Monday, August 28, 2006

No Guilt by Association

Although it has been said in various ways by many different people I think it bears repeating: we must be careful and diligent to remind ourselves, others in our country, and the world that although we are in a conflict with "Islamo fascism," or Islamic radicals who want to destroy the West by force, we are not in a conflict with all Muslims. If our enemies can convince the rest of the world that we are against Islam in general then they will have won support, or at least greater disdain for us, from a large percentage of the world's population. Furthermore, the Muslims in the US need to know that they are not outcasts. We also need to remind those in our country who would seek to harm all Muslims, even other citizens, that we are not a people who desire or tolerate hatred or guilt by association and that, as a nation, we are remorseful for times that we have done so in the past. Muslims and those of Middle Eastern heritage may be under greater suspicion than WASPy types, but they are not guilty just because of their faith or family history. Is it fair that they are under greater suspicion? Maybe not. But I can't think of a better system because, without further investigation, you can't tell an "Islamo fascist" from a peaceful Muslim. If there were a group of white supremacists carrying out terrorist attacks and seeking to destroy our culture I hope that us blond haired blue eyed types would be under greater suspicion than those who are not white at all. But because Muslims are under greater suspicion it is easy to understand why they may feel targeted. And therefore we need to make an extra effort to make sure they know that they are not guilty by association and that we do accept them as countrymen or just as other peace-loving humans. If we allow this sizeable majority in our country to feel isolated and targeted simply by their coincidental association with terrorists then it only becomes more likely that they may one day sympathize with our enemies more than us. And, from a less practical standpoint, we should reach out to those who feel persecuted or outcast because it is harmful for them, as humans, to feel that way. We ought to show compassion and acceptance. Not just for the practical purpose of trying to keep them from becoming resentful, but for the pragmatic purpose of embracing everyone who will be embraced and showing love and compassion to the world. If we do not wholehartedly welcome diversity and allow each person to have their own ideology, as long as it doesn't involve killing us or terrorizing us, then we are worse than our enemies.

4 comments:

CharlesPeirce said...

Last night I wrote this sweet 1000-word comment about how we're not really at war with Islamic fascism, but it evaporated when I clicked "Login and Publish." Blast!

I sort of see the Bush admin's line about the war on terror as, well, total BS. You can't fight a war on "terror" or "terrorism" because those are tactics. You CAN fight a war on terrorists, I suppose, and that's extremely freaking hard, and I don't think we are. You could also, I guess, fight a war with Islamic fascism--we're just not, because if we were we'd be at war with Islamic fascist countries, like, say, Saudi Arabia, which was behind 9/11 and from whom we buy 10-15% of our oil. WTF?

What do you think? I really see Iraq as totally separate from all this--it was basically a secular dictatorship under Saddam with Islamic elements to keep the masses at bay, and lots of racial tension. The way that the administration has gotten us to conflate all this--9/11, Iraq, terrorism, terrorists, Islam, Islamic fascism--makes me crazy.

Greg said...

I agree that Iraq is, or at least was at the beginning, fairly tangential to the conflict that I believe we are in with militant Islamic terrorists. Call it a war, call it a conflict, call them Islamo Facists, whatever. The bottom line is that there is now a group of people in the world who want to destroy Western civilization and they have the intelligence, technology and funding to allow them to carry out attacks to that end. This conflict has been brewing for a long time and probably should have commanded more attention a decade ago. However, the bottom line, in my mind, is that there now exists people who claim that their goal is the downfall of our civilization and they have the means to attack us and have. To me that means that we are in a conflict with them. They happen to rally around a militant religious philosophy that they claim is Islam, although more peaceful followers of the religion claim that these militants totally misrepresent true Islam. So, call them what you want, call the conflict what you want, there are people out there who are going to kill us if we don't do something about it. What we ought to do is certainly open to debate, but I don't see how there can be debate about whether or not this conflict exists.

As to fighing Saudi Arabia -- there is definetly a political component to our decisions of how and where we choose to respond to this conflict. The good thing for us, in that respect, is that where ever we decide we want to fight the terrorists will come there to fight us, as they certainly have in Iraq at times. Its a plus for our politics because we can fight them without having to invade countries we want to keep some relationship with us. Its a minus for the people of Iraq because now their country is a battleground for a fight that is largely not about them, although in the end I think they benefit from having Saddam gone. But like you and others have said, its hard to fight terrorism because you can't attack a country. Toppling SA's mostly useless government probably wouldn't do much to stop terrorism. Toppling Saddam didn't directly either. But it served our political, economic, and ideological goals to invade Iraq and it also gave us a platform to fight with terrorists closer to their homes and farther from ours. Is that going to end terrorism? I can't imagine that it will. The only way I can think of to really combat terrorism is to change the ideology in the countries the terror leaders recruit from. That probably involves making their countries more Western and raising the standard of living so there are less disenfranchised people in the region. So from that standpoint the Iraq war was a strategic move that really gets us a lot.

All that being said, the Middle East isn't the only place in the world where there are poor people looking for purpose who predators like the big terror bosses will be able to recruit to their causes. Using Islam as a recruting tool is convenient because it fills an ideological void as well as giving these people something to do. It makes them feel like they are part of something bigger, and it lets you motivate them to become 'martyrs.' It could be anything, though. I can't help but think that if many of the poor African countries ever get done killing each other that those countries will be perfect recruiting grounds for radical terrorists under any mantra.

JMC said...

Well, here is a question worth asking:

Are peaceful Muslims practicing Islam?

It seems to me that both the right and the left hang their hats on this very clear distinction that they make between Islam - a great, peaceful world religion - and Militant Islam - a violent political ideology that has coopted religious language. Now, I don't know anything about Islam, but from what I know about world history, I am a bit skeptical that such a distinction is all that clear or true.

What if the moderate, peaceful BMW-driving Uncle Tom type Muslim next door just isn't practicing Islam (in the way that the Unitarian next door just isn't practicing Christianity)? What do we do then?

Now it seems that "a war on terror" has to be "a war on Islam," which means guilt by association necessarily.

I don't know that anyone, anywhere has adequately addressed this question.

Do you have any reason to think that what peaceful, moderate, Westernized Muslims practice is Islam?

JMC said...

"Do you have any reason to think that what peaceful, moderate, Westernized Muslims practice is Islam?"

That was a serious question. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?