Thank You, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's recent appearance at Columbia University has generated a continuing media furor. Conservatives like Michael Medved, while stating that the invitation shouldn't have been issued in the first place, are claiming that it's an overwhelming embarrassment for Ahmedinejad and the Iranian government on the grounds that Ahmedinejad (and the Iranian regime by extension) were shown to be intellectually dishonest and lazy, and morally moribund. On the other hand, liberal news outlets such as the BBC, have quoted Iranian sources and so-called analysts, claiming that the incident reflects poorly on the United States (in light of Iran's culture of hospitality) because Ahmedinejad was invited to a forum and subsequently insulted.
I think that both conservatives and liberals are making convincing points. While I can understand the point of view that the BBC is presenting, they appear to ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad's statements and responses to the questions that were posed to him were completely and profoundly pathetic and disingenuous. At the same time, I'm not sure that conservatives are giving proper reactions to how Columbia President Lee Bollinger's statements, however accurate, reflect on the event as a whole. I won't bother noting some of the reactions from Columbia students and Iranian officials that have been covered by the BBC because the credentials of both Columbia undergrads and Iranian government officials are commonly noteworthy for being largely unimpressive and irrelevant.
That lengthy background having been completed, the hype for this event inspired me to contact a friend of mine who happens to be a graduate of Columbia University. We spoke for more than an hour about the issue, prior to the actual forum. I expressed my outrage that the elected leader of a state sponsor of terror (even a technically powerless one like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad) had been invited to speak, while simultaneously noting a tangental hypocrisy: Ahmedinejad, whose nation is assisting insurgents and terrorists in both Iraq and Afghanistan in their attacks against American troops, is invited to speak; however, Columbia eliminated ROTC in 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, and thus soldiers who defend the right to free speech and legitimate education in America are given no voice on Columbia's campus. Although my friend initially avoided even talking about the subject, we ended up pursuing a long discourse on this and related topics.
Part way through the conversation, as we were about to call it a friendly draw, I mentioned that Ahmedinejad had the blood of American soldiers on his hands from conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As I prepared to give her the last word, she threw in the statement that, although she acknowledged that Ahmedinejad and the Iranian regime might be involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, American troops wouldn't have died if they "hadn't been sent over there in the first place". Given that I remain an ardent and educated, though responsibly critical, supporter of operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I asked her to tell me what her solution to 9/11 would have been. Songs by Lee Greenwood, Darryl Worley, and Toby Keith aside, 9/11 has become the defining event for American foreign policy decisions in the recent past, and it will continue to define our foreign policy into the future.
The conversation revealed a number of staggeringly common misconceptions about a number of foreign policy topics, including al Qaeda's motivations, the Iraq War, President Bush, and American foreign and economic policies. When I finally got my friend to give me a straight answer as to what she would have done after 9/11, her answer was that she would have "taken a good long look at why it happened", the implication being that the responsibility for 9/11 could be attributed to American foreign policy. It's neither unreasonable nor inaccurate to state that 9/11 was a reaction to American foreign policy; in fact, this is directly stated by bin Laden in many of his statements since al Qaeda's inception. However, the implication that American foreign policy is somehow at fault for 9/11 is unreasonable, and often based on unreasonable and disingenuous logic.
One issue that we agreed on was that it's in America's best interests to eliminate, once and for all, the dangerous dependence on foreign oil; for her, such a move would allow us to completely pull all American presence out of the Middle East. I absolutely agree that we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but there are several caveats that must accompany that admonition.
First, I'll note my own personal opinion that the solution to America's specific energy issues is nuclear energy, despite the irrational and disproportionate loathing of so many environmentalists toward nuclear technology. Second, it must be noted that currently-fashionable biofuels are a minor element of the solution, and they come with their own baggage; for example, the rise of biofuels has already led to an increase in international wheat prices, and there is a legitimate risk that a knee-jerk addiction to biofuels could threaten food crops in developing countries (though obviously not to the degree that Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez claim in the linked article). Third, it's important to acknowledge that the world's reliance on petroleum goes far beyond vehicles - petroleum accounts for most of the world's crucial industrial lubricants, for example, as well as a massive amount of the world's heating and electricity production.
Finally, it's obligatory to note that even if a Western presence in the Middle East were able to be reduced, the idea of America leaving the entire region is patently absurd - America has not only economic interests, but also close allies in the Middle East, and these alliances go beyond a mere desire for secure petroleum supplies. In every Middle Eastern nation where the American government or American corporations have a presence, that presence is at the pleasure of the host government and/or consumers. Reducing the strategic value of the Middle East is somewhat technologically feasible; eliminating a Western presence in the Middle East is clearly not an option.
Some Americans, and certainly many in the international community, reject statements by the Bush Administration that al Qaeda and related terrorist groups hate freedom. A recent UC Berkeley webcast from Harry Kreisler's "Issues in Foreign Policy After 9/11" course featured Louise Richardson of Harvard's Radcliff Institute. Richardson repeats the phrase we have heard so frequently during the last six years: "The terrorists don't hate our freedoms, they hate our policies." The statement was illegitimate in 2001, and it remains illegitimate today.
One need look no further than independent journalists like Michael Yon and Michael Totten, both of whom have reported extensively on the suppression of freedom in Anbar and Diyala provinces in Iraq when those areas were under al Qaeda control. Those who deny that Islamist terrorists hate freedom ignore the stories about average citizens who were forbidden by al Qaeda to do so much as smoke cigarettes. The list of freedoms suppressed by al Qaeda in Iraq is extensive and well documented by independent journalists, even if mainstream media outlets give such stories short shrift.
Iraq is not the lone example of this assault against freedom. When Afghanistan was controlled by the al Qaeda-allied Taliban, Islamist madrassas were the only schools allowed, and girls were forbidden from attending. Women were denied the right to free expression and speech, and forced to wear uniform burqas; men were denied the basic freedom of making choices about whether or not to wear beards. These restrictions predated American involvement by several years; that these restrictions were representative of the Taliban's hatred of personal freedom is evidenced by the fact that, upon the liberation of Afghanistan, the majority of the burqas were shed, children of both genders went back to school, and men queued around city blocks for barbers to shave their beards.
While the situation in Iraq remains complex, there is obvious evidence that the world has seen a major shift in recent months. Sunni leaders in Anbar have ousted al Qaeda, due to a combination of al Qaeda's own failed policies and the work of an emerging breed of American soldier-diplomats. Former insurgents in Diyala have seen this, and have begun turning on al Qaeda. Even Shi'i leaders in southern Iraq have entered into negotiations with the Coalition. The surge, spearheaded by General Petraeus, has resulted in both American and Iraqi deaths being cut in half. Even radical Shi'i cleric Moqtada al Sadr has declared a six month cease-fire for the al Mahdi Militia. Even mainstream news outlets are starting to report what only independent journalists on the ground were reporting several months ago: the Coalition and Iraqi security forces are making tangible and legitimate progress in stabilizing Iraq. Still, many media outlets (notably the aforementioned BBC) continue their negative reporting, scouting each and every silver lining in search of even the tiniest black cloud.
These few examples, representing misconceptions and dogmatic prejudice amongst educated and otherwise functional members of society, underscore a continuing issue among Americans and members of other Western and allied nations. In a small way, we have Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, former mayor of Tehran and current figurehead of Iran, to thank for encouraging the first real discourse we've seen on these issues in months. Further, his high profile anti-Semitic diatribe and outrageous claims about the complete lack of homosexuals in Iran provide an opportunity to show those unbelievers among us how bizarre and dangerous Islamist regimes truly are. For bringing a new clarity to this situation, we owe Ahmedinejad the slightest thanks possible.
Now, if we could only get him and his handlers to stop threatening to destroy Israel, discontinue their rogue nuclear activities, eliminate local human rights violations, stop arming terrorists and insurgents in Afghanistan and Lebanon and Iraq...
I think that both conservatives and liberals are making convincing points. While I can understand the point of view that the BBC is presenting, they appear to ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad's statements and responses to the questions that were posed to him were completely and profoundly pathetic and disingenuous. At the same time, I'm not sure that conservatives are giving proper reactions to how Columbia President Lee Bollinger's statements, however accurate, reflect on the event as a whole. I won't bother noting some of the reactions from Columbia students and Iranian officials that have been covered by the BBC because the credentials of both Columbia undergrads and Iranian government officials are commonly noteworthy for being largely unimpressive and irrelevant.
That lengthy background having been completed, the hype for this event inspired me to contact a friend of mine who happens to be a graduate of Columbia University. We spoke for more than an hour about the issue, prior to the actual forum. I expressed my outrage that the elected leader of a state sponsor of terror (even a technically powerless one like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad) had been invited to speak, while simultaneously noting a tangental hypocrisy: Ahmedinejad, whose nation is assisting insurgents and terrorists in both Iraq and Afghanistan in their attacks against American troops, is invited to speak; however, Columbia eliminated ROTC in 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, and thus soldiers who defend the right to free speech and legitimate education in America are given no voice on Columbia's campus. Although my friend initially avoided even talking about the subject, we ended up pursuing a long discourse on this and related topics.
Part way through the conversation, as we were about to call it a friendly draw, I mentioned that Ahmedinejad had the blood of American soldiers on his hands from conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As I prepared to give her the last word, she threw in the statement that, although she acknowledged that Ahmedinejad and the Iranian regime might be involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, American troops wouldn't have died if they "hadn't been sent over there in the first place". Given that I remain an ardent and educated, though responsibly critical, supporter of operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I asked her to tell me what her solution to 9/11 would have been. Songs by Lee Greenwood, Darryl Worley, and Toby Keith aside, 9/11 has become the defining event for American foreign policy decisions in the recent past, and it will continue to define our foreign policy into the future.
The conversation revealed a number of staggeringly common misconceptions about a number of foreign policy topics, including al Qaeda's motivations, the Iraq War, President Bush, and American foreign and economic policies. When I finally got my friend to give me a straight answer as to what she would have done after 9/11, her answer was that she would have "taken a good long look at why it happened", the implication being that the responsibility for 9/11 could be attributed to American foreign policy. It's neither unreasonable nor inaccurate to state that 9/11 was a reaction to American foreign policy; in fact, this is directly stated by bin Laden in many of his statements since al Qaeda's inception. However, the implication that American foreign policy is somehow at fault for 9/11 is unreasonable, and often based on unreasonable and disingenuous logic.
One issue that we agreed on was that it's in America's best interests to eliminate, once and for all, the dangerous dependence on foreign oil; for her, such a move would allow us to completely pull all American presence out of the Middle East. I absolutely agree that we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but there are several caveats that must accompany that admonition.
First, I'll note my own personal opinion that the solution to America's specific energy issues is nuclear energy, despite the irrational and disproportionate loathing of so many environmentalists toward nuclear technology. Second, it must be noted that currently-fashionable biofuels are a minor element of the solution, and they come with their own baggage; for example, the rise of biofuels has already led to an increase in international wheat prices, and there is a legitimate risk that a knee-jerk addiction to biofuels could threaten food crops in developing countries (though obviously not to the degree that Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez claim in the linked article). Third, it's important to acknowledge that the world's reliance on petroleum goes far beyond vehicles - petroleum accounts for most of the world's crucial industrial lubricants, for example, as well as a massive amount of the world's heating and electricity production.
Finally, it's obligatory to note that even if a Western presence in the Middle East were able to be reduced, the idea of America leaving the entire region is patently absurd - America has not only economic interests, but also close allies in the Middle East, and these alliances go beyond a mere desire for secure petroleum supplies. In every Middle Eastern nation where the American government or American corporations have a presence, that presence is at the pleasure of the host government and/or consumers. Reducing the strategic value of the Middle East is somewhat technologically feasible; eliminating a Western presence in the Middle East is clearly not an option.
Some Americans, and certainly many in the international community, reject statements by the Bush Administration that al Qaeda and related terrorist groups hate freedom. A recent UC Berkeley webcast from Harry Kreisler's "Issues in Foreign Policy After 9/11" course featured Louise Richardson of Harvard's Radcliff Institute. Richardson repeats the phrase we have heard so frequently during the last six years: "The terrorists don't hate our freedoms, they hate our policies." The statement was illegitimate in 2001, and it remains illegitimate today.
One need look no further than independent journalists like Michael Yon and Michael Totten, both of whom have reported extensively on the suppression of freedom in Anbar and Diyala provinces in Iraq when those areas were under al Qaeda control. Those who deny that Islamist terrorists hate freedom ignore the stories about average citizens who were forbidden by al Qaeda to do so much as smoke cigarettes. The list of freedoms suppressed by al Qaeda in Iraq is extensive and well documented by independent journalists, even if mainstream media outlets give such stories short shrift.
Iraq is not the lone example of this assault against freedom. When Afghanistan was controlled by the al Qaeda-allied Taliban, Islamist madrassas were the only schools allowed, and girls were forbidden from attending. Women were denied the right to free expression and speech, and forced to wear uniform burqas; men were denied the basic freedom of making choices about whether or not to wear beards. These restrictions predated American involvement by several years; that these restrictions were representative of the Taliban's hatred of personal freedom is evidenced by the fact that, upon the liberation of Afghanistan, the majority of the burqas were shed, children of both genders went back to school, and men queued around city blocks for barbers to shave their beards.
While the situation in Iraq remains complex, there is obvious evidence that the world has seen a major shift in recent months. Sunni leaders in Anbar have ousted al Qaeda, due to a combination of al Qaeda's own failed policies and the work of an emerging breed of American soldier-diplomats. Former insurgents in Diyala have seen this, and have begun turning on al Qaeda. Even Shi'i leaders in southern Iraq have entered into negotiations with the Coalition. The surge, spearheaded by General Petraeus, has resulted in both American and Iraqi deaths being cut in half. Even radical Shi'i cleric Moqtada al Sadr has declared a six month cease-fire for the al Mahdi Militia. Even mainstream news outlets are starting to report what only independent journalists on the ground were reporting several months ago: the Coalition and Iraqi security forces are making tangible and legitimate progress in stabilizing Iraq. Still, many media outlets (notably the aforementioned BBC) continue their negative reporting, scouting each and every silver lining in search of even the tiniest black cloud.
These few examples, representing misconceptions and dogmatic prejudice amongst educated and otherwise functional members of society, underscore a continuing issue among Americans and members of other Western and allied nations. In a small way, we have Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, former mayor of Tehran and current figurehead of Iran, to thank for encouraging the first real discourse we've seen on these issues in months. Further, his high profile anti-Semitic diatribe and outrageous claims about the complete lack of homosexuals in Iran provide an opportunity to show those unbelievers among us how bizarre and dangerous Islamist regimes truly are. For bringing a new clarity to this situation, we owe Ahmedinejad the slightest thanks possible.
Now, if we could only get him and his handlers to stop threatening to destroy Israel, discontinue their rogue nuclear activities, eliminate local human rights violations, stop arming terrorists and insurgents in Afghanistan and Lebanon and Iraq...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home