Email List
Most Popular This Week
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Hundreds of Chicago Students Walk Out of Standardized Test
- The Same Motive for Anti-US 'Terrorism' Is Cited Over and Over
- What Does It Mean To Be An “American” Corporation?
Popular content
Today's Top News
American Goodwill, In Shackles
Winning the war on terrorism depends on winning the war of ideas, perhaps even more so than during the Cold War. General David Petraeus, currently the top commander in Iraq, once said that the war of ideas may be as much as 80 percent of the effort against extremists. Unfortunately, by most metrics, the United States is losing this war, in Iraq and beyond. In a few short years, the United States has gone from being seen as the Cold War beacon on the hill of freedom, Coca-Cola and blue jeans to the dark home of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and orange jumpsuits. Part and parcel of this failure has been a rising xenophobia and prejudice at home, undermining our efforts abroad.
This war of ideas has been raised by almost all of the 2008 presidential campaigns. They have rightly discussed revitalizing our public diplomacy and making changes in foreign and security policies to restore American values. There even appears to be growing momentum inside the Bush administration to close down Guantanamo, though the debate is focused on legal issues in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling last year, rather than on the prison's undeniable corrosion of American prestige.
But there is a critical aspect of this debate that no current presidential contender has faced. While leaders like Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and even Nixon saw that we would never defeat the Soviet bloc in the Cold War battle of ideologies until we openly wrestled our deep problems with racism and civil rights at home, no candidate yet has wrestled with that period's 21st-century parallel. Just as it was hard to win hearts and minds in the Cold War battlegrounds of Africa and Asia as long as Jim Crow stood strong, it'll be impossible to win hearts and minds in the Muslim world as long as a vapid prejudice against Islam continues to grow in our political discourse and on our airwaves.
The deep and rapid deterioration of America's standing in the world is one of the greatest challenges the United States now faces. It took us most of the 20th century to build up a global reputation that melded both power and popularity, and yet we are squandering it away in the first years of the 21st century. The erosion of American credibility and standing in the world is not just some lost popularity contest. It alienates our allies and reinforces the recruiting efforts of our foes, and denies American ideas and policies a fair shake.
Shortly after 9/11, President Bush took the compelling step of visiting the Islamic Center of Washington, the capital's leading mosque, to show Americans and the world that the administration understood that the world's roughly 1.4 billion members of the Muslim faith were not to blame for the attacks carried out by a small set of murderers like bin Laden. This week, he goes back to the center for its rededication ceremony.
Unfortunately, in the time between, the clarity of his message has been lost amid a politics of fear -- a new sort of xenophobia, targeting the entire religion of Islam, as opposed to extremists within it, has become the norm. For example, a series of broad anti-Muslim statements have since been made by various U.S. officials and their close supporters, calling the religion of Islam "violent" and "evil." Rather than being refuted and condemned by senior officials, they were politely ignored. Illustrating the lack of costs that come with such expressions is the story of Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, who in a 2003 speech compared his faith with a Muslim's by stating, "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." Boykin has since been promoted; today he is deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.
This quietly growing prejudice is not a right-left issue. Indeed, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations for the conservative Heritage Foundation, has warned of the dangers of "a real backlash against Islam" in the United States, noting that congressional leaders are exacerbating the problem by using language that links all Muslims with extremists.
Such discourse isn't only becoming acceptable in the political world, but is also being stoked in the mainstream of our media as well. For example, in 2005, Simon & Schuster published a book called "Sands of Empire," by former Wall Street Journal correspondent Robert W. Merry. It was reviewed by all the major media. In it, Merry straightforwardly argued that "the enemy is Islam." Imagine if he had declared that "the enemy is Judaism" or "the enemy is the Blacks." Would it even have gotten published by a mainstream press, let alone promoted? Moreover, was he saying anything different than what you would hear on just five minutes of talk radio?
Today, a new prejudice undermines our national security, just as Jim Crow and images of police setting dogs upon civil rights protestors undermined our message of freedom some 40 years ago. At the heart of any discussion of the 21st-century war of ideas must be what former U.S. diplomat William Fisher recently warned of as an "uninformed and unreasoning Islamophobia that is rapidly become implanted in our national genetics." Indeed, a Gallup poll in 2006 found that only 49 percent of Americans believed U.S. Muslims are loyal to the United States and 44 percent believed that the entire religion of Islam itself is inherently extreme. Interestingly, six months after 9/11, the numbers were much lower -- meaning that people had less prejudice back then, even while the pain was raw, than they do today. Likewise, in the 2006 poll, 39 percent advocated that all Muslims in the United States be required to carry a special ID.
We need to remember that we live in an increasingly media-connected world, and demonstrations of prejudice at home resonate globally. Last year, the Brookings Institution (where I am a senior fellow), the Pew Forum and American University sponsored a student research team that went to nine countries and surveyed Muslim youth attitudes, drawing from more than 2,000 interviews. Whether it was in Turkey or Indonesia, the study found a consensus about how youth in the Muslim world -- our key target audience in this war of ideas -- think America regards them and their faith.
As one student researcher described of the interview results, "They think Americans just don't care and think all Muslims are evil or terrorists. They say, 'We get your media and see how you view Islam.'" Added another, "Wherever the group traveled, Fox News was on, and you'd see Ann Coulter calling people 'ragheads' over and over, or Glenn Beck on CNN."
Beck is the same cable news "personality" who in a television interview asked Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in Congress, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." Ellison equally was welcomed to the House of Representatives by Rep. Virgil Goode, a Republican from Virginia, who warned his constituents that Ellison's decision to use the Quran for his swearing-in was a threat to "the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America."
Ellison illustrated the flaw in that sort of thinking by swearing his oath of office on a copy of the Quran that was originally owned by Thomas Jefferson. But the damage was done. While the attack on his patriotism echoed the same sort of questions about personal faith that plagued leaders like JFK and now Mitt Romney, it extends beyond mere electoral politics. What should have been a story to the Muslim world about the greatness and inclusiveness of American democracy instead became an illustration of how prejudice against Islam has become allowable in American discourse.
The saddest irony in all of this is that this trend is turning what should be our greatest strength into a weakness. The success of the Muslim and Arab-American communities is a remarkable demonstration of the opportunities afforded by the United States of America. The average income and education levels among Muslim and Arab Americans are higher than the national rates, a fact we should be announcing with fanfare in our public diplomacy -- that is, if we had any. This is definitive proof that the United States is not anti-Islam, something that violent extremists like bin Laden often accuse us of being in their propaganda.
America provides a model of what citizenship and integration are all about, presenting an example that shines brightly compared with the autocratic regimes of the greater Middle East. The same is true with regard to the substandard treatment that many Muslims and Arabs face in Europe, which may be the future hub of homegrown terrorism. That America has a history of being the beacon on the hill is not merely something we should be proud of; its use is a strategic imperative. Yet we seem to be on a path to repeating the worst of our periods of prejudice of the 1960s, or even the 1940s.
We all know that hatemongering is un-American. But even more worrisome, it undermines our national security, endangering our ability to win the crucial war of ideas. Those wishing to become the next president must be asked how they will reverse this perilous trend.
© 2007 Salon.com
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
10 Comments so far
Show AllThe article reminds me of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Because the US wanted to ensure it won the Cold War, it invested heavily in higher education. The downside was that all the well-educated young people recognized all the hypocrisy and dishonesty in the US government and protested and publicized it.
So, in the aftermath of the student protests and the rise of public concern about corruption and dishonesty in government, particularly after the Cold War was won, the US defunded higher education and allowed other educational systems to decline, taking into account that high tech and other important companies can import highly skilled workers or move operations overseas. But the downside is that the US is becoming a nation of ignorant, vulgar yahoos, and it becomes all the more difficult to convince the world that the US deserves to be the imperial overlord of the planet.
Dishonesty and fraud never work out in the long term -- too many uncontrollable variables and unforeseeable events.
When you advocate "clogging their servers" and call them fascists - EVEN IF TRUE - you allow them to dismiss you as a quack, and your writings as mere insane rantings. Don't give them that weapon. The deck is already stacked in their favor.
"we all know that hate-mongering is un-american..."
no, it's as american as apple pie: sex-crazed black bucks, the yellow peril, the red menace, brown mexican hordes---there's your rainbow coalition, enemies all, to be hated and feared; "just give me your (ears, votes, money, whatever) and i promise to keep you safe (if a little less free)."
shame on us for falling for it over and over again.
Everything is "extreme" from some other point; the term is nonsensical. As is the word "terrorism" and any goal of stopping it with more killing.
I believe the article misses the real points and avoids mentioning a few well-known facts:
America is a warring nation and its economy is mostly based on wars and selling arms. For what other reason would a country have 700-1000 military bases around the world if it's not for controlling the resources of other countries, forcefully if needed? Those countries could never pose a military threat to the U.S. in a thousand years. Such being the case, America needs wars, and thus has to dream up of a suitable enemy to keep its military-industrial business running. At one time, it was communism, now it's war on terror.
The concoction of the so-called war on terror and its companion of pre-emptive strike provide the best opportunity for the U.S. to engage in non-ending military adventures around the world, for decades, as they have confessed.
Why Muslims? Because recent history shows that the U.S. has been mostly meddling in the affairs of Muslim countries and because they possess valuable natural resources. Despite what the article claims, actually Muslims don't give a damn what anybody, including the U.S., thinks about their religion, and the Muslim bashing in the U.S. is part and parcel of its war propaganda to demonize before attacking them. The U.S., as the article pretends, is not in the popularity contest to win hearts and minds. It needs resources and wars and makes bold military statements to get it. Its PR to pretend otherwise has no buyers in the world.
Actually, one has to confess that Bush has done something to ease up winning heart and minds, because for the 600,000 or so who have been killed in Iraq his job has become that much easier. He doesn't have to try winning their hearts and minds.
As far as Muslims are concerned, the equation is easy: You meddle in our country and kill us, we will kill you. Being as poor as they are, they use box cutters. Who knows, if the U.S. continues its misadventures for controlling those countries, the next time they may come up with more horrifying tools to stop the U.S.
At least four Republican Bush voters I know are fed up with him. Maybe it won't take a nuclear war to wake them up after all.
Good will . Where is the question of it ever being in shackles ? When it was never there in the first place.
Make no mistake - if we people of colour ever smiled, bowed or scraped to the Westerner -it was to wheedle a crumb or two from them as they lounged around the High Table.
In the dim and hoary past, Burdick and Lederer penned a brilliantly incisive book called 'The Ugly American '. The fact of the matter is ,if the American was 'Ugly' then , his successors ( Westerners in general) have become the very embodiment of all that is truly vile and loathsome - so very vile and loathsome that even the Devil himself might well be aghast at what he has wrought.
At least ,in those days ,America's Ugliness was tempered ,in some small measure ,by the work of some truly great and selfless Americans . Like the late Dr. Thomas A. Dooley, who ,despite being terminally ill with Lukaemia ,continued to the very last , ministering to the sick in the villages of Laos . In contrast today ,the best the West can come up with are G.I.s and Tommy Atkins handing out Mars Bars to war-ravaged kids just before shooting their parents and raping their womenfolk . Hardly the recipe to win hearts and minds .
To many of us 'non -Westerners' the word 'Westerner' goes far beyond being just 'interesting'. Among its less- than- positive connotations being : 'inherently superior', 'supercilious and sneering', 'patronizing' , 'heartless' ,'concerned only with oneself' - all the way to 'depraved' and 'spiritually arid'.
It would merely be restating the obvious - that these perceptions stem from the fact that ,sadly ,it is still a world where the White Westerner 'bestrides like a colossus' -often riding rough-shod over the rest of 'us'.
I have never thought of the United States as having "goodwill." Christianity is supposedly their most popular religion, yet they do the exact oppostite of what is expected of them as Christians. Especially the Christian Americans that live in the central and southeastern sections of their country where most believe, and even profess inside their own churches, that their genocide of the Iraqi people are a moral good. Even MY English is better than theirs yet demand that people speak it there. I suggest that they speak it correctly themselves, especially their President, before criticizing people from other countries who do not deserve it. By the way Americans, you should learn Arabic also since you want to take over the natural resources in Iraq. This may help in your cause for victory on the "Global War on Muslims" Oh excuse me I mean the "Global War on Terror" whatever that means.
Evidetly Islam is not familiar with too many Americans otherwise such ignorance would not be demonstrated in their discourse. A Muslim politician? So what? Why is this a big deal? I thought there was freedom of Religion in the United States. He can be a Muslim if he wants.
What do most Americans know about Islam - absolutely nothing! What do most Amercians know about Christianity - only a tiny bit and even then not enough to profess its superiority to Islam in my humble opinion. Americans have much nerve to put down Islam, especially in a "freedom of Religion" country. Frankly, this is not their place to do such since, again, most Americans know absolutely nothing about Islam.
Keep up the good work with the pro Judeo-Christian and anti Muslim bent you convey to the world Americans. Keep stating to the world that Israelis and Jewish people are superior human beings compared with the Palestinians. Many sections of Europe put down Muslims also even though they live all over the world. This arrogant attitude will only anger most of the world and reinforce the already negative opinion of the USA.
A big part of America's racist attitudes towards Muslims is rooted in our government's uncritical support of Israel and the racist propaganda Israel spreads against Arabs and Muslims. Last summer, even as Israel pre-emptively attacked Lebanon and its civilian infrastructure, the US Congress refused to call for a cease fire and instead passed a resolution supporting Israel's "right to defend itself." The subtext of this corrupt pro-Israel stance is that "all Muslims are terrorists." This attitude is not limited to the right wing--even liberal and left-wing radio hosts and journalists (Al Franken and Stephanie Miller come to mind) have displayed this mindless prejudice.
Calling all "Westerners" evil or "the Devil" is just as bad as calling any other group these dehumanizing terms. I thought that this was supposed to be a site that promoted peace.
As far as the term "genocide" goes, it is a term that has been used so much, in the wrong way, that it has lost it's meaning.
It is supposed to mean " the deliberate,systematic, physical extermination of a racial, ethnic, religious, or national group" Examples of real genocide would be 1. Mongol extermination of Chinese peasants 2. American and Mexican extermination of the California Indian Tribes. 3. Turkish extermination of the Armenians 4. British extermination of the Tasmanian aborigines 5. Spanish extermination of the arawaks 6.Nazi extermination of the Jews and Roma. 7.Maori extermination of the Chatham Islanders. 8. Hutu extermination of the Tutsi. 9. Communist Cambodian extermination of the educated classes.
There are undoubtably others, but all share something in common; the determination to hunt down and kill every member of the targeted group. War and suppresion, as bad as they are, do not fit the definition of genocide.