Jim Miller points to a column by Fareed Zakaria where Zakaria interviews Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore on terrorism.
“The Europeans underestimate the problem of Al Qaeda-style terrorism,” he said. “They think that the United States is exaggerating the threat. They compare it to their own many experiences with terror—the IRA, the Red Brigade, the Baader-Meinhof, ETA. But they are wrong.”
HE WENT ON: “Al Qaeda-style terrorism is new and unique because it is global. An event in Morocco can excite the passions of extremist groups in Indonesia. There is a shared fanatical zealousness among these different extremists around the world. Many Europeans think they can finesse the problem, that if they don’t upset Muslim countries and treat Muslims well, the terrorists won’t target them. But look at Southeast Asia. Muslims have prospered here. But still, Muslim terrorism and militancy have infected them.”
Still, Lee sees the US response as too one-dimensional.
“The Americans, however, make the mistake of seeking largely a military solution. You must use force. But force will only deal with the tip of the problem. In killing the terrorists, you will only kill the worker bees. The queen bees are the preachers, who teach a deviant form of Islam in schools and Islamic centers, who capture and twist the minds of the young.”
But Lee recognizes that, of course, US soldiers can't burst into mosques and cart away radical preachers. There is no military strategy for dealing with fundamentalist preachers that is morally acceptable. Lee thinks the US and Europe need to present a more united bloc and he believes that German and French rhetoric critical of the US actually serves as propaganda that Islamic radicals use to recruit more terrorists.
Lee thinks the West needs to support the moderates both in rhetoric and through substantive action to provide resources to help the more moderate Muslims. But I see Lee's advice and Bush's democratization campaign to be incompatible to some extent. If, for instance, elections were held in Saudi Arabia it is quite possible that the populace of Saudi Arabia would vote in a government that was even more fundamentalist than the one they currently have. Jordan, Syria, and Egypt similarly would probably get more Islamic governments if they had truly free elections.
The US needs a strategy to deal with the Islamists that has many more dimensions to it:
Not a bad article on the whole, except for the one glaring error "defund Saudi Arabia", He got it reversed Saudi Arabia actually subsidizes the US,with their purchases of T- Bills, bonds and stock purchases. Also regarding nuclear proliferation, Im afraid the genie is either out of the bottle already or soon will be, this is not a good thing but life is like that. Dan
Posted by: Dan Van Zile on December 2, 2003 03:06 PMI am the one who argues for defunding the Saudis.
In many recent years the Saudis have been running deficits and therefore must have been net sellers of their assets. Their population has been growing and their oil income has not kept pace. Therefore per capita GDP is about a fourth or fifth of what it was at its peak almost 30 years ago. So, no, the Saudis do not subsidize the US.
Replacing the whole world's reliance on oil with some other energy source would reduce the amount of money available to fund terrorism and to spread Islam.
The genie getting out of the bottle: We can slow the rate at which nuclear weapons spread. I'd rather see cities get nuked later rather than sooner.
Posted by: Randall Parker on December 2, 2003 03:24 PM