Sam Harris Op-Ed Piece

[Brown]

The LA Times ran this piece by Sam Harris concerning whether "liberals" are soft on terrorism. He concluded that they are:

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.
...
(D)espite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

Since Harris openly sides with many "liberal" attitudes himself, one has to wonder whether the actual lesson is different from "Liberals are soft on terrorism." The actual lesson might be that labeling someone as "liberal" or "conservative" is, in most contexts, meaningless.

Those who have a distaste for the Bush "administration" might well think that little Bush is full of crap when he talks about terrorists plotting day and night to kill innocent US citizens. As it happens, little Bush is overflowing with crap, but that does not mean that the exact opposite of what little Bush says is true. One of Bush's favorite tactics is to set up false dichotomies: either you agree with me or you are helping the terrorists. This sort of analysis appeals less to political leanings than it does to the stupidity of the general populace (and it is, therefore, rather popular). It is easy to see that some people might buy into this nonsense, concluding that if they have perfectly valid reasons for separating themselves from Bush's simple-minded analysis, then maybe Bush is wrong about the adamant motivations behind these radicals, and maybe these radicals can be persuaded not to be so violent.

Yet I have many friends who call themselves "liberals." I do not know one of them who holds the views that Harris describes.

These "liberals" recognize that many Muslims are decent, hospitable people (I can attest to this, based upon my own personal experience), but there are also many that are self-described Muslims who are dangerous religious fanatics. These "liberals" make an effort to try to understand the Muslim points (plural!) of view, not because they sympathise with those points of view, but because they want to understand the societal and political dynamics. These "liberals" recognize that there is monstrous malevolence among the religious fanatics, while also recognizing that not everything the US does to fight that malevolence is wise.

These "liberals" would be shocked to see that Harris suggests they hold ignorant views or that they are soft on terrorism.

 

[hammegk]

...maybe Bush is wrong about the adamant motivations behind these radicals, and maybe these radicals can be persuaded not to be so violent...

Your solutions will be of interest to most of us, and should provide a solid platform for your elevation from useless critic to elected office. When will you be declaring your candidacy for POTUS 08?

 

[Cello Man]

One of Bush's favorite tactics is to set up false dichotomies...

Agreed. I'll take that one step further. A false dichotomy exists between being liberal and conservative. Many think they're totally opposed, and many simply identify with one or the other and parrot their chosen values. But why shouldn't someone who is against gun control, for instance (typically a Republican value) be in favor of legalizing to gay marriage (a Democrat value)? The two have nothing to do with one another, and each have their own VERY arguments surrounding them, but people choose to jump either right or left instead of forming their own independant opinions.

That being said, I typically identify with a lot of liberal values. I'm in favor of separation of church and state, legalizing gay marriage, but I am extremely wary of the liberal idea that terrorists hate us simply because of our foreign policy, or lack of education. Those are both factors in the equation, but most liberals tend to ignore the elephant in the room...religion. Most liberals are in favor of religious moderation, and go to great lengths to be accomodating. That's all well and good I suppose, but we're putting blinders on ourselves when we pretend that the core tenets of Islam don't have anything to do with terrorism.

I for one agree with Harris completely on this matter. Terrorists don't want us to understand them or to empathize with them. These are guys who are willing to lay down their own lives for their cause, which means they regard your life with even less value. When you're brainwashed from such a young age, there's really nothing that's going to stop your fanatical line of thinking except bullets or bombs. It pains me as a human being to say that, but you can't reason with these guys.

 

[davefoc]

I couldn't get the link to the LA Times article to work. It might be a problem with their site.

The only Sam Harris article that I found on this subject was posted on Huffington Post. I don't think this is the article Brown linked to but it might be similar:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/who-are-the-moderate-musl_b_15841.html


This topic is interesting to me. I have noticed a trend around here where people who make posts defending Israel or favorable to Israel also often make posts about Islamic based terrorism.

It seems at least some of the underlying motivation for this is to demonstrate that the problems that Israel has in the middle east are not their fault because the islamofacists are such nutjobs that no matter what Israel does and no matter what any western countries do the Islamofacists wil attack us.

It is hard to separate out complete nutjob kill anybody that says something bad about Islam terrorists from politically based terrorists. My own sense of it, though, is that the terrorism tends to be more politially based than relgiously based. That is not to say that the politically based terrorism is justified, but when it is politically based it says to me there is at least the need to look at the actions of western and Israeli governments as the possible cause of the unrest that leads to some of the terrorism.

 

[drkitten]

I for one agree with Harris completely on this matter. Terrorists don't want us to understand them or to empathize with them.

Well, that, to me, strikes me as a very good reason to understand and empathize. When do you ever win a fight by doing what your mortal enemy wants you to do?

These are guys who are willing to lay down their own lives for their cause, which means they regard your life with even less value. When you're brainwashed from such a young age, there's really nothing that's going to stop your fanatical line of thinking except bullets or bombs. It pains me as a human being to say that, but you can't reason with these guys.

Yes, but the problem with that kind of suicidal terrorism (from the terrorists' point of view) is the resupply problem. A typical terrorist only has one life to lay down for the cause, which means that they need to be continually recruiting new terrorists. They need to find new people willing to submit to the brainwashing. And those are the people that need to be understood.

 

[davefoc]

Fix to Brown's Link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

 

[Brown]

Fix to Brown's Link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Many thanks.

What concerns me, more than the perceived liberal-conservative distinction, is the distinction between deadheads who have a better understanding of the problem than smart people who are in denial.

For example, one of the smartest people I know has said that the hijackers' motivations were primarily political, not religious. In other words, they were motivated by basically the same drives as other political assassins.

This view may have some appeal at first blush, but when one considers the facts surrounding the events, it becomes difficult to avoid the increased involvement of religion and the diminished effect of political motivation. Religious motivations, in particular the beliefs that the almighty creator of the universe desires mass murder of innocents and that sacrificing oneself in a proper way while committing that mass murder will earn the Almighty's favor, are necessary to the commission of the crime. Not only necessary, but also sufficient. Politics is subservient to religion, not the other way around.

 

[JamesDillon]

This view may have some appeal at first blush, but when one considers the facts surrounding the events, it becomes difficult to avoid the increased involvement of religion and the diminished effect of political motivation. Religious motivations, in particular the beliefs that the almighty creator of the universe desires mass murder of innocents and that sacrificing oneself in a proper way while committing that mass murder will earn the Almighty's favor, are necessary to the commission of the crime. Not only necessary, but also sufficient. Politics is subservient to religion, not the other way around.

Not that I necessarily disagree, but couldn't equally plausible argument be made for the reverse order of priority-- i.e., that the religious aspect of militant Islamism is simply a culturally convenient facade for the ultimately political issues that are actually at the root of the jihadists' anti-Western animus? After all, Islam has been around for a lot longer than suicide bombers and hijackers have been, and while its relationship with Christianity and the West has not always been peaceful, history doesn't seem to suggest that Islam is intrinsically any more prone to violent atrocity than any other major religion is. It seems at least plausible to me that the ultimate motivations of the current crop of militant fundamentalists are more mundane in origin, despite their religious mode of expression.

 

[Zombified]

(D)espite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

In my opinion this is a false dichotomy. I have no doubt that religious extremism in and of itself is very powerful in the Middle East without considering economics or politics. But that doesn't mean that economics, society, and politics aren't part of the problem.

Since everyone loves comparing the terrorists and insurgents to the Nazis, let me do likewise. There's no doubt in my mind the Nazis are to blame for their regime's atrocities, and no excuse makes their responsibility any less. But we can't ignore the political and economic conditions of the Weimar Republic that created the opportunity for the Nazis to take power. That those conditions are partly attributable to the Allies at the end of WWI must be accounted for, but does not excuse the Nazis in the slightest.

So it is with Islamist terrorism. We could reduce its appeal, slow its spread, if we could find ways to address some of the social and political problems in Islamic countries. Of course, it may be too late for that; the solution is the liberalization of those societies in ways that Islamists will resist strenuously and violently.

But attributing cause is not a zero-sum game: blaming extremism on religion or economics or politics does not exonerate the other possibilities.

 

[Cello Man]

Well, that, to me, strikes me as a very good reason to understand and empathize. When do you ever win a fight by doing what your mortal enemy wants you to do?

One could argue that what the enemy in this case wants us to do is either convert to Islam or die. I do understand what you're saying, though. Our military is certainly capable of creating terrorists, and I'm not so stupid as to believe that firepower is the answer for everything. An errant bomb that makes its way into a mosque that kills women and children will only make their surviving relatives or villagers angry, so it's off to join Al Qaeda they go. It's a serious problem that I don't think anyone really has a good answer for. The elimination and creation of terrorists is a vicious cycle, and I'm as eager as any decent human being to put an end to it. I know the Middle East is lacking in basic human needs, but our aid workers and missionaries that go there to help their fellow man have an unfortunate tendency towards getting decapitated by the locals. How do we educate and help a whole society when they want to kill us? What do you suggest? I'm not asking this rhetorically to be a jerk, I'm honestly in search of a reason to be optimistic. This world is sorely in need of good ideas.

Yes, but the problem with that kind of suicidal terrorism (from the terrorists' point of view) is the resupply problem.

Not everyone in a jihad movement has to make a suicide attack in order to sow chaos and discord on a massive level. The 9/11 attacks were pulled off by what, 19 nutcases? That still leaves a few million or so jihadists alive to plot and plan further attacks. The death toll from those attacks was just short of 3,000 if I remember correctly. That's a kill ratio of nearly 158 to 1. Then factor in the sheer panic that was created in this country in reaction to that attack. I hope that terrorists won't adopt the tactics Palestinians use on Israel and use them in the US. I'm referring to such tactics as suicide bombings of cafes, buses, and other public areas. Imagine what would happen if a dozen guys wearing bomb belts synchronized attacks in a dozen random Starbucks or McDonald's locations around the country? Instead of destroying monumental symbols of the country, it would create fear that anyone, anywhere could be attacked. We'd be too paralyzed to go out the door. That's the whole point of terrorism: Terror. They know they can't achieve their goals by conventional means, so they wage a war of attrition, trying to whittle us down little by little. They see this as an eternal holy struggle, so they don't think along the lines of short term gain like we do, nor do they consider strategic loss a setback. After all, what price is eternal paradise worth?

A typical terrorist only has one life to lay down for the cause, which means that they need to be continually recruiting new terrorists. They need to find new people willing to submit to the brainwashing. And those are the people that need to be understood.

The problem is that so many of the recruits in this case are children. Do a Google image search for "child terrorist" so see examples of how insane the situation really is. It begs the question: Should one society tell another how to raise its children? I'm not sure, but the level of brainwashing from birth that is currently taking place in the Middle East makes the organizers of the Hitler Youth look like amateurs in comparison. (Yes, I know everyone is tired of all the Nazi analogies but it's the only thing in recent history I know enough about to reference as an example.)

 

[Cello Man]

I have no doubt that religious extremism in and of itself is very powerful in the Middle East without considering economics or politics. But that doesn't mean that economics, society, and politics aren't part of the problem.

Economics, society, and politics surely are part of the problem, but it seems apparent to me that the reason for this is Sharia Islamic Law. Everything in their culture, everything revolves around their faith. If it's not in their book, it doesn't make it into law.

 

[drkitten]

Should one society tell another how to raise its children?

We do already.

Check out the international treaties on child labor.

Check out the various international treaties on human right (including education, access to medical care, and so forth).

 

[ceo_esq]

We do already.

Check out the international treaties on child labor.

Check out the various international treaties on human right (including education, access to medical care, and so forth).

Are treaties really instances of one society telling another what to do?

 

[Cello Man]

Are treaties really instances of one society telling another what to do?

I don't think so. My understanding of a treaty is that it's supposed to be when two or more parties mutually agree to a set policy, not when it's enforced from outside. I could be wrong though. I'm a musician, not a diplomat.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I don't think so. My understanding of a treaty is that it's supposed to be when two or more parties mutually agree to a set policy, not when it's enforced from outside. I could be wrong though. Dammit Jim, I'm a musician, not a diplomat.

Sorry, just had to add that to your post.

Treaties are usually more or less mutual, but they can be imposed from a position of dominance. The Treaty of Versailles and the treaty between the U.S. and Japan post WWII are examples.

Steven

 

[drkitten]

My understanding of a treaty is that it's supposed to be when two or more parties mutually agree to a set policy, not when it's enforced from outside.

Tell that to the diplomats at Versailles

The United States -- like most major powers -- is notorious for telling other countries what to do under a thinly-disguised carrot-and-stick approach. "Agree to this lopsided trade agreement and we won't push a cripping economic embargo through the G8." "Restructure your economy or we'll cut off IMF funding at the source." "Give us what we want or we'll support a revolution and deal with the new government." Or even "give us this or our gunboats will blow you to smithereens" -- where do you think the term "gunboat diplomacy" came from?

More recently -- "suspend your nuclear program or we will use force to suspend it for you." (Iran). I don't think the element of "mutuality" is really present in the current negotations.

 

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Harris has simply appropriated the straw man offered by Bush. Basically, Bush and his cohorts have a malformed understanding of what actually motivates the leaders of the Middle East. It's pretty obvious he's trying to cut Saddam, Osama, Iran, Palestine, Hez'bullah, etc. all from the same cloth. Quite honestly, it's the old saw of every ancient racially based foreign policy. It's the assumption that you're either "fer us or agin' us" with the added caveat that if you're brown and a Muslim you must be equally "agin'" us and for all the same reasons. That's silly. What motivates a Saddam is as different from what motivates an Osama as the differences between Harry Reid and Newt Gingrich - maybe more so.

As Bush has said himself, he doesn't "do nuance" and I think that's the key to his continued mistakes. Essentially, in this ANYONE who wants to take a harder look at what is motivating the Middle East in an effort to create meaningful, realistic policies that could help is being painted as a "liberal" that's "soft on terror." Tell that to Bill Buckley.