US foreign policy matters. Trump is a sideshow, but the way the US has been involved in the region is not immaterial to the results, now. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be there, exercising hard and soft power towards goals, but if we do we shouldn’t then pretend that it has nothing to do with being attacked by people who may not appreciate our meddling.

Do you think a fairer summary would be to say that you’re arguing that Islamic terrorism stems more from their ideology than US foreign police? And that their ideology is uniquely barbaric and murderous?

The specific statements you made that make me thing of this are:

But too many Americans keep thinking Muslim terrorists are motivated by our actions rather than their own beliefs.

Let’s stop pretending ISIS only hates us because we’re bad people. ISIS hates us because ISIS is full of bad people.

You further said:

No, we’re not perfect, and we don’t have an unblemished foreign policy history. But if supporting dictators or using proxy armies to fight our enemies creates terrorism, then legions of Vietnamese suicide bombers should be attacking America. They’re not, because Vietnamese communists aren’t possessed by an ideology that encourages massacring civilians.

I think that’s a very interesting thing to say, because as I see it, Communism has no problem executing counter-revolutionaries, intellectuals, or whomever they deemed to be their political enemy of the day. Vietnamese communists slaughtered thousands after the Tet offensive and their neighbor and fellow traveler Pol Pot killed millions. None of this is moral justification for the acts ISIS has committed. I’m simply saying that this kind of evil is not unique in the world. Before Communism, there were the bomb throwing anarchists of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.

Islam terrorism seems to be more effective, deadly, and widespread than other similar movements. I think considering if this is historically true and what the cause of these differences are very useful questions. I wonder how much of this difference is due to globalism and the vast oil wealth of the Middle East making it easier to commit atrocities.

As you said, supporting dictators or using proxy armies didn’t cause this kind of reactions in other regions or ideologies. I think Communism in South America is a better comparison than Asia. South America is more similar to the Middle East, as we supported viler dictators and were more motivated by economic exploitation than in Asia.

This is where I think Scheuer’s commentary on the motivations behind Islamic terrorism become useful. Beyond that, I think there have been more subtle side effects of our foreign policy that helped increase Islamic radicalism. The House of Saud has been linked with the extreme Wahhabism form of Islam for centuries. US political and economic support of Saudi Arabia has allowed them to use their oil wealth to spread their ideology. The US / Soviet proxy war in Afghanistan saw us funding and supporting jihadist groups and allow them to build relationships they later used against us. Our military actions (or lack thereof) in Iraq and Syra helped contribute to the unrest that allowed ISIS to grow as it did.

I saw these things not to blame America or to establish moral equivalency between us and terrorists but to try to gain a better understanding of how we got here, what motives our enemies, and how we can create a safer world. I think part of our ability to wield soft power is our moral legitimacy. In order to maintain that legitimacy I think it’s important to recognize the times we’ve fallen short of our ideals. I realize you’re speaking in a political context, where everything is dumbed down to 30 second soundbites, but it’s disheartening to hear you dismiss such complex issues as blaming America.

I respect your views and enjoy your writing (including both of your books), but this post seems to be addressing arguments that should be caricatures or strawmen and in doing so seems to make your own arguments less weighty. In contrast, I really enjoyed your interview with Jim Webb. I’ve been a fan of Webb for some time, but I didn’t know he was journalist in Beirut shortly before the bombing.

I don’t think anyone is making it that simple—even when they say that Trump is a recruitment tool. The issue is not that one man is trash-talking Islam. It’s an issue of who that man is, what he is saying, the response he’s getting from his audiences, the office he’s seeking, and the ramifications of all those elements. Trump is a very public, powerful celebrity who is preaching (among other things) that Muslim refugees may be jihadi families and that we can crush ISIS by killing jihadi families (you do the math). This is a man seeking the presidency of the United States—inarguably one of the most powerful positions in the world, and a position in which he would represent an entire nation to the international community.

Trump’s words are causing crowds of thousands to cheer at the thought of doing harm to Muslims—not just violent extremists, but all Muslims. His words are emboldening people in our society who have kept their bigotry against the “other” squirreled away but who now feel it is okay to openly speak hatefully about Muslims (and others). I’ve heard one Trump supporter after another comment on the fact that he makes them feel good about their sentiments toward immigrants, Muslims, LGBT people and anyone else they feel uncomfortable with. He has made his followers comfortable in their bigotry.

All of that contributes to a truly terrifying image of America if you happen to be a member of one of those groups. It’s not just one loud, wealthy celebrity who’s expressing this hatred for all things Muslim, it’s an entire seemingly growing segment of America. A segment that speaks as if it IS America.

Consider how many people living in this country believe that no Muslims or Muslim organizations have condemned the violence and intent of the so-called jihadis, despite the fact that they have condemned it loudly and long for years and have done so using a variety of platforms: conferences, open letters, newspaper ads, informational meetings, educational programs within their own communities and in the wider community.

Can you see how—in a culture in which information flows far less freely than it does here—ISIS and like groups can build a case for the idea that Americans as a people are crying for Muslim blood. The uptick in attacks on mosques and individual Muslims since Paris only serves to confirm what ISIS (and Mr. Trump, among others) wants people to believe—that the US is at war with Muslims.

And THAT is what people mean when they say that Trump is a recruitment tool. It’s a statement that acknowledges the long, sometimes contentious relationship between “East and West” (as if it were ever that simple) and that recognizes the danger of frightened Muslims coming to the conclusion that the jihadis were right all along—they are besieged by an enemy that understands only the language of violence.

Surely you must know the reasons for 911? It had nothing at all to do with a 1400 year old ideology but with US actions. Beirut Marine barracks bombing was the result of two actions. The first, part of a multi national peace keeping force the US appeared to take a side in the conflict when it shelled the other side for a day resulting in many innocent deaths. A couple Americans at the time said that it was a big mistake that will be paid for in blood, and it was. The second reason was US support for Iraq in the Iraq – Iran war.

I don’t quite get your idea of why Vietnamese suicide bombers should be attacking America. The Vietnamese won the war so they have no reason to be attacking now, if the war was still happening and Americans were over there to be targets then things would be different. Also, North Vietnam was a country with a government which gives them a main method on how to fight a war unlike a militant group like Al Qaeda or ISIS. However Vietnam did use suicide bombers during the war but not to the extent Japan did.

“because Vietnamese communists aren’t possessed by an ideology that encourages massacring civilians.”

^ Interesting statement. Is it an ideology that encourages massacring civilians or something else? Like the method of fighting a war? I think the main reason is the why. Was it an ideology or the “why” that encouraged massacring Vietnamese civilians during the Vietnam war or the war with the Japanese or Germany?

There’s not much reason to address the rest of your comment, since you’re not at all responding to what I wrote.

I would agree that they have a religious ideology that motivates them, but I don’t think it’s too different from other religious ideologies and there have been past eras where this kind of Muslim extremism has not been seen.

I think Michael Scheuer, who is a former CIA officer who spent years as the head of the Bin Laden tracking unit, has the most persuasive argument on the subject.

His wiki page summarizes his first book, Through Our Enemies Eyes with the quote that:

[T]he crux of my argument is simply that America is in a war with militant Islamists that it cannot avoid; one that it cannot talk or appease its way out of; one in which our irreconcilable Islamist foes will have to be killed, an act which unavoidably will lead to innocent deaths; and one that is motivated in large measure by the impact of U.S. foreign policies in the Islamic world, one of which is unqualified U.S. support for Israel.[20]

In his second book, Imperial Hubris he identifies the specific policies he believes has lead to the current era of Islamic terrorism:

U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.
U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis’ thrall.
U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.

Stay safe
Merry Christmas