History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
As both the Bush administration and its client government in Israel, with their invasions of Arab states in Iraq and Lebanon respectively, make the United States ever more hated in the Islamic world, a new book by the Chairmen of the 9/11 commission admits that the commission whitewashed the root cause of the 9/11 attacks—that same interventionist U.S. foreign policy....
The book usefully details the administration’s willful misrepresentation of its incompetent actions that day, but makes the shocking admission that some commission members deliberately wanted to distort an even more important issue. Apparently, unidentified commissioners wanted to cover up the fact that U.S. support for Israel was one of the motivating factors behind al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack. Although to his credit, [cochairman Lee] Hamilton argued for saying that al Qaeda committed the heinous strike because of the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and American support for Israel, the panel watered down that frank conclusion to state that U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iraq are “dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world.”
Some [9/11] commissioners wanted to cover up the link between the 9/11 attack and U.S. support for Israel because this might imply that the United States should alter policy and lessen its support for Israeli actions. How right they were. The question is simple: If the vast bulk of Americans would be safer if U.S. politicians moderated their slavish support of Israel, designed to win the support of key pressure groups at home, wouldn’t it be a good idea to make this change in course? Average U.S. citizens might attenuate their support for Israel if the link between the 9/11 attacks and unquestioning U.S. favoritism for Israeli excesses were more widely known. Similarly, if American taxpayers knew that the expensive and unnecessary U.S. policy of intervening in the affairs of countries all over the world—including the U.S. military presence in the Middle East—made them less secure from terrorist attacks at home, pressure would likely build for an abrupt change to a more restrained U.S. foreign policy. But like the original 9/11 Commission report, President Bush regularly obscures this important reality by saying that America was attacked on 9/11 because of its freedoms, making no mention of U.S. interventionist foreign policy as the root cause.
Somehow I believe that my point is being lost in tangential other thoughts. Lets see if I can restate. HITLER DECLARED WAR ON THE U.S. not the other way around.
Indeed, there is some reason to believe that the U.S. would not have declared war on Germany, at least not immediately after Pearl Harbor, but for this declaration of war against the U.S. As someone has, I believe correctly, pointed out, the per se antiNazi sentiment in the U.S. was probably not strong enough to drag the U.S. into a two front war without more. Yes, the Japanese and the Nazis were both "fascists," but so was Mussolini, and a rather large number of Americans demonstrably thought that Mussolini was a good thing until he became aligned with Hitler.
The key question, the question that is relevant to the discussion we were having to start with, is then: Why did Hitler do this seemingly rather stupid thing?
The only alternative answer that is proffered in this thread to Hitler's irritation over the U.S.'s implicit support of Britian and France, and some rather obvious ideological differences between the U.S. and Nazism, is that Hitler was after the Jews. Presumably, the serious suggestion is not that he thought that the U.S. loved the USSR or vice-a-versa, since that attachment came later and was never more than an attachment of convenience.
Maybe this alternative suggestion [that Hitler so hated the Jews that he was willing to bring the U.S. into the war on the other side] has some merit - I would, however, like to see the purportedly "well known" documents that somehow "prove" this theory. However, if this alternative suggestion is correct then it seems to blow away a secondary argument of those who want to take the "strict isolationist" position - that nations never declare war merely on the basis of basic hatred of another people or that peoples' values, but only because those other people have been interferring in their affairs.
In fact, I just yesterday had that exchange with Bumper Hornberger - who apparently believes that, if the U.S. would never have "interferred" in the mideast, by, e.g., supporting Israel, there never could have been a 9/11 incident.
This, IMHO, is just plainly counterfactual. Every historical event probably has multiple "causes" or contributing factors, but to say that a whole class of such factors as strong as ideology or religion is somehow logically impossible is to court a form of dogmatism that borders on obscession. Yes, people have real material interests. But, yes, they also have feelings of hatred or affinity based on matters that are not, in a crude sense, "merely economic."
Anthony Gregory -
8/10/2006
I agree that those in charge of US foreign policy wanted war with Nazi Germany. But I think it's unfair to compare Nazi Germany with Britain and France in characterizing the isolationist position toward that war. Before the war, most Americans opposed entry, and it wasn't just because they were blind to the evils of Hitler or thought they were equal to those of Britain and France. Nor do non-interventionists today make that claim, as far as I know.
Michael Meo -
8/10/2006
Quite amusing, Mr Pappas, for you to claim that the Palestinians are "our" enemies. Such an identification with Israel is exactly the problem at issue here.
Michael Meo -
8/10/2006
I would only offer what I hope Mr Gregory would take as a friendly addition to his insightful response to Mr Bolton, that Yes, I think it's quite accurate to conclude that the support given by the United States to belligerents Britain and France very likely did have a lot to do with the declaration by Nazi Germany of war against the United States following Pearl Harbor.
Perhaps it is not news to this audience, but the historian Christian Gerlach has provided documentary evidence some years ago bearing on this question, why Hitler decided to declare war on the United States; he moved to a truly world war because it was to be the final showdown with the Jews. See Christian Gerlach, "The Wannsee Conference, the Fate of German Jews, and Hitler's Decision in Principle to Exterminate All European Jews," The Journal of Modern History, vol. 70, No. 4, 1998, pp. 759-812.
Bill Woolsey -
8/9/2006
I don't know about Al Quaeda, but I think Hizbollah does want the war to end.
If Israel withdraws from Lebanon and that sliver of territory that Syria has recognized as Lebenese but the UN has legislated is Syrian (occupied by Israel,) and gives up the three prisoners, then Hizbollah wins.
They have won their resistence struggle with Israel. And they will play that card in internal Lebanese politics (along with the high birth rate of the Shia population) into progressively more power in Lebanon.
Hizbollah is more than its military wing.
Anthony Gregory -
8/9/2006
Well, Eland and I both support ending all foreign aid, including to terrorists and despots in the Middle East. And I don't think Eland actually believes that all the terrorists want the war to end — the war is good for them. At least, that's my view.
Jason Pappas -
8/9/2006
You and Ivan miss the obvious. There would be less terrorism if “we” didn’t fund it.
For over fifty years “we” (our government and the governments of our European allies) have been the major funding source of terrorists and their supporters in the West Bank either by direct aid or indirectly by being the major provider of UN’s budget. From the figures I’ve seen, this is where those in Gaza get most of their income, for example. Our government, along with Israel, rewarded Arafat, "the father of modern terrorism" by putting him in control.
All we have to do is pull the plug! But, no, our Secretary of State insists on continued funded under the label of “humanitarian aid.” And why are we required to fund our enemies? Given all the starving people in the world, why do terrorists and their supporters go to the top of the list (if there should be a list?) For the obvious reason: terrorism pays. It has cash value. You get what you want with terrorism. And guess what? Do you think that the leader of Hamas is asking for non-intervention? No, he damns us for holding back some of the aid and says more terrorism is on its way.
Again, you two miss the obvious. Yes, the left and Islamists don’t understand economic causality but they are driven by other concerns. Eland cherry picks Bin Laden’s propaganda that suits his needs. Bin Laden also said that we rob his country of oil and he want us to pay more. This doesn’t come from some economic analysis of corporatism and the unholy alliance of governments. Eland shows little study of the culture and religious movements of the Middle East. It’s not hard to reduce terrorism to a trickle and it’s not hard to reduce our military involvement around the world. But it doesn’t start by quoting bin Laden’s (or Hamas’ or Hezbollah’s) propaganda. It doesn’t start by giving them what they want … it starts by refusing to fund them even if it enrages them. Being enraged, as you insinuate, is not the criteria or even a hallmark of the problem. Indifference would solve far more than you'd imagine.
Anthony Gregory -
8/9/2006
A lot of those corporations are backed up by US police power. Leftists sometimes don't see the distinction, but libertarians often see more of a distinction than there is.
But the question is, which enrages the masses in the Middle East and builds up popular support for anti-American fanaticism? Is it Britney Spears CDs? Is it McDonalds? Or is the US troops, missiles and sanctions that have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East? Sure, the true fanatics see it all as part of the American bundle. But the masses wouldn't support these terrorists and see them as folk heroes if all America was exporting was hamburgers and pop music.
Many leftists, too, would be less critical of capitalism if it wasn't so often accompanied by state violence. They'd definitely have less to critique. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to conflate the US military with liberty, corporatism and free enterprise, the American government and the American people, and see them all as part of the American package of national greatness. Yuck.
Anthony Gregory -
8/9/2006
Why is it that when people discuss US entry into World War II and how obvious it was that the US was on the side of the good guys, they tend to compare Nazi Germany to Britain and France? The most active belligerent member of the Allied Powers was the Soviet Union, and most of the fighting was between the Nazis and Soviets. As for aggressive militarism, the Nazis and Soviets invaded Poland at around the same time, which was supposedly why Britain declared war on Germany in the first place. As for democide, the two regimes were definitely in the same league, although Stalin slaughtered more in absolute terms.
When this is accounted for, I think it is plenty fair to wee "the Fuhrer as no more than the German speaking counterpart of" Josef Stalin. And actually, when the US entered the war in 1941, Stalin had slaughtered far more people. It is taking too many liberties with the historical timeline to imply in the least that the US entered that war for humanitarian reasons, for liberty, or to save oppressed Europeans from totalitarianism. Hitler's worst acts of genocide really cascaded after the US entered the war, and when the US did enter the war, it did not do so on the side of Pure Good vs. Pure Evil. Indeed, when the US was actually fighting the war, many Americans saw it as a race war against the "Japs," and many didn't really want to be fighting Germany at all.
Jason Pappas -
8/9/2006
You make an interesting assertion here: “Tight alliances with current rulers (or pushing liberalism on them) creates at least as many problems as the alliance with Israel.” And guess what? Even if our government had no dealings with other foreign governments, our corporations do. The distinction between our government and “our” corporations isn’t made by the left; why does anyone think it is made by jihadists? Are they natural libertarians? Given the attacks on commercial franchises of American corporations, for example, it is more likely that leftists are right than libertarians. Do you advocate restrictions on commercial activities with Islamic nations? Isolationism or non-intervention: which will allay the fears of bin Laden … which you seem to imply is the criterion?
Bill Woolsey -
8/9/2006
Eland didn't argue that there would be no jihadist movement if the U.S. didn't support Israel. He argued that Al Quaida wouldn't consider the U.S. to be the "far enemy" that needs to be confronted immediately, if it were not for several interventions in the area, one of which is the de-facto alliance with Israel.
If the U.S. wasn't intervening in these areas, then it is much less likely that this one wing of the Islamist movement would have come up with the theory that they must confront the "far enemy" immediately.
As for the theory that Israel protects us from Al Quaeda--that is one of those many problems with interventionism.
If Al Quaeda were to succeed in creating a unified Islamic Caliphate, then perhaps it would be a threat to the West. But this hardly something that is inevitable. I think it is very unlikely. Supporting Israel to prevent this highly unlikely outcome makes little sense, especially when there are costs.
Again, ending support of Israel only helps with the Jihadists if the U.S. is willing to quit worrying about control of oil in the Persian gulf. Tight alliances with current rulers (or pushing liberalism on them) creates at least as many problems as the alliance with Israel.
Like Eland, I think there is a consious effort by some to deceive. A propaganda effort to hide from the American people the costs of the alliance with Israel. We now have reports that this was done at the 911 commmission.
Bolton, here, just says that there should be no need for propaganda. We should just admit the problem and accept that an alliance with Israel is worth it (well, sort of.)
Still, I have to wonder when I read comments claiming that the issue of Israel isn't one important reason for the U.S. confrontation with Jihadism--is it self-deception, or is the commentator part of the propaganda team?
Jason Pappas -
8/9/2006
It’s amazing how Eland regurgitates bin Laden’s propaganda. His ignorance of Islam and Arab culture is astonishing. Eland can’t tell a reason from a rationalization when researching the enemy’s rationale. And he shoe-horns the facts into his preconceived theories to rationalize his own conclusions. Over the years, even when I’ve agreed with his conclusions, I’m been embarrassed by the sophomoric and superficial analysis.
I caution basing either interventionist or non-interventionist policies on the actions of bin Laden. Policy can’t be constructed to guarantee such specific outcome especially when violent acts have more to do with the internal dynamics of a foreign culture and the fanatics it breeds. I suggest everyone is wrong and the jihadist movement would still be thriving today despite acts which have given it a boost or acts which would have slowed it down.
That hardly means our policies are wise. Indeed, there is more than one way to be ignorant of the nature of Middle East cultures and Islam as Bush has clearly demonstrated. As our nation becomes even more dedicated to policing the world and settling foreign disputes, Eland says little that helps to evolve a more modest foreign policy. That's sad.
Craig J. Bolton -
8/8/2006
Hmmmm, and I guess it is probably also true that "our" informal support of Great Britian, France, Poland, etc. as opposed to Nazi Germany was one of the reasons that Hitler decided to declare war on "us," along with the more immediate cause of the Congressional declaration of war on Japan after Pearl Harbor.
If we could have just seen the Fuhrer as no more than the German speaking counterpart of the PM of Great Britian then everything would have been fine, right?
I don't think so.
Once one takes as a given this nation state system, there are degrees of "noninterventionist" foreign policy, some of which make sense and some of which are just plain silly. As I suggested in an immediately previous response to the last post, I personally think that "noninterventionism" in the sense of non-pre-emptive acts and trade neutrality is a very good idea.
On the other hand "non-interventionism" that purports to see no material difference between Nazi Germany and England or between the USSR and the Eastern European regime that it swallowed, or, dare one suggest, between Israel and the tyrannical Arab regimes in the same region, is just plain silly. There may be more or less sophisticated ways of expressing such preferences between tyranny and relative freedom, but preferences make sense, while willful blindness does not.
N. Friedman -
8/8/2006
Power is the usual reason that things are done in this world. I trust that such is the same for groups like al Qa'ida. If, in fact, our support for Israel stands in the way of al Qa'ida coming to power, so much the better.
