In which American conservatives talk about the root causes of terrorism
I almost fell over laughing this morning when I stumbled upon the following post at National Review Online’s The Corner. Terrorism has root causes? Who knew!
As other astute bloggers have noted, it is only American conservatism’s visceral and palpable hatred of Russia that accounts for such analysis. Sympathetic entities would never receive such treatment.
Look at the post I linked to and mentally substitute “the West Bank” for “Chechnya” and “Israel” for “Russia.” The analysis would certainly need some modifications, but the overall message of “people tend to resort to terrorism when they are impoverished, stateless, disenfranchised, and violently repressed ” rings just as true. However you would never, not in a million years, see such analysis of Israel and terrorism in a movement conservative magazine. Ever. If, by some miracle, such an analysis appeared, the cacophony of voices hysterically shrieking “Munich!” “appeasement” “civilizational suicide” “antisemitism” and “loud noises!” would be audible from space.
The sort of cognitive dissonance displayed by conservatives with regards to Russia and terrorism is really quite remarkable. As conservatives would have it, when Islamic terrorists target American civilians they do so only because they hate our “freedom.” Nothing America has done, is doing, or will do could possibly justify terrorism against its civilians, and anyone who tries to divine any minimally coherent rationale for jihadists is on a fool’s errand (or might just be a terrorist themselves). Yet when Islamic terrorists target Russian civilians there are, of course, not motivated by simple psychotic hatred (I mean, how could the terrorists hate the Russians for being “free” when the Russians themselves hate freedom???) but by a wide litany of intelligible justifications. In fact, if you go way out in neocon cloud cuckoo land, you can even find people who straightforwardly sympathize with the Chechens. The creepy neocon association with Chechen rebels, who are about a violent, sadistic, and depraved a bunch of killers as one can possibly imagine, is simply the 10,000,000th piece of evidence that, for all their endless babbling about “morality,” neocons are and have always been motivated solely by power.
I actually think on this issue the conservatives are more right than not: clearly the Chechen conflict has a number of root causes including the region’s crushing poverty,poor governance, and deep history of violence. But it is hilarious, in a really dark and twisted way, to see American conservatives try to identify the “root causes” of a problem that, in their own understanding of the situation, proceeds directly from the fact that Muslims are irrational, freedom-hating beats who only understand the language of force.
So to recap: America must never negotiate with Islamic terrorists, since such terrorists are irredeemable monsters who are as untrustworthy as they are dangerous, and has done nothing that could possible serve as a motivating force for terrorist activity. Russia, on the other hand, must make a point of negotiating with people who gun down its children and, has only itself to blame if a few psychopaths set off nail bombs on the Moscow Metro.
I mean, who could possibly find any inconsistency in that analysis??
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Situational, inconsistent reasoning and cognitive dissonance are, in fact, preeminent characteristics of persons with (or perhaps “afflicted by”) right-wing authoritarian personality type. It’s one of the ways that personality type is tested for, in fact.
There’s little use complaining about it; to the conservative, its perfectly normal and legitimate to apply radically different modes of thought based simply on the outcome you wish to justify. Conservatives like Israel; thus, Islamic terrorism must never be said to have a root in Israel’s policies. But, conversely, conservatives hate Russia, thus Russia’s policies will be considered to invariably inform anti-Russian terrorists. They see literally nothing unusual about this sort of reasoning at all.
The simple reason is the difference in the said policies. Sounds easy to me.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes facility, there is absolutely no similarity whatsoever between Palestinian terrorism and Chechen terrorism, or between Israeli anti-terror efforts and Russian ones.
In response to another comment. See in context »The major difference, as I see it, is that when the Israelis assassinate Palestinians they do it with freedom bullets, while the Russians, those pigs, use authoritarian bullets to kill Chechens.
Why you keep saying “Chechens”, I wonder? Seems to me like it’s Dagestan already. There have been no problems with Chechen terrorists for quite some time – since Kadirov started solving these problems very efficiently.
In response to another comment. See in context »And compare Dagestan to Gaza is a cheap shot. Done with a smart bullet, aha.
Dagestan has small but not negligent Chechen population mostly in mountain areas bordering Chechnya. Secondly militant Wahhabism got a small foothold in some remote regions of Dagestan on Saudi money yet in mid 90-ties.
Just as info on the topic…
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s not terrorism when we do it, Mark. Don’t you know that already? Why do you hate America so much?
I agree with Justin. Neoconservativism is mostly a Machiavellian ideology.
What fascinates me more is the flipside: those Americans who are stanch critics of American politics, but are outright Putinists when it comes to Russia.
Don’t let the straw flipside fascinate you, Sean. There can’t be any critics of “American politics” because is no “American politics”, there was “Bush politics” and now there is “Obama politics” which are not equal at all and those who want to critisize one of them are always very specific about what they mean.
In response to another comment. See in context »And by the way, don’t try to campare which one is acting more brotherly not only with Putin but with all other dictators.
Sean,
I agree such a political subset of Americans would be fascinating, but do they exist? Do you have any particular people in mind?
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh please. Hostility to Russia and support for the Chechen cause isn’t something that’s particular to the American conservatives. It’s very much bipartisan. There are dissidents on both right and left but the Establishments of both movements toe the same line.
For example, take the American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus/Chechnya that you linked to. According to Wikipedia, it has three chairmen: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alexander Haig, and Stephen J. Solarz. Haig died a few weeks back, so that now leaves 100% Democrats in charge.
But, I understand why you make this mistake. You were what, fifteen, when Bush became President? So you don’t really remember Clinton administration. You naturally assume Bush policies to have been something inherently conservative rather than Establishment consensus driven. And you take the opportunistic condemnation of liberals for a principled opposition.
I, on the other hand, remember 1990s very well. Let me tell you this. Bush administration, if anything, was marginally better on Chechnya than Clinton. At least Bush had finally put Chechen “freedom fighters” on the terror list. Clinton, on the otrher hand, came close to recognizing independent Ichkeria. I suppose we are lucky he went instead on the Kosovo tear.
Intertial,
I agree with you that there is often not that much of a gap between Democratic and Republican foreign policies (Obama’s rapidly escalating drone war in Pakistan is evidence enough of this) but this gap does exist.
I disagree with the Democratic “hawks” more often than not (as I think is clear from my writing, I find much of American foreign policy to be counterproductive, wasteful, and foolish) but I get the sense that they are at least minimally engaged with reality. The neocons give me no such comfort.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mark,
The root cause of Islamic terrorism is human lust for power. That lust for power is justified by Islam. Poverty, lack of education,statelessness etc. are factors that help produce a population meet for recruitment into Islamic terrorism but by themselves are not the causes of terrorism. I think Israel is badly maligned by the ‘liberal media’. Although Israel is not ‘innocent’, that state is not a monster that Western media tend to potray it to be. Everything in politics is about power. Moral arguments are given to justify political actions but the underlying motive is almost always power. It’s the same whether it is in the West(USA, EU), Russia, China or anywhere in the world.
Israel had always been a torn-in-the-flesh for the Muslim world. How they wish if that country is simply annihilated and the Jews completely erased from this world! I know because I am a non-Muslim living in a Muslim country. The hatred of Muslims towards Israel is palpable even amongst the so-called ‘moderates’.That hatred is due to a combination of religious sentiment and envy. To sanction that hatred and violence are verses in the Quran and Hadith and thus believed to be FROM GOD:-
O prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them. Their abode is hell, and an evil destination it is. (Surah 9:73)
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust. (Surah 5:51)
And fight them until there’s no fitnah (polytheism) and religion is wholly for Allah.
(Surah 8:39)
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute [Jizya] readily, being brought low.(Surah 9:29)
“Those who have been given Scripture” = ‘people of the Book’ – Jews primarily and Christians secondarily. Surah 9:73 and Surah 8:39 are for non-Muslims who are neither Jews nor Christians. The ultimate aim of Islam is total , GLOBAL Islamization – if you don’t want it peacefully, they will FORCE IT DOWN YOUR THROAT.
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
(Sahih Muslim 41:6985)
Both the ‘neo-cons’ and ‘liberals’ or whatever political leanings of non-Muslim politicians the world over are wrong about Islamic terrorism. They are just too politically-correct to associate Islam with terrorism. Admittedly, it would be political-suicide if they do so. Since they are all wrong about the causes and ideals of Islamic terrorism, none from the West can critisize Russia or Putin on how to handle Islamic terrorism in Russia.
It’s a lose-lose situation for Putin:-
1. Using force – the West will condemn him(but they will condemn him anyway because of their rabid anti-Putin sentiment); terror might abate but it will never be snuff out.
2. Appeacement – the favoured mode of our ‘enlightened’ political elites in the Western nations. It will embolden the terrorists and will destroy Russia. And the West will be destroyed and Islamized if their ‘elites’ continue their Ostrich head-under-the-sand attitude.
Islam is not just a religion. It is religion + politics + economics + society + culture + everything. It is far more powerful than Nazism. More powerful than Stalinism. Because those , people know, are doctrines made by men. Islam claims itself to be from God. I don’t know why the West is so ‘fearful’ of Putin or Communist China. They are nothing compared to a suddenly politically minded Islamic populace that is increasing demographically. Islam can be used as a powerful propaganda and mind-control tool by politicians.
The West has a wrong thinking about how to deal with Islamic terorism. They have to first admit that Islam is a religion of terror before they can come up with any meaningful policy. Otherwise all their policies are hubris.
Ahh yes, clearly the solution is a crusade! Good luck with that
In response to another comment. See in context »No…the solution is NOT a crusade. The solution is to discredit Islam.
In response to another comment. See in context »No…the solution is NOT a crusade. The solution is to discredit Islam. As to how to do that…I’m not sure.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] (H/t Mark Adomanis) [...]
RE: “I mean, who could possibly find any inconsistency in that analysis??” – Adomanis
MY RETORT: Certainly not a psychiatrist like Charles Krauthhammer!
[...] Oригинaл публикaции: In which American conservatives talk about the root causes of terrorism [...]
[...] The sort of cognitive dissonance displayed by conservatives with regards to Russia and terrorism is really quite remarkable. As conservatives would have it, when Islamic terrorists target American civilians they do so only because they hate our “freedom.” Nothing America has done, is doing, or will do could possibly justify terrorism against its civilians, and anyone who tries to divine any minimally coherent rationale for jihadists is on a fool’s errand (or might just be a terrorist themselves). Yet when Islamic terrorists target Russian civilians there are, of course, not motivated by simple psychotic hatred (I mean, how could the terrorists hate the Russians for being “free” when the Russians themselves hate freedom???) but by a wide litany of intelligible justifications. In fact, if you go way out in neocon cloud cuckoo land, you can even find people who straightforwardly sympathize with the Chechens. The creepy neocon association with Chechen rebels, who are about a violent, sadistic, and depraved a bunch of killers as one can possibly imagine, is simply the 10,000,000th piece of evidence that, for all their endless babbling about “morality,” neocons are and have always been motivated solely by power.” http://trueslant.com/markadomanis/2010/04/03/in-which-american-conservatives-talk-about-the-root-cau... [...]
Thanks for the post Mark.
I am also conflicted by the Chechnya thing, previously assuming it was a separatist rather than religious matter. You know, kinda like Kosovo, secular Muslims that are not really fanatic about anything except maybe their freedom. Most of my Muslim friends and acquaintances in East Africa and the USA are very decent folk who show the same disregard for the stupid Islamic fanatics, as most of my Christian friends also do for theirs. But I keep reading about a significant number of Chechens who are fighting along Al Qaeda and/or Taliban in Afg/Pak, so that points to fanaticism.(?) Or perhaps the extreme poverty and brutal control over their lives is the main factor in their religious fervor. Man, I’m confused..
Kim,
Chechens are, from what I’ve read, Sunni Muslims and many are also Sufi with some syncretism of Islam with ‘folk beliefs’. I think you cannot separate Chechen ’separatism’ from Islam because Islam is part of Chechen identity. There are parallels between Kosovo and Chechnya. But I think the depth of Islamic practice amongst Chechens are more compared to the Kosovo Albanians. Islamic fundamentalism – “Wahabbist” or ‘”non-Wahabbist” can flourish as a powerful ‘Divine’ approval of separatism from ‘pagans’/'infidels’ like Russia – so leaders of Chechen separatists are wont to say. Chechnya is religion + politics + ethnic self-assertion all jumbled up in a complex mesh. It’s far more complicated than Kosovo separatism and here the parallel must end. Just my thoughts.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Adomanis, over at True/Slant, wrote a great entry “In which American conservatives talk about the root causes of terrorism,” on the painful hypocrisy of the American right’s reaction to the bombings. Oh so very [...]
Just discovered Mr. Adomanis about a half an hour or so ago. Already a tremendous fan!
Mark: Have you heard of Alexander Dugin?
http://www.mod-langs.ox.ac.uk/russian/nationalism/shekhovtsov.html
Opps! Here is a good link: http://www.mod-langs.ox.ac.uk/russian/nationalism/shekhovtsov2.html
Here are some subtitled you tube videos of Dugin
for those who cannot speak Russian, such as myself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quxWhp5y23E&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XI3eqEteT0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74b-ad0wdo4&feature=related