[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.