalized Muslims - for new recruits, for money, for protection.

In 2007 John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed published Who Speaks for Islam?, a book based on Gallup's World Poll - the largest study of Muslim attitudes ever undertaken. Between 2001 and 2007 Gallup conducted tens of thousands of hour-long random interviews with the residents of 35 nations with majority or substantial Muslim populations.

Part of this study was devoted to examining the factors that created Muslim radicals. It found that only 7% of Muslims were "politically radicalized" and thought that the 9/11 attacks were "completely" justified.

The Bush administration argued on more than one occasion that what drove terrorists and Muslim radicals was their "hatred for our way of life, our freedom, democracy, and success." But it turns out that this view is completely wrong.

• When asked what they admired about the West, politically radicalized and moderate Muslims both mention: 1) technology, 2) the West's value system, hard work, self-responsibility, rule of law, cooperation; 3) fair political systems, democracy, respect for human rights, freedom of speech, gender equality.

• The politically radicalized are actually more prone than moderate Muslims to agree that "moving toward greater governmental democracy" will foster progress in the Arab/Muslim world (50%, vs 35% for moderates).

• Anti-Americanism is not a result of deep-seated hatred of the West in general, or emblematic of deep East-West religious or cultural differences. Unfavorable opinions of the United States and Britain do not preclude positive views of France or Germany. For example, while only 25% had unfavorable opinions of France and 26% of Germany, 68% had unfavorable opinions of Britain and 84% for the United States.

• It turns out that politically radicalized Muslims are not mainly poor or uninformed. 67% had secondary or higher education (compared to 52% of moderates) and 65% said they had higher than average incomes (compared with 55% of moderates).

The study concludes that: "A primary driver of radicalism, often seen as inseparable from the threat to Muslim religious and cultural identity, is the threat of political domination and occupation."

The findings of this survey are confirmed by a study by Robert Pape, the author of Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. He investigated every suicide attack in the world form 1980 to 2004. He found that more than 95% of all incidents had as its central objective to compel the withdrawal of military forces from the territory that terrorists view as their homeland.

So what did Bush do? He invaded Iraq and confirmed Osama Bin Laden's narrative. He initiated policies of torture and detention without trial that called into question America's true commitment to democracy and reinforced the widely held view that "democracy" was only a cover for America's desire to occupy Muslim lands and steal their oil.

In the words of Esposito and Mogahed, "While terrorists must be fought aggressively, military occupation of Muslim lands increases Anti-American sentiment, diminishes American moral authority with allies and silences the voices of moderates who want better relations."

What the Bush policy on terrorism ignored was that more than anything else people want a sense of meaning and identity - and their corollary: respect. The polling shows that Muslims feel that their culture and the religious traditions, that in many ways define their sense of personal identity, have been disrespected by Americans and former American leadership.

Of course many neo-cons compounded that sense of disrespect by arguing that the "War on Terror" involved a clash of cultures and that terrorism was just a symptom and that Islam itself was the real problem. Esposito and Mogahed found that these arguments - which have no basis at all in reality - simply confirm radical beliefs, and fears. They alienate the Muslim majority and reinforce a belief "that the war against global terrorism is really a war against Islam."

With resentment of occupation, colonial domination and "disrespect" being the major factors that are shown empirically in the polling to politically radicalize Muslims, you can imagine the impact of the pictures of Muslim's being sexually humiliated by American guards at Abu Ghraib.

So what is the way forward for Barack Hussein Obama as he attempts to defuse Muslim anti-Americanism and prevent growth in the population of politically radicalized Muslims that are the true fuel for terrorism? It's not simple, but several steps seem clear:

• Respect. The United States must communicate simple respect for Muslim culture. It must do away with the neo-colonial, neo-con sense that this must be "An American Century" - that we have the moral right to dominate others - that Muslim culture is "inferior." It was a great start that President Obama's first interview was given to the Al Arabiya television. Empathy - being able to put yourself in another's place - is the first requisite for showing respect. The fact that Obama spent time as child in a Muslim country; his name; the fact that life has equipped him with experiences that allow him to understand other cultures; are all huge personal assets that will have a big impact on our success.

• Withdraw from Iraq. The Obama administration must follow through on its commitment to end the US occupation of Iraq. Iraq is the principal symbol in the Muslim world that the U.S. is using "democracy" as a pretense to occupy Muslim land.

• Actively address the two major iconic conflicts that symbolize disrespect and domination of the Muslim world: the conflict between Israel and Palestine, and the conflict in Kashmir. As long as these conflicts continue they will be the frames through which much of the Muslim world views relations with the West. The appointment of George Mitchell and a sharp reversal of the Bush Administration's neglect of the Middle East conflict will help enormously.

• Heavy focus on economic recovery and development. General Blair, the new National Director of Intelligence reported to Congress that the worldwide economic collapse is the country's most pressing security risk; that it may cause instability and violence around the world. The Administration's success in cushioning the deep Bush recession and returning worldwide economic expansion is critical to our security in general, and our relations with the Muslim world in particular. Hopelessness and economic dislocation that leads to political instability could be especially disastrous in countries like nuclear-armed Pakistan and India.

• Stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan and the northwest tribal territories of Pakistan. This is the most difficult and complex aspect of the foreign policy disaster that George Bush left on Obama's doorstep. It appears that American (and NATO) military power will continue to be necessary for some time to root out the leaders of Al Qaeda, improve the security situation in Afghanistan, and help support the new, democratically-elected government of Pakistan from extremist elements. But this must be accomplished while doing as little as possible to inflame precisely the fears of foreign domination and occupation that create more politically radicalized Muslims.

That is a tall order. It will require enormous deftness. And it will require the development and execution of a campaign plan that sets clear, achievable security and economic development goals. Most importantly, it will require the close cooperation and involvement of our NATO allies, the Pakistani and Afghan leaderships - and Afghanistan's neighbor, Iran.

When confronted by the tragedy of 9/11, Bush and his neo-con advisers responded with policies they had wished to pursue for years. Their theories turned out to be dead wrong. In fact, they poured gasoline on the fire. Now Obama must put out the flames and rebuild America's relationship with the Muslim world.

Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on Amazon.com.

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

"in Muslim societies, the perceived lack of modesty portrayed in Western media is thought to signal women"s degraded cultural status."
http://media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/PerspectivesOfWomenInTheMuslimWorld.pdf

"...Respondents in Muslim countries were asked how they view a number of nations, the attributes they most associate with the US are: ruthless (68 per cent), scientifically and technologically advanced (68 per cent), aggressive (66 per cent), conceited (65 per cent), and morally decadent (64 per cent)."
http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/Heritage_and_Culture/10245965.html

"Part of this study was devoted to examining the factors that created Muslim radicals. It found that only 7% of Muslims were "politically radicalized."
ONLY ? That adds up to about 100 000 000 radical supporters. And we in the West wonder why it is a global struggle?

[Ergon]

I'm sure that being 'politically radicalised' can mean a number of things, but least of all that hordes of Muslims are descending on Germany to enforce burqa wearing by all the frauleins of that lovely country, which would be a great loss, believe me :)

[LuckyLeif]

Breathtaking ignorance. It does not matter what the West does or does not do. Hate engendered in youth for 13 Centuries is the root of the violence. Do your homework.

http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/radical-islam-kills-free-speech-in-england/

[Usama]

Allan Erickson is who? Why shoould I go to a link to read another link or video?

It seems if you could prove that Islam has been teaching violence for 13 centuries that there would be no minorities in the Muslim world, that there would be destruction everywhere.
13 centuries of violence is quite a lot.

Why just take the kids bowling?

[MagisterLudi]

Fact: During centuries of Islamic imperialism, thousands of nations peoples were subjugated and put to the sword.
Fact:Luckily Europeans and others became stronger and began to fight back against Islamic imperialism. This resulted in almost total rout which freed Europe and large chucks of Asia from Islamic control.
Ever since Islamic civilization has been in deep decline.

[MagisterLudi]

Modern Jihadism is a movement.
Yes, it is not an army. But it is a loosely related series of networks.
And instead of several grand battles, ala Waterloo or Stalingrad it will defeated via thousands of small battles, military, economical, cultural etc.
And yes, modern Jihadism can and will be defeated. Within a generation. Just as fascism, communism and anarchism was defeated. Via a combination of means.

The most powerful weapon against modern Jihadism--Jihadism itself. As a regressive­,ultra-vio­lent, dystopian set of ideas, utterly incompatible with progress and development of humankind.

[MagisterLudi]

I would hesitate to use Dr. Esposito's interpretation of Gallup data for objective opinion-making.

1.The book attempts to claim that all l Muslim countries were taken into account. Small print then says only 10 countries were used!!!

2.According to authors [Gallup] found that only 7% of Muslims were "politically radicalized"
I would hesitate to use the word 'only' because it adds about to about 90,000,000 radicals.

3. " Muslims feel that their culture and the religious traditions have been disrespected by Americans and former American leadership."
We certainly hope it is a two-way street.
(page 84 of the book) Muslims consider Americans:- Ruthless (68%); Conceited (65%); Morally decadent (64%)
To Muslims: "Western women's perceived lack of modesty signals their degraded cultural status in the West."
One regularly hears most outlandish accusations leveled against United States from pulpits all over Islamdom.
I've yet to read about efforts taken to discourage this behavior. One way street? Hope not.

4. Gallup poll: Majority of Muslims think USA "deserved" 9-11.
Naturally, this was ignored by the authors. In service of their main feel-good narrative.

5. Finally, author of the book. Dr. Esposito-- Prince Alwalweed Bin Talal Center professor at Gerogetown. Saudi funded center. 'Nough said said.

Looking forward to seeing Howard Dean Center at King Saud University.

[Usama]

Magister, please provide a link verifying your claims about the Gallup poll.

[chaos4700]

He can't post credible links to save his life. This should be good.

[MagisterLudi]

"in Muslim societies, the perceived lack of modesty portrayed in Western media is thought to signal women’s degraded cultural status."
http://media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/PerspectivesOfWomenInTheMuslimWorld.pdf

"...Respondents in Muslim countries were asked how they view a number of nations, the attributes they most associate with the US are: ruthless (68 per cent), scientifically and technologically advanced (68 per cent), aggressive (66 per cent), conceited (65 per cent), and morally decadent (64 per cent)."
http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/Heritage_and_Culture/10245965.html

"Part of this study was devoted to examining the factors that created Muslim radicals. It found that only 7% of Muslims were "politically radicalized."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/how-bushs-policies-in-the_b_169045.html?show_comment_id=21290772#comment_21290772

Any questions?

[fbr79]

The only way Muslims will feel they are being "respected" in what refers to the conflict mentioned is if they get all they demand. Tough sell for Israelis and Indians.

[MagisterLudi]

And Kurds, and Middle Eastern Christians and any other minorities that don't conform to dominant Islamic interpretations.

[Ergon]

Euro-hypocrites would of course like Muslim residents to conform to majority values.

[Usama]

Really, how can you tell the difference between what Muslims want and what you have? Im not talking about taking your daughter, Im talking about the Suez Canal, the oil of Arabia, the Strait of Hormuz- all these you consider as yours. See how you take over Somali waterways as if its yours? What if the Egyptian tyrant was overthrown and the new government closed the Suez canal for a period of time, what would America do? It would take over the Suez if the govt did not open it immediately. And what if the Saudi king was overthrown and the new govt closed all oil fields and refineries for some reason? America would intervene.
The lands of the Muslims does not even belong to them. That's why there are troops all over, spying stations, spies on top of spies.

[Asean4Obama]

I often talk to other muslims' and most (including me) put the Israeli conflict with Palestine on the top of the agenda followed by the way the west looks down at times on us (I am a westerner).

We do learn from the West but try to pickup the best values such as democracy, education and the rule of law which at times I miss very much when I travelled in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

I am a member of the German Green Party, a liberal left wing for all my life and I can only say that most muslims I know are very moderate and honest. When I do meet a fanatic, I will give arguments in a very mild and respecful way with hope when he goes sleep that he thinks of my arguments.

[MagisterLudi]

re"When I do meet a fanatic, I will give arguments in a very mild and respecful way with hope when he goes sleep that he thinks of my arguments."

But let me ask you, You don't find it alarming that one has to worry about arguing with Jihadist fanatics in the middle of European continent? In the 21 Century?

P.S. I vote Green also ( sometimes). To bad Americans don't :-).

[chaos4700]

Well, I'm worried about finding Islamophobe extremists in the heart of Germany. My ancestral homeland has already suffered one bout of genocidal nationalistic fervor and my grandfather was sent over as a US soldier to fight what his own cousins had become. Fortunately, I'm confident people like you are and will remain merely a vocal minority with little political influence.

[Usama]

I think the intention behind the article is admirable. Its not neurosis to examine and reexamine policies overt and covert which may be having an adverse, negative, unproductive, counterproductive result. Its based on the concept of oversight.

Its also necessary to examine and reexamine a policy in order to ascertain whether it complies with whichever ethical principles one implores. That's necessary to avoid duplicity.

Both of these have been neglected in America's policies with the Muslim world, or at least fundamental change to rectify policy and ethical problems have been neglected.

[ProgressiveVoice]

Wow. Welcome to 2009. Everything in this post, except for the poll numbers confirming it, was obvious as far back as 2003 - as soon as the "insurgency" began.

We invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 because that was where Bin Ladin was. Now he isn't. Why the he-ll are we still there?

[MagisterLudi]

"Now he isn't."
What ? no hesitation, no qualification. Just like that-- "he isn't"
Wow we have an intelligence specialist in out midst. Do tell the wondering world where Osama is. Don't forget the house number. Please. I'll forward this to CIA asap.

[chaos4700]

The CIA knowing where he was didn't help us the last time around. What's the point making a man up into a mythical villain only to displace that villain with a well placed bullet or drone missile?

[MagisterLudi]

The question that perpetuates the systemic failure and neurotic preoccupation:" Who do we blame?"

The questions that will lead to progress:
1.What are WE doing wrong?
2.What do we do to fix the problem?

Doubt it? Ask any psychologist or a psychiatrist.

[Ergon]

The U.S. did not have an enemy in the Arab World until the creation of Israel.

[MagisterLudi]

"The U.S. did not have an enemy in the Arab World until the creation of Israel."

Now for historical facts, to counter biased opinion.

From the Founders on, Americans tried to transform Arab and Muslim peoples-- to conform to it's ideals and project its power into the region.
From the colonial era to the present, many Americans have considered Middle East and its dominant religion "barbaric" and "despotic" These have been the dominant features of American foreign policy tradition in the Middle East.

Arabs take Americans hostage ( what, already?) in 1800. Americans attack Algeris and Lybia. Famous shores of Tripoli
1800-1900 Americans opened about 300 schools in Arab lands.One of them-- the American University in Beirut)..
In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt sent battleships to attack Moroccan Arabs for taking American hostages.

Conclusion: There are remarkable similarities between today's events in the region and U.S. activity there over the past 200 years.

"To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Muhammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing"
General George S. Patton: The War as I Knew it, 1974, p.49

"While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men."
President John Quincy Adams

[Ergon]

I'll give you Tripoli and the pirates but from the 20th century on US Arab relationships were quite stable in part to American needs for a stable oil supply. That's changes since 1948 hasn't it?
And you may want to be careful about quoting General Patton, he was quite nasty about Jews, even more so than Arabs actually.

[surj]

Leftleanwing, " Do you know that Kuwait at one time was a province of Iraq," So what? Do you know that Kuwaitis hate Iraqis? Do you know that Pakistan and Bangladesh were once part of India? google thereligionofpeace

[SassyFrassy]

The other day we read how these people are attempting to justify their warped racist sharia law by actually stating that Americans whom protest against abortion are to be classified as “christian terrorists”.

the unmitigated gall and warped sense of mentality that is subscribed to this line of thinking is unfathomable.

Since when does anyone with half a brain have a hard time comprehending that “seeking to save the more Frail and helpless lives from being destroyed” hardly classifies anyone as “terrorist” whether christian or non-christian.

The “same way” these people ramble endlessly about "respect yet, these people attempt to consider it okay for the KORAN to claim that muslims are “superior” (yep it uses the word superior about it) race to non-muslims whom are “servants (yep it uses word servant about it) and that since non-muslims are classfied as “servants’ therefore they are to have NO home, No land, NO freedom, NO money, NO possesions and the non-muslims life can be killed with NO prosecution to the Muslim for having committed the killing of the non-muslim.

[Ergon]

So, what's your position on Prop 8, seeing as how you're for equality and all, sassy?

[fbr79]

I don't think proposition 8 discussion is a good domain to try to defend Muslims. The last I've researched gays and lesbians get arrested, tortured and killed throughout the Muslim world with governmental blessings.

[Articulator]

There you go again, grouping them all into on stereotyped class that you can rationalize a reason to hate them all. You just added to the credibility of the article.
The way to win the war on terror is to separate the groups, the moderates cant be glad that the radicals are resorting to terrorism or the moderates will turn a blind eye or even help the radicals. Remember the days before George when every day there was a threat by some group to declare a Jihad. That was their only way of getting recruits and it was starting to become a joke, you can only declare Jihad so many times before it becomes obvious it's losing it steam. At the time there were Muslims who were starting to openly question Jihad. The radicals were losing support from the moderates. After invading Iraq based on known lies, there has been no need for radical Muslims to resort to that rallying cry. When was the last time we heard the term Jihad. Unless we have the resources to invade dozens of more countries, we have to rely on other govts to police their own citizens that we believe are terrorists. If it's political (or physical) suicide for a foreign govt to arrest their own citizens, we're going to have to reinstate the draft. When we group them all into one group, we alienate them all and they will act as one. Great strategy that is.

[SassyFrassy]

DEMS MISLEAD PUBLIC TO CLAIM FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IS OUT

10 min after the press said DEMS SAID FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IS OUT... We FOUND OUT Obama NEVER CLOSED IT PER SE, Obama LEFT it WIDE OPEN for the WASH DC SLUG PARTY to REVIVE IT under another Name.

This time they want to the FCC TO REVIVE SHARIA LAW in order to squelch FREE SPEECH by having the FCC bamboozle the public to claim that ADVISORS AND BOARDS ARE NEEDED BY CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE NEEDED TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATORY WORDING. Because they think AMERICANS are too stipid to realize that SHARIA LAW says it's punishible by death to anyone whom claims that murders, rapes terrorist acitvities of SHARIA LAW /mislim/islam are "bad". go see michelle malkin or act for america.org

[sloLes]

This article touched on some very basic issues. These can best be illustrated by our triumphant entry into Kabul in 2002, after achieving military victory with the northern alliance. Afghan people actually cheered American troops.

We then proceeded to break nearly every promise we made and turn Bagram Airport into a huge CIA torture prison. And of course, we invaded Iraq. We're losing in both places, and also the world-wide 'war on terrorism.' And bombing one million apartment dwellers in Beirut with American-made bombs from American-made airplanes shows what we think of Arab people. Of course, we just supported Israel as they did it again in Gaza.

The basic truth about war is that most are ended when the bitter enemies are able to negitiate with their hated opponents. And no matter how much we try to discredit Hezbollah or Hamas, these groups have been elected to represent the people who voted them into power. So, in the end, Israel will need to negotiate with these elected leaders, even if forced to do so by their American supporters.

And in the end, the truth about Western behavior will come out. Nelson Mandela has set a new tome for reconcilliation. And it includes discovery of the truth as a substitute for continuing the cycle of hatred & violence.

So, the real message here is that Amreican needs to align itself with truth and the future of mankind, not the old colonial past.

[louisamast]

Long shot. Even Nelson Mandela had to wait till 2006 so his name was finally removed from American Terrorist List! US has much better relationship with all the Persian Gulf dictators than the elected leaders. And everyone knows that except average Americans! Democracy is used only as a propaganda tool.

[TRYKER]

Thank you Mr. Creamer for this important post. You have it all right there, I hope this makes the rounds somewhere in the MSM.

[louisamast]

Good wish! Let's hope for.