I'm getting increasingly annoyed with the way that both the left and the right have responded to the post 9-11 world in which we live. In my opinion, many on both sides disregard important issues when considering how to respond to the threat posed by al-Qaida and their jihadist fellow travellers.

Let's start with the right. First off, bravo to most conservatives for understanding three important points:

1. Terrorism is a big problem.
2. Something must be done about it.
3. Bin Laden isn't interested in accomodation with the West, he wants to win.

Where I strenuously disagree with the right is about how al-Qaida should be fought. For me, the West's policies - particularly in Palestine and Iraq - are encouraging the growth of al-Qaida. It's really not a complicated equation. F-16s bombing Ramallah and Ramadi equals lots of angry Muslims. Unfortunately some of these people will end up joining or supporting al-Qaida and co as a result. The more support al-Qaida has, the more dangerous it becomes.

There are many ways to confront the jihadist menace, but starting a totally unnecessary war in Iraq isn't one of them. Any conflict in Iraq was bound to lead, as this one has, to the deaths of thousands of Muslim civilians. Thus, I haven't the faintest clue what Bush means when he says that his invasion has "made us safer". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most conservatives are loathe to acknowledge the connection between Western actions in the Middle East and support for al-Qaida. Instead of analysing why groups like al-Qaida exist, too many conservatives simply say "they're evil" or "they hate our freedom"; mantras which, conveniently enough, absolve Western governments of any blame for the current situation.

So much for the right, what about the left? Again, the picture is mixed. On some points progressives demonstrate clarity of vision, but on other matters they seem to have their hands over their eyes. First the good stuff. Lefties tend to see the connection I outlined above between Western policy and Islamic terrorism. They also see that changing policy will help to reduce the terrorist threat. Furthermore, leftists avoid the silly playground talk of "good" and "evil" in which conservatives like to indulge.

But while those on the left are quite right to point to Western misdeeds in the Middle East as a relevant point, they are quite wrong if they think this is the end of the story. In my opinion there is a sick strand of jihadism, bent on world domination, which exists independently of any Western action. Thus even if, by some miracle, Iraq were to become an Arabian Switzerland and Arafat and Sharon were to dance through Jerusalem hand in hand, there would still be some extremists trying to kill civilians in Europe and the US.

At least some of those who suport al-Qaida are not interested in changing this or that policy of their enemies. Their aim is an international caliphate, the global victory of their bastard form of Islam. To think that a change of policy from the West would be enough to persuade everyone to put down the RPGs is simply wrong.

Yet too many on the left are unwilling to admit this salient point. Just once it would be nice to read an article by Tariq Ali, or John Pilger, or Noam Chomsky which discussed the threat from Islamic fundamentalism. Just once, with no caveats, no qualifications, no invocation of Western perfidery. Just a simple "no" to fundamentlaism - any fundamentalism.

I fully understand why conservatives don't want to get into a discussion about the activities of Western governments which encourage the growth of terrorism. It's not in their interest to ask these awkward questions. But I can't understand why the left, when confronted by a blatantly fascist organisation, is so reluctant to call a spade a spade.

Let's be clear here: no matter how much one opposes the war in Iraq, no matter how strong one's support for the Palestinian people, al-Qaida stands against everything that leftists believe in. As secularists, as believers in rationality and the Enlightenment, we can have no truck with the medievalists in al-Qaida. It's no good raging against the absurd creationists of the American Bible Belt if we don't also oppose another insane form of religious fundamentalism in the Middle East.

I only wish that more on the left would follow the lead of German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. The leader of the Green Party was among the most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq, famously hectoring Donald Rumsfeld to his face on the eve of the conflict. Yet he is also someone who has spoken in the following terms:

"the Middle East is at the epicentre of the greatest threat to our regional and global security at the dawn of this century: destructive jihadist terrorism with its totalitarian ideology."

It's a shame that more people don't think like Fischer.


Comments
on Sep 06, 2004
I think that two things need to be done. First, you will notice with the Russian terrorism recently, that is one again coming from a radical muslim group. I think the reason for this is first of all they interpret their religion to reward them for such hanus actions. Second of all, I think that they don't want us or other countries interfering with their business. We have a huger presence in the middle east. I think that needs to be changed. We should leave. The only problem is, we can't leave until we no longer need oil. In that case, one of our defense priorities should be to decrease the dependence on oil. NOW. And really decrease. By half. And I need to reiterate that it is a PRIORITY. Then of course after that is done we simply withdraw completley from the middle east, cut off all ties with saudi arabia, the UAE, Israel. We withdraw our troops and will only interfere again if it is a UN resolution. Ok, so that solves the problem in the long term, what about in the short term. In the short term, the war on terror must be fought at home. Things like airport security are a step in the right direction. What about train stations though? And bus stations? And schools. Are schools safe from the situation we saw in Russia? I don't think so. What about having other country's hunt down people like osama bin laden and crack down on their own terror cells? We don't need to do that, they do. How about being more prepared in the event of an attack (which I must say we are much more prepared but can't we be better prepared). What about not issuing vague information to the public when the terror level goes up? There are more things that can be done, but they must be done here in the USA rather than fighting countries in wars. Terrorism is a threat that comes from individuals and groups, not countries, and it is the responsibility of an international organization (like Interpol or a UN mission) to take care of internatinal threats.
on Sep 06, 2004

excellent post.  you've nailed weaknesses on both sides with one possible exception. given a choice between secularism and any other religious fundamentalism, which would religious fundamentalists of any stripe most likely consider the greater evil?

on Sep 06, 2004
Progress with technology and an open government are usually enough to handle fundamentalism. Any fight for domination is disgusting. I believe the left serves a valuable purpose by defending those "who do not want to change their enemies". Fighting for domination is disgusting, as is trying to control what people see or hear or posess, as is trying to control freedom, as is trying to control communications. Defending people who follow this disgusting behavior should be a sign of humanity.

on Sep 06, 2004
San: The left has always fought for what it perceives is the weaker side(irrespective of whether the weaker side in rifght or wrong). The Political Right has always fought for it's own interests. And it's interests can never align with the weaker side as the weaker side is rarely if ever perceived to win.


given a choice between secularism and any other religious fundamentalism, which would religious fundamentalists of any stripe most likely consider the greater evil?


kingbee: You raised an excellent point. This could also be a new article for a blog. My opinion is that a religious fundamentalist would prefer to sow his seeds in a secular society as it is only such a society that can bring forth a bumper harvest for him. An equally fundamentalist society would in no way allow him to spread his message.

Look at India/Russia and the christian evangelicals. They are having a good time there and adding to their flocks but imagine them in the Gulf or even Israel.