T.A. Editorial in Vanderbilt Hustler

U.S. Hubris, Consistent Record of Instrusion Catalysts of Sept. 11

by Corey Bike November 3, 2004

For the past three years, many hubristic Americans -- the president most of all -- have been responding to the question "Why do they hate us?" with naVve and self-adulating remarks such as, "they hate our freedoms," or "they are jealous of our prosperity." Apparently, these are such self-evident truths that an understanding of U.S. actions in the world is irrelevant, and therefore, need not be analyzed. But once again on Friday, in another video message by Osama bin Laden, "they" actually offered an answer to this question.

Unfortunately, however, both President Bush and Senator Kerry once more exemplified the pigheadedness of U.S. leaders by ignoring the content of the message and using the opportunity to see which candidate could provide a stronger display of bravado that undermines the rationality and self-reflection needed to keep the United States (and the world) safe. Neither candidate addressed what bin Laden actually said in the tape; and by not doing so, the United States will continue to fuel the animosity of many who are undeservedly subject to unjust and oppressive policies -- most of which have originated before Sept. 11 -- which robs one of hope and replaces it with terrorism.

In his videotape, bin Laden clearly stated that the best way to avoid another Sept. 11 was to stop threatening Muslim security. And despite what Americans believe about the benevolent intentions of the United States to "change the nature of the Middle East" (in the words of Condoleeza Rice), most Muslims would agree with bin Laden that U.S. efforts are not at all benevolent, but rather a direct attack on Muslim culture and security. It should not be seen as cowardice or fear of the enemy to take notice of this perspective. After all, bin Laden is the one who orchestrated the attacks on Sept. 11; wouldn't we want to know why he did it, and why he seeks to do it again? It is pointless to comfort ourselves with false notions of freedom-hating terrorists when it obscures the true nature of their animosity.

If we were serious about keeping the United States safe, we must candidly confront the sources of terrorism, not just the terrorist themselves. Bin Laden stated, "Any state that does not mess with our security has naturally guaranteed its own security." There is truth to this notion; it was true when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and it is true now. This is why the Swedes or the Swiss were not attacked on Sept. 11, two of the many countries that share the same freedom and prosperity as the United States.

By dismissing bin Laden's statement outright we failed to engage in the appropriate discourse that will deter us from a perilous road of more violence. Bin Laden also stated, "Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you, and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened." In all fairness to the president, by this measure, Senator Kerry is still deceiving us too. In fact, deception cannot be limited to this presidential race at all, since U.S. intervention in the Muslim world stems back to at least the beginning of the 20th century. Hence, despite what many believe, there is a consistent record of U.S. intrusion prior to Sept. 11; one that consists of direct support for coup d'etats and dictatorial regimes (including Saddam in the 80s) and a standard pro-Israeli bias that has been an impediment to peace, and it has caused greater damage to innocent Palestinians than Israelis (the death ratio is three to one), both of which have a right to exist. The historical record should be the subject of much reflection, and the information is there for anyone concerned enough to find it.

But presently, it was Bush's decision to go into Iraq, and despite what administrative officials claim, it is not at all definite that the war has made the United States safer. In fact, if this video offers any insight to why the United States was targeted in the first place (which I believe it does), the United States will be a greater target (and by many more people) now than before the invasion.

The war in Iraq dragged the United States into a conflict with the Muslim world, one that is now viewed by many as a war of self-defense. Because of this, it is one that resonates with many more Muslims. Many Americans take more comfort in propagating simple answers about anti-American animosity rather than ascertaining them from the source itself, an approach to which any rational person would resort.

For three years we have known who carried out the attacks, but the "why" has been subject of much debate. Well, this latest videotape makes it clear. But the appeal to Americans to reconsider policy toward Muslim countries goes unheeded because of the U.S. refusal to "be intimidated" by terrorists, despite the same appeal made by many Americans (who are then condemned as anti-American) and by the vast majority of Muslims that are innocent and peaceful (but deemed irrelevant to U.S. interests even though it is their land). This is the worst form of hubris, the kind that has ruined every great power in the history of the world.

My Response

Blaming America First is Wrong

by William Drinkwater November 8, 2004

When he decides to apply for a position as an Osama Bin Laden speech-writer, Corey Bike should include as part of his resume his Nov. 3 article entitled, "U.S. hubris, consistent record of intrusion catalysts of Sept. 11." Everything about this column - its righteous condescension, its base hypocrisy and its ideologically driven detachment from reality - is repugnant. What really makes Bike's piece peculiar and what differentiates it from other "blame America first" rhetoric, is the moral and diplomatic credibility it gives Bin Laden.

Basically, Bike focuses on a Bin Laden videotape which he interprets as an appeal for Americans to leave behind hubris and a call to engage in constructive dialogue. If we rationally reflected on the fundamentally oppressive, malignant nature of U.S. foreign policy, he says, we would realize that the terrorists hate us, not because of our freedom but because America means to attack the Muslim community. In my opinion, this argument reflects a serious misunderstanding of the world; it's intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt and ultimately a detriment to America's health as a nation.

This notion that al-Qaeda can be conciliated through diplomacy ignores the fact that the best available evidence suggests the contrary. As the 9/11 Commission Report correctly states, "there is no common ground - not even respect for life - on which to begin dialogue." Morever, Bin Laden's grievances with the United States include more than the perceived threats mentioned in the article. He also demands that we convert to Islam and end the immorality and godlessness that have made America the "worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind." Of course, if we stop and think about America's contributions to the world this statement seems quite remarkable.

It was America that first proved the idea that democratic government could be successful. It was largely thanks to American "intervention" that Western Europe gained liberation from fascism, and it was America that defeated Soviet Communism and removed the Iron Curtain's darkness from the lives of 100 million. Bin Laden also alleges in his latest videotape that George H.W. Bush, upon growing envious of the power of Muslim monarchs, decided to "install" his two sons as leaders. Clearly, lunacy of this magnitude should cause any rational American to seriously question Bin Laden's outlook on the world. Yet, there are those writing in Vanderbilt newspapers who would place more trust in a convicted terrorist than our own democratically elected representatives.

This is the bottom line. It is not possible to reach an understanding with individuals who can justify to themselves flying passenger jets full of human beings into buildings. Our two cultures have entirely different values. Bin Laden thinks America is the "Great Satan;" we pride ourselves on being the freest, greatest country in the world. Those who disagree with Bin Laden's fanatical vision of Islam, in his mind, deserve death; in America there is complete religious freedom. This is not, as some would suggest, a matter of American "imperialism," and simply withdrawing from the Middle East would not "naturally guarantee our security." Bike correctly recognizes that we must "confront the sources of terrorism, not just the terrorists themselves," but what he fails to realize is that Islamic radicalism, not the United States, presents the greatest danger.

When state-centered Arab regimes make it a priority to preserve elite control over national wealth, large segments of the young male population become more susceptible to radical influences. The Report also notes that most of the region's educational systems "generally devoted little if any attention to the rest of the world's thought, history, and culture," and as a result, even those receiving educations "lacked the perspective and skills needed to understand a different culture." And in contrast to Bike's claims, the Commission did find Arab resentment of the West's prosperity as a source of anti-Americanism.

Of course, the United States shares in the blame for cooperating with repressive dictators during the Cold War, but to say that our intentions are to bring injustice on Muslims rings hollow. Shortly following Sept. 11, the president clearly stated that "The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists." If the United States truly lacked concern for the Muslim people, the military would have bombed Fallujah to ashes months ago. Moreover, a democratic government has been established in Afghanistan. "Most Afghans enjoy greater freedom, women and girls are emerging from subjugation, and three million children have returned to school." As the Report so poignantly states, "For the first time in many years, Afghans have reason to hope."

Why those who seek to "blame America first" are so contemptuous of their own country, yet so willing to turn a blind eye to the real evil of terrorism, I will never understand. However, what truly concerns me is not Bike's elitist anti-Americanism, but rather his seeming endorsement and trust in Osama Bin Laden and what that means for Vanderbilt students. As a graduate student in the political science department, Bike will spend three years as a TA grading our exams and our papers so that one day he can become a teacher himself. If he is not personally capable of finding reliable sources (which Bin Laden is not one of) and evaluating the logic of his own arguments, I do not want him determining what goes on my permanent transcript, and I definitely don't want sanctimonious academics indoctrinating my future children with disdain for America. It is precisely the belief in the lofty ideals of America that enables us to continually make progress, both at home and abroad, in advancing the cause of freedom. If we let these ideals parish, the inherent greatness of the United States will die also.