George W. Bush has claimed that the United States was targeted because of its commitment to freedom and democracy. Bush says people are jealous of our wealth. The truth is that anti-Americanism rests on feelings that the U.S. obstructs freedom and democracy as well as material well being for others. In the Middle East, for example, the United States supports Israeli oppression of Palestinians, providing the military, economic, and diplomatic backing that makes that oppression possible. It condemns conquest when it is done by Iraq, but not when done by Israel. It has bolstered authoritarian regimes (such as Saudi Arabia) that have provided U.S. companies with mammoth oil profits and has helped overthrow regimes (such as Iran in the early 1950s) that challenged those profits. When terrorist acts were committed by U.S. friends such as the Israeli-supervised massacres in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon, no U.S. sanctions were imposed. But about the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iraq, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright could only say that she thought it was worth it. When the U.S. went to war against Iraq, it targeted civilian infrastructure. When Iran and Iraq fought a bloody war, the United States surreptitiously aided both sides.
Many Muslims are pissed about all of the grievances listed above, but this does not imply that the U.S. is unjustified in its support of Israel, defense of Kuwait, sanctioning of Iraq, etc. If they have taken such actions because of a "commitment to freedom and democracy" then both Bush and those who focus on grievances are correct in their assesment of terrorist motivations, the commitment itself lead to the instantiation of the grievances. The question then is whether the U.S. took the moral couse of action. The article seems to conclude that the answer is clearly in the negative, but it provides little support for its analysis.
The reasons given in support of the premise that "the U.S. obstructs freedom and democracy" are for the most part vague and unsubstantiated. On the off chance that they are substantiable, I've a few specific questions in the interest of playing devil's advocate...
Why exactly are Iraqi children starving? Is it because of INTERNATIONAL sanctions imposed due to an UNPROVOKED invasion of a sovereign nation (Kuwait) have put their economy into the shitter or because the wealth of that nation (of which there is plenty) has been disproportionally allocated to those serving Saddam's fascist regime? Surely it is partially due to both, but either way does not the Iraqi government stand morally culpable? Could they not have prevented the famine by simply refraining from certain evils?
How exactly are the Palestinians being oppressed? Many of them are waging a bloody civil war against the sovereign nation of Israel, and most of them support it. Was the South oppressed when we put down their rebellion?
Regarding our alleged "bolstering" of authoritarian regimes, were there any democratic movements to choose from?
Was there any morally significant difference between conquest by Iraq and Israel? (Hint: Think unprovoked invasion vs. national defense...)
Finally, the only specific charge listed above is the slaughter in Lebanon, which was committed in Lebanon by the Phalange (Kata´eb) militia, a Lebanese force fighting in the Lebanese civil war. Surely the IDF might have anticipated and prevented the tragedy, but the Lebanese must bear the ultimate moral blame, hence sanctions against Israel would have been completely inappropriate. OTOH, the Iraqi army invaded a sovereign nation under orders from the Iraqi government. It should thus be blindingly clear why exactly the political entity of Iraq is far more directly to blame in the latter case than that of Israel in the former.
Peace love and happiness to you all - and may death come swiftly to our enemies!