TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
Does US foreign policy encourage or discourage the proliferation of radical Islam? Why? If it encourages it, what policy changes could be made to discourage it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
US Foreign Policy: Encourages or Discourages Proliferation of Radical Islam?
- Thread starter TurkeyOnRye
- Start date
The stated motive behind 9/11 was the Sanctions imposed on Iraq (with negative humanitarian consequences); the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia (which is a problem because Saudi Arabia has some of the holiest sites for Islam, such as Mecca and Medina) and US support for Israel (whose existence was considered a problem in itself). It is clear therefore that US foreign policy provided justifications [according to Al-qaeda] for them to attack the US.
[Full Text of Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America"]
The US has a long history of supporting dictatorships which serve their interests for strategic purposes, and there is suggestion that the CIA had links with Al-qaeda in the Soviet War in Afghanistan. The covert nature of these relationships means of course that hard evidence is difficult to come by. It would be wrong to say that radical islam was 'created' by the US as it developed out of regional conflicts, but US intervention certianly would have played a role.
I think there is very little the US can do as you simply cannot force a nation, or a region, to be 'free' or to adopt more western values, as these things take time to develop spontaneously as they have done in many regions around the world. The disaster of the Iraq invasion was based on a radical over-estimation of the US's ability to change a nation by invading it and imposing democratic values by force. I find it difficult to believe that ISIS could have developed without the US making such a catastrophic error of judgement as to invade Iraq. After 9/11 the Taliban, eqivilent to local warlords in afghanistan, offered to hand Bin Laden over to the US as they didn't want him and were not involved in 9/11. After the US invaded, it became a question of the taliban defending there own communities and so Retrospectively, this could well have saved the US from invading afghanistan if this offer was serious. A more cautious foreign policy response to 9/11 may well have saved the US from becoming involved in two wars, and not screwed up relations with Muslims. But even Al Gore would have invaded Iraq.
Under Obama, thing have been 'quieter', but rather than large scale invasions, we've had widespread use of Drone strikes. This is 'better' from the US view as it does not entail having people on the ground as the drone can be remotely controlled, but for the people on the ground- it underlines the pervasiveness of US power in a way that kind of reduces people to chicken little; "the sky is falling and trying to kill us"
The ultimate goal of radical Islam is the establishment of Islamic and a Caliphate, and that involves drastically redrawing the map of the Middle East; the US basically has to pick sides and goes with the status quo, often with a view that it is "better the devil you know". The radicalism of US foreign policy, whether it is neo-conservative spreading freedom and democracy or a humanitarian intervention in terms of human rights, has different justifications but ultimately with the same result.
The US could cut back it's involvement in the Middle East- but we are trying to chose between the lesser of two evils here. No outcome- unless the US flipped and decided it's goal was the full democraticisation of the middle east which is a) political sucicide and b) known as "world war III"- would fit with American values. it sounds like a "war is peace" paradox in that the US cannot uninvent radical Islam and have a peace of it's own design, but at the same time can't go to war with it without the risk of strengthening it as may well have happened with ISIS.
[Full Text of Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America"]
The US has a long history of supporting dictatorships which serve their interests for strategic purposes, and there is suggestion that the CIA had links with Al-qaeda in the Soviet War in Afghanistan. The covert nature of these relationships means of course that hard evidence is difficult to come by. It would be wrong to say that radical islam was 'created' by the US as it developed out of regional conflicts, but US intervention certianly would have played a role.
I think there is very little the US can do as you simply cannot force a nation, or a region, to be 'free' or to adopt more western values, as these things take time to develop spontaneously as they have done in many regions around the world. The disaster of the Iraq invasion was based on a radical over-estimation of the US's ability to change a nation by invading it and imposing democratic values by force. I find it difficult to believe that ISIS could have developed without the US making such a catastrophic error of judgement as to invade Iraq. After 9/11 the Taliban, eqivilent to local warlords in afghanistan, offered to hand Bin Laden over to the US as they didn't want him and were not involved in 9/11. After the US invaded, it became a question of the taliban defending there own communities and so Retrospectively, this could well have saved the US from invading afghanistan if this offer was serious. A more cautious foreign policy response to 9/11 may well have saved the US from becoming involved in two wars, and not screwed up relations with Muslims. But even Al Gore would have invaded Iraq.
Under Obama, thing have been 'quieter', but rather than large scale invasions, we've had widespread use of Drone strikes. This is 'better' from the US view as it does not entail having people on the ground as the drone can be remotely controlled, but for the people on the ground- it underlines the pervasiveness of US power in a way that kind of reduces people to chicken little; "the sky is falling and trying to kill us"
The ultimate goal of radical Islam is the establishment of Islamic and a Caliphate, and that involves drastically redrawing the map of the Middle East; the US basically has to pick sides and goes with the status quo, often with a view that it is "better the devil you know". The radicalism of US foreign policy, whether it is neo-conservative spreading freedom and democracy or a humanitarian intervention in terms of human rights, has different justifications but ultimately with the same result.
The US could cut back it's involvement in the Middle East- but we are trying to chose between the lesser of two evils here. No outcome- unless the US flipped and decided it's goal was the full democraticisation of the middle east which is a) political sucicide and b) known as "world war III"- would fit with American values. it sounds like a "war is peace" paradox in that the US cannot uninvent radical Islam and have a peace of it's own design, but at the same time can't go to war with it without the risk of strengthening it as may well have happened with ISIS.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
It would be highly superficial to claim US foreign policy mistakes are the cause of radical Islam, as there have been countless attacks on non-American interests throughout the world. Rather, it is more likely the result of the immense infusion of capital into the Middle East that has given the inhabitants the ability to finance operations. The pretext of those operations is paper thin, as the Religion of Perpetual Outrage seems to take offense at virtually anything that is not Islamic these days.
I remember well the moral outrage many of us felt when Russians invaded Afghanistan so many years ago. The poor people had to be helped against this belligerent super-power. What we did not understand is that the enemy of our enemy was not our friend. I remember well the vacillation of the Clinton Administration and the inane contributions of Madelaine Albrit to the Bosnia fiasco. Finally, they got off their butts to help the Bosnian Muslims and vigorously attacked the relentless Serbian armies all the while letting the Croats literally get away with murder.
Part of the problem for America was also the stinging defeat of the Viet Nam war and the irreparable harm it caused the American psyche. America was no longer the invincible super-power on the planet but for a very long time her military might gave her enemies pause for reflection. Those days are now over. Desert Storm was clearly against Sadam Hussein, not the Iraqi people and was for his atrocities against the Kuwati's and the world. Very, very few Muslims let out howls of protest at America's actions in Desert Storm. So, again, American went to aid Muslims under sedge and in a decisive way. Meanwhile billions of oil dollar continued to flood into the region.
In short, I think the main cause of the radicalization is the immense wealth we have bestowed on people with an ideology that is radically different from our own and who see themselves as being the god-ordained rulers/regents of this world.
In the long run, realistically, in regards to the OP, it's a wash. Neither encourages nor discourages. These groups simply now have the funding to do whatever they please, wherever they please.
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I'm not sure how it could be seen that the US Foreign Policy encourages radical Islam. It seems that their aim is to make life for anyone associated with any terrorist as miserable as possible. That is a great thing.
While I, of course, do not agree with everything that is being done, even teenagers who get lured into ISIS via social media are being brought up on charges. That is exactly what needs to happen. People need to realize that even communicating with terrorists will land your a$$ in prison and ruin your life.