This past class we discussed the options available to the United States in the long term, to prevent religious terrorism. It seemed that at least the vocal minority, or perhaps the majority felt that the new bargain that was put forth got shot down fairly quickly. It was this fatalist attitude that I wanted to engage.
I believe with time, we can make inroads into the middle east and bring about positive democratization and secularization. Of course the task is far from an easy one, but that should not inhibit us from pursuing a long-term course there. We should provide aid, education and trade opportunities with supportive governments, and we should allow more diplomats to engage different tribes, sects and non-governmental institutions that may be supportive of terrorists or may enable them in some way.
The more engagement, the better. I know some of you are probably rolling your eyes at this point and thinking, "But it's our engagement there that has brought with it so much hostility and backlash," however, if you think that, I will not say you are incorrect, but you are missing the whole picture. What type of engagement has frustrated the populaces of the middle east? Our military and covert operations. Open diplomacy, good business and transparent missions to support education and eradicate poverty will be able to change perceptions. It will be a long process. I will not deny that. Some have been brain-washed and will never change (at least in this life), but we must try. Any one else have an optimistic view?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree that our relations with the Middle East can be improved and that we ought to maintain a long-term perspective. I think part of the reason that the class shot down Benjamin and Simon's new bargain was that it seemed to favor the United State's interests while not giving sufficient incentive to Middle Eastern governments to cooperate. Under the plan proposed, Middle Eastern nations were expected to secularize (a potential problem for some of their constituents), democratize (lessening the power of those currently in charge), and alleviate poverty (which doesn't seem very important to most regimes) while the United States would merely increase trade/aid (which may be helpful), support peaceful domestic opposition (which is not really a priority of Mid East nations), and provide assistance to failed states (which could imply all sorts of undesirable consequences for Middle Eastern governments). I think part of the issue is that this would be a deal brokered between governments. Prof. Payne pointed out that it is difficult for the Unites States to make a bargain trough Middle Eastern governments because often the interests of the two are at odds with each other.
By the way, any posts from Michael Powers or billabong47 are me: Ian McConnaughey. Sorry for the confusion. I have my own blog where I use Michael Powers as a pen name.
Post a Comment