[rayiner]

They’re certainly bothering people and threatening peoples’ freedom. Thanks to the export of fundamentalist Islam from certain countries, my home country of Bangladesh is a more dangerous place today then when we left 30 years ago. (And it was under a military dictatorship then!) Unsurprisingly, we take harsh measures to crack down on fundamentalism, including banning Islamist parties and executing terrorists: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48154781 (noting that British-Bangladeshi teenager who left to join ISIS would be executed if she went back to Bangladesh). And it’s not just in Bangladesh or Pakistan—while America has been fortunate to be spared from a major terrorist attack since 9/11, our European allies deal with them routinely. To a great extent, the United States is subsidizing the cost of fighting terrorism for all of these countries. After all, in Syria, which is the subject of the article, we got dragged into the conflict by our middle eastern allies.

Now, it’s fair to say that none of this is America’s problem. And I probably agree with you. But there is a risk we wake up 30 years from now and huge swaths of the world have been taken over by fundamentalist ideologies that are very hostile to us. We should think a bit about what that world would look like and whether it’s desirable.

Americans take for granted that we live in a world shaped by American norms. 160 constitutions around the world are based directly or indirectly in our own. (Bangladesh’s constitution begins with “we the people” just like the United States’.) The Star Trek version of the future (“America in Space”) comes about because of our willingness to invest in the security and economic and social development of the world. And maybe we’ve done enough, and maybe it’s time to let others lead. I’m pretty sympathetic to the arguments that it’s time to turn our focus inward, and we’re doing more harm than good. But the analysis is much bigger than whether certain specific people are attacking US soil at this very moment.

[pasabagi]

My read of Islamic extremism is that it's largely funded by arab dictatorships, either the elites, or the governments themselves. At the same time, the basic recruitment pitch is usually grounded in popular dissatisfaction about these dictators.

So you have people like Osama Bin Laden, an elite Saudi funded by other elite Saudis, with a recruitment pitch that was heavily dependent on the intense hatred many arabs have for the brutal dictatorships of the middle east, and their American backers.

America is more or less the sole reason why dysfunctional dictatorships like Saudi Arabia survive. They provide the arms, the intelligence, the diplomatic cover, and sometimes the military assistance these states need to survive. The same states then fund the most intolerant forms of Islam, while radicalizing their own citizens and those of neighboring countries through intense repression and military adventurism.

[rayiner]

That has elements of truth but is not really the whole story. First, terrorism is a problem in many countries. Bangladesh and India aren’t dictatorships, but face significant terror threats. The idea that a pan-Islamic state should replace the existing nation states is a real thing. Second, don’t overlook the hatred of Israel. Attitudes ranging from anti-Zionism to outright anti-semitism are nearly universal in the Muslim world. America’s support of Israel is a huge recruiting tool.

Third, you’re conflating fundamentalism with terrorism. Though the former often leads to the latter, the two are a bit different. Saudi isn’t funding terrorists that want to overthrow the Kingdom. That would make no sense. But they do want to promote and export their fundamentalism brand of Islam to make the Muslim world more cohesive (with themselves at the head of it). And insofar as there is funding of terrorism, at least the intention isn’t for it to be directed back at themselves.

Fourth, everyone, even people who intensely dislike these governments, fear what would replace them if they fell. Syria is a good example. Assad might have been a dictator, but he was propped up by the west for a long time because what was waiting to replace him was ISIS.

The Howard Zinn-style “blame America for everything” approach is illuminating to a degree because our involvement really is a key factor. But these countries also have vast and complex politics that have nothing to do with us. Overlooking the factors behind American involvement encourages magical thinking—that if only we would disengage, these problems would sort themselves out.

[pasabagi]

I actually agree with almost everything you've said. America is not responsible for the ME's ills. However, I do think that many states in the ME are classic client regimes, much more interested in keeping foreign sponsors happy than their own populations.

This creates a very strange and perverse set of incentives, where the US is incentivised to back their clients, even while the clients are essentially destabilizing the region.

I would assume[1] Saudi Arabia doesn't fund terrorists that aim to topple the kingdom. I do think that terrorism and instability is most common in states that don't have strong civil institutions, a civil society capable of mediating disputes.

Client regimes are already toxic to civil institutions, because at the end of the day, they don't need a very broad platform of civil support when their primary source of power comes from abroad. By propping up bloody-handed dictators, the US basically ensures that whatever replaces them will be worse - because the dictators are so damaging to the kind of civil society that would allow for a peaceful transition into something better.

I'm not saying that America is responsible for this. Probably if they withdrew support for Saudi Arabia, some other power would fill their shoes. I am saying that they, and nations like them, are inevitably powerful forces for instability in resource-rich, strategically important regions like the middle east. America is particularly bad because their policy is so inconsistent - one moment, it's about US strategic interests, next, economic, next, it's about exporting democracy and protecting human rights. So they prop up somebody like Saddam Hussein for years, then they sanction Iraq for years, then they basically demolish his entire country and state, and somehow expect this completely savaged country to gin up a functioning government from literally nothing while fighting a civil war. Their involvement in Afghanistan was even more insane.

[1]: It's impossible to be sure about this kind of thing. In the Russian Revolution, government funded terrorists blew up the minister of the Interior, for instance. Even a functioning state is pretty far from monolithic.

[liability]

If radicalization in these countries works anything like it does in the west, then the missiles would be more effective at preventing radicalization if pointed at social media tech executives.

[liability]

Rayiner, I wrote this response to you before you deleted your comment:

If the US were targeting the House of Saud then I might believe what you say, but those guys going untouched undermines claims that the US is combatting radicalization coming from the euphemistic "rich middle eastern countries with fundamentalist ideologies funding schools"

[adamsea]

The particular missiles discussed in the article are killing high-value leaders, etc. So not so much about stopping radicalization as wearing an existing organization.

But yeah, I’m sympathetic to your overall point, for sure.

[3131s]

They’re certainly bothering people and threatening peoples’ freedom.

All of them? What percentage of the dead were terrorists? Because "they" in this case is referring to around 1 million people now.

[mercurysmessage]

People fail to notice that many who are killed are innocent, and this actually creates more people willing to fight back.

It's a vicious cycle, and the murdering of innocent people only makes it worse.

[rayiner]

It’s not clear to me whether that’s true on a larger scale. Obviously, innocent people die in war and that’s regrettable and to be minimized. But innocent people also suffer from the instability and insecurity caused by terrorism. Note that while most countries opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan, opinion polling in India—which shares a border with that country—showed a majority of people there supported military action against the Taliban.

Note that leaving terrorism unchecked also has a cost. I agree folks tend to have a perception of terrorism risks that outweighs the actual cost in lives. But while the psychology is in peoples’ heads, the dollar impact is real. People don’t want to invest in an area where terrorism isn’t a risk. People with means and opportunities leave such areas, creating brain drain. The existence of these unstable places like Afghanistan imposes a real cost on the people in surrounding countries.

Innocent people will die in any significant military action. And if avoiding those casualties is the overriding concern, then you should never engage in non-defensive military action. And that’s certainly a very defensible position, but I’m not sure it’s always the correct one.

[akavi]

> while most countries opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan, opinion polling in India—which shares a border with that country

India does not de facto share a border with Afghanistan (Its claimed extent of Kashmir does have a small border, but in practice that's irrelevant)

[hutzlibu]

"Note that leaving terrorism unchecked also has a cost."

True, but I believe there were a LOT less terrorists on this earth, before the US started its War On Terror.

So fighting terror, yes, but maybe not by blowing up whole weddings, because one guest has a cell phone that was linked to a bad guy?

(sadly not really exaggerating)

[colinmhayes]

I don't think people are failing to notice. That's one of the most common complaints.

[Simulacra]

"I'll tell you what war is about, you've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting."

-Curis LeMay

[x86_64Ubuntu]

There really isn't a threat over the next 30 as you are trying to paint. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh are 90+ percent muslim. So by default, any social strike from pickpocketing to bombings are going to be perpetrated by muslims and have muslims as the victims by and large. And let's keep in mind, that ISIS is blowback from the 2003 Iraq invasion, where once again we went to the Middle East based on "terrorism".

[gwright]

> where once again we went to the Middle East based on "terrorism"

A little more complicated than that: invasion of Kuwait, 1st Gulf War, chemical weapons, WMD confusion, violation of UN sanctions, post 9/11 fears/unknowns, concern about impact to global energy economy, etc.

One of the benefits of the US energy leverage created by fracking is that the energy market considerations that were part of our Middle East policy aren't as important any longer, we have many more degrees of freedom in this regard. I believe there are other benefits that come from less money available for state-sponsored terrorism/extreme groups due to lower oil prices.

[quercusgrisea]

The critical point is that the US has never cared about any other country in the world. Every foreign policy decision is based on what is advantageous to the US at the time. For example, you seem to believe that the US is fighting Islamic extremism for the good of the world and the people in the places it's bombing. If that were a priority for the US, don't you think they'd have a problem with the Islamic extremism and dictatorship promoted and brutally enforced by their close allies in the Saudi Arabian government? Instead, the US just agreed to sell the Saudi regime more weapons.

The US engages with the rest of the world in a way that is advantageous to the US. This is clear when you learn about the modern history of US foreign policy[1]. The US backed over 40 authoritarian coups through the 20th century. To write such a long comment about how the US cares about the places they bomb is at best naivety and at worst willful ignorance.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

[gwright]

> The critical point is that the US has never cared about any other country in the world. Every foreign policy decision is based on what is advantageous to the US at the time.

s/US/<any-country>/

Acting according to self interest is not unique to the US. And just to be clear that doesn't mean that any country's foreign policy is immune from criticism just that the US isn't unique in this respect.

[vangelis]

Great, why aren't we striking the Saudis then?

[departure]

> Thanks to the export of fundamentalist Islam from certain countries,

Yes Saudi Arabia which we continue to sell weapons to and blindly support. This administration is even more willing to bend to SA, as seen with Trump's visit and subsequent veto the bipartiston resolution to end US military assistance in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

> while America has been fortunate to be spared from a major terrorist attack since 9/11

That is untrue. The Orlando shooting was absolutely driven by islamic fundamentalism, as was the 2015 Chattanooga and San Bernardino attacks and arguably the Boston Marathon Bombings.