Rick Steves is well known nationally as the European travel guru; locally he is also known as the guy who argued that the city of Edmonds should take down US flags, raised in support of our troops being sent overseas to Iraq.
He filled in last Saturday for David Horsey in the "Burning Questions" forum of the Seattle P-I, asking: Can we fight terrorism constructively? What it appears he really meant was: "Can we capitulate and hope they won't hurt us? "
My comments are ennumerated:
On Sept. 11, 2001, the World Trade Center towers collapsed and angry clouds of dust chased U.S. citizens through the streets of New York City. The world was outraged.
1. They just "collapsed"? The clouds were angry, and hunted down US citizens? I can just imagine your description of Pearl Harbor: "A boat sank and angry water drowned sailors."
Too few in the world were 'outraged,' really. Some of them were even jubilant.
And the United States was outraged. So much so that-- three long years later-- many Americans still refuse to even dignify the attack by asking, "Why did they do it?"
2. How dare they refuse to dignify the attack!!
But we must understand the enemy to combat them. Let me play the role of one of the thousands of Muslim parents who've named their babies Osama in the past year and look at the situation from the point of view of these devout Muslims offended and threatened by the reach of U.S. power.
3. True, we must understand the enemy to combat them. We're doing pretty good at defeating them without wringing our hands and asking "why did you do it?" though.
(Osama was a common name before 9-11, BTW).
Who was actually being attacked on that terrible day?
4. You still don't know?
The targets chosen were not symbolic of average Americans (say, a shopping mall or sports stadium). They weren't symbols of the freedoms that this country stands for (Statue of Liberty). Rather, the 9/11 hijackers went straight for the institutions of U.S. might in the world: international corporations (the Trade Towers), the U.S. military (the Pentagon) and -- had the fourth plane reached its likely goal -- our commander in chief (the White House).
5. Oh. Well. I guess it's okay, then.
As long as they're only attacking symbols.
So, why did they do it? Because "they hate freedom?" Come on -- that's ridiculous.
6. It's tragic, not ridiculous, that they hate freedom.
Oh wait, did you mean you think they don't hate freedom? Hmm. You might want to try to tell Osama you're bringing a Bible to Mecca some time. You might try to tell Al Qaeda that the women of Saudi Arabia should be allowed to drive or remove their abaya cloaks...
A billion Muslims throughout the world have three serious concerns: Palestine needs security and self-respect; they want the American military out of Islam; and they want control of their natural resources (to charge whatever they like for their oil). These are three basic foreign policy questions that any U.S. president could address without compromising the security and interests of America or Israel.
7. What about the other billion? Better start asking them, since you've already asked all the others apparently.
Do you mean the terrorist attacks were about oil money, greed? And as for wanting "control over their resources" to mean they should charge whatever they like, it's supply and demand that set that price. They're gouging us pretty well already.
The United States' overwhelming global dominance is unprecedented in human history. Many Muslims fear the Americanization of their culture.
8. Guess they might try not seeing our movies, buying our CD's, etc., then, eh? While they're at it, stop using our medical research, foreign aid, technological advances...
In addition, the United States declares natural resources (such as oil) in Muslim countries "vital to its national security."
9. Are you suggesting they don't want to sell the oil? OPEC begs to differ. What would the Middle East do for its economy without it?
And our immense military -- as big as the rest of the world's combined and unfightable by means other than terrorism -- defends U.S. access to markets and natural resources throughout the globe.
10. Terrorism is their only hope?
They fear Americanization and want security for Palestine... so they hijack planes and crash them into our buildings, because we're too strong? Wait, you want us to be peaceful and understanding, why can't they try it?
It's clear that maintaining our dominance by force is costly in civil liberties, our moral standing in the world, tax dollars and human lives.
11. By all means, let's take a back seat. Cultivating weakness will surely preserve our civil liberties, tax money, and our lives. It's always worked before in history, right?
So my Burning Question is:
Could we more effectively fight terrorism by understanding what motivates it and then taking away the source of the anger? Wouldn't it be cheaper and wiser to just face our enemy, ask "Why?" and respond constructively?
12. They'd just love us if we did whatever they want! And if we all converted.
Posted by Brian Crouch at December 10, 2004 08:57 AM | Email ThisTwo things Rick:
One, I sure won't be buying your guidebooks anymore, and neither should anyone else who believes in capitalism and the American way, because you sure don't.
Two, stick to the guidebooks, because as a columnist, you are terrible.
Posted by: Jeff B on December 10, 2004 09:10 AMWorse than that, Rick Steves is representative of a particularly vicious kind of reactionary in the West. These are the leftish backpackers who think the world is a museum that should never change so they can romp and play and pretend that the Industrial Revolution never happened. One of the worst thing that could happen for the backpacking set is if the Arab world modernizes: "It'd be a crime for all of these wonderful cultural traditions to wither away in the onslaught of Western cultural imperialism! Libya is sooooo intersting and exotic now...let's hope it doesn't turn into just another Palm Springs!!"
This backpacking ethic is what's animating Rick Steves's snivelly Rodney King screed in the P-I. He and his ilk should be exposed as the reactionaries they are.
Posted by: D.J. on December 10, 2004 10:10 AMAnd what does he mean that "they want the American military out of Islam"? Where is Islam? I thought that was a religion. Is that now a new name for one of the countries that already exists in the Middle East? Damn, I guess I'll have to get yet another update to my globe.
Good write-up Brian, but I hoped you would take him to task more for his "root causes" approach.
Posted by: Mark on December 10, 2004 10:40 AMHis idea that we didn't know about these grievances, that any president can address them without compromising, is silly-- he cites three but ignores the main one, that we aren't muslim.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on December 10, 2004 11:14 AMAnd if I judge by the comments here, I really doubt many americans understand how muslims think. And I am not only talking about these fundamentalist muslims or the terrorists.
You are so ignorant. You say, no one should dare to be against the american way. Face it, not everybody likes the american way. Do you want to force it on these people? It certainly sounds so.
But going down that lane will rob you of the moral high ground you are claiming right now. You dont want to be converted to Islam. Fine. I didnt hear bin Laden say so. But there are dozens if not hundred of christian missionaries doing exactly that in Iraq right now. Is that any better?
Bin Laden was always motivated by US military presence in Saudi Arabia (where islams most holy sites are located like the vatican for catholics) and probably a bit less so by the corrupt regime there (which was supported by every US administration until today). Actually he got his way: The US has almost pulled all troops from Saudi Arabia, because now they can be stationed in Iraq.
Then came the torture scandal. I dont think you have fully realized its impact either. I'd say it was the most devastating thing for worldwide public opinion about the US. It showed that US soldiers clearly thought of themselves as being superior and thus added to an already existing inferiority complex among muslims. They feel dominated not just by US military, some (not all) feel threatened by US culture, they dont want to be told how to live. They hate the hypocritical US foreign policy which is not really guided by freedom and democracy right now, but by pure self interest, economic interest and sustaining its status as the worlds sole superpower.
American foreign policy lacks any credibility right now. Not only because of the many lies that led to the war in Iraq, but because its ok for you to negotiate trade agreements with China, while upholding sanctions against Cuba. Because you support oppressive regimes like in Pakistan , Egypt and Saudi Arabia while proclaiming a new drive for democracy in the middle east. Because you veto any UN security council resolution criticizing Israel, even if that country has clearly violated international law.
Its just too much too bear for people around the world. America is out of sync. We hear you talk about freedom and democracy while you shake hands with General Mushharaf (your new role model for democratic dictators). Actually US government officials shook hands with Saddam before (Rumsfeld did so with a smile). Because then he was the enemy of your enemy (Iran) so you provided him with weapons and helped him develop chemical weapons. Yes, you did. Look into the history Žbooks for a second. You called Osama an ally when he fought against the Sovjets. After all he was the enemy of your enemy, so you provided him with weapons. See. There is no concept and only selfish shortsightedness in your foreign policy. And it makes people angry, some of them sadly so much so that they resort to violence, which cant be condoned, which is despiccable, but which wont change unless the causes for it are rectified. You simply cant win a war against terrorists by military force. Thats an illusion, its propaganda. When you kill ten millitants in Iraq you produce 100 new ones. The same in Palestine. I dont think you should just sit back, relax and capitulate. But you need to be much smarter than now, to reduce the level of terrorism. Yes, reduce. There will always be terrorism. Its not exactly a new phenomenom. Thats what John Kerry meant, when he said you have to get back to the point where terrorism was a mere nuisance. There is no master plan to do it, but you dont have a plan at all right now.
Ok, I think thats enough for you to think about...
Is that you, Karl Rove?
Posted by: D.J. on December 10, 2004 12:47 PMhttp://www.pscottcummins.com/blog/2004/12/rick-steves-says-it-all-about-looney.html
Why is it that the same people who say that its NOT ok to blame a rape victem for what happened to her, even if she was dressed like a prostitute and acting like whore, are the same people who want to blame the US for the attacks that terrorists commit against us? Must be nice to be blessed with situational logic and a Cracker-Jack moral compass.
Thank you Marc for demonstrating that we are now perfectly safe having met the outstanding demands of the Caliphate.
Oh wait, we aren't?
Did you know that a couple of Bin Laden's speeches express outrage that we sent Marines to disrupt hostage-taking and anti-American activities... in 1805?
There is NO END to the list of demands. Prior to attacking Afghanistan there were exactly three:
1) Get troops out of Saudi Arabia.
2) Stop the sanctions on the poor Iraqis.
3) Stop interfering in Palestine.
We've actually DONE all three. Not exactly the way Bin Laden might want - but they're done. But you can tell how far we'd have to bend over to please Bin Laden by watching what happened under Clinton. To make Bin Laden _stop_, we would need to do something far more substantial than the Oslo Accords, invite the Palestinian leader to the White House more often than any other dignitary, and be far more dovish than Mr. Camel-meets-Tomahawk.
At that point we'd just need to know all the formal protocol for integrating ourselves into the Caliphate. Have fun.
Posted by: Al on December 10, 2004 03:26 PMWe have been attacked repeatedly. Our military and our civilians. Appeasement did not work. Negotiation did not work. The only rational action to take is to destroy our enemy completely.
And, I might add, our enemies' allies. Internal and external.
Posted by: iconoclast on December 12, 2004 09:39 AMSatire? Come one. Just rational thinking.
Military means as a last resort? Bush had his plans for Iraq before he even got into office. How blind are you guys?
And is that your way of a substantial discussion on the important issues? Calling me a satirist?
I tell you something. What I wrote down is the opinion of aproximately 90% of people in the middle east and of large majorities in all western european countries, including great britain. You can delude yourself as much as you want. You have to grasp, why people hate the POLICIES of the US.
If more people in germany would read this blog, even less people would understand america. They would be appalled by your total ignorance, by your utter failure to analyze the situation your are in, the world is in, before taking action. Shoot first, only think then. That seems to be the new policy of the US. And look into which mess that has got you already. Its called Iraq. Its a failure. It will get an even greater failure! Democracy? You must be kidding. A secular country (like before)? No way. A US friendly government? In your dreams. A theocracy similar to Iran. Quite possible. A complete chaos, civil war, unstable government, a new haven for terrorists like the former Afghanistan? Even more likely. Just ask the Pentagon. Again the US will be rewarded for its shortsighted foreign policy, but not in the way you intended. Sad, so sad.
Posted by: Marc on December 12, 2004 10:34 AM
By who or what, might I ask? Certainly not by a non-militarized Europe split in their support for eliminating the Middle East as a fertile ground for islamic terrorists. Certainly not by a Russia challenged by the same Islamic killers.
By the "opinion" of people living under dictatorships?
By Canada? A demilitarized Germany?
Keep smoking that good stuff, Marc.
Posted by: iconoclast on December 12, 2004 11:41 AMgo back to school. you are indicative of the moral obtusive attitudes that personify the liberal worldview. a terrorist wants to kill you as well as others.
Posted by: ray on December 12, 2004 09:24 PM3. The goal is not just to combat the enemy, but to end the day with fewer than you started which. It's better to kill 5 enemies than to kill 200 but generate 1000. Of course, the latter feels better, but it isn't exactly the smartest option. This just means that when you set out to kill your enemies, you do so smartly. Like in Afghanistan. Unlike in Iraq.
7.1,10,12. It's indeed important not to act as a function of what the Muslims want, or there may be no end to their demands. The subtler point is that if you give them so little that they believe they have nothing to lose, some of them (the most desperate ones) will go all out against you. Others (rich, evil people like bin Laden) simply exploit that willingness, when it attains a critical mass. It's the law of supply and demand: if poor, desperate people demand radical leadership, some rich, crooked man will gladly provide it.
America, as the world's superpower, can indeed afford to treat Israel preferentially, exploit the Middle East's resources, etc. It only has to exercise a minimal level of restraints to make Muslims accept that, albeit grudgingly. It has failed to do so.
8. Medical research and technological advances: American firms come up with those and export for their own profits. It's not the U.S. government being nice. It's merely capitalism. We shouldn't pretend that we're just being nice (at least in honest arguments) when our self-interested actions just happen to benefit other people.
Foreign aid: America's gives (by far) the lowest proportion of its GDP in foreign aid among Western industrialized countries. But this misses the point: do you really think that foreign aid given in the Middle East is well used?
11. This pretty much sums it all. Brian, we don't need to be weak in order to be smart. While engaging in warfare (or many other activities, but warfare is the most obvious example) is a show of our strength, doing so without proper planning betrays panic (shit, we're being attacked, we better do something, whatever it is), or at the very least, mental weakness. In such cases, we need to consider either better planning, or sometimes even restraint. It all comes down to performing objective cost-benefit analyses. And to accurately ascertain the costs and benefits of our actions on the Middle East, we need to listen to Muslims (in other words, lend an ear so we can use them better).
Posted by: Andy on December 13, 2004 07:15 PMif some guy comes up to you punches you to the ground, what are you going to do? try to talk to him to find out why he punched you. what if he kicks you while your still on the ground during your attempt at reasonable discourse with this guy?
Ray