Editor’s note: This is in response to the letter “Foreign policies based on hope leave U.S. weak,” published in the Sept. 17 issue of the Daily Lobo. In the letter, reader Allen E. Weh called for a more realistic approach than operating on hope in this country, citing our foreign policy response to the recent murders of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya.
Recently, a reader referred to our current foreign policy as unrealistic, “passive” and “operating on hope.” Although the Islamists are an undeniably violent force in the Middle East, a continuation of the war on Islam as practiced by the last administration certainly is no substitute for a rational, calm policy that seeks to bring balance to Mideast relations.
Although the incident in Libya is regrettable and terrible, what other course of action can be taken against a new government that clearly does not control all of its factions? Just who does the reader intend to punish, and how? Shall we send in a drone or two to randomly kill 30 or so Muslims in the name of stopping Islamism? The reader confuses Islamism with Muslims arrogantly and without cause. If someone condemned all Americans for being anti-Islam just because a few radical-right Americans made and showed an anti-Islam movie, would they be correct in assuming all Americans were bigoted and simpleminded? Most certainly not.
It is always a problem to distinguish the proper course of action in the case of new coalition governments, some factions of which carry out anti-American acts, and some of which wish to work with us. If we were to make the simple rule that any anti-American act by any people in any country be considered an act of war, as the reader suggests, we would be at war with most of the countries in the Middle East. But we are not, because we recognize the importance of separating national policies from the individual acts of a country’s citizens.
Moreover, there is an implicit double standard here that must be recognized. Every day, our drones fly over Pakistani and Afghan territory raining death on those we consider to be our enemies, regardless of national boundaries. We have invaded Afghanistan in the name of rendering it “terrorist-free.” Are we then the enemy of all Muslims, of Pakistan? Of precisely whom are we the enemies?
We landed a military force 30 miles from Islamabad without the permission of the Pakistani government, killed people and captured others. We dumped a Muslim leader’s body in the ocean. Is this not an act of war, and does it not invite retribution?
I do not say that the act wasn’t justified in light of the terrorist acts committed against us, but it certainly raises the question of who is making war on whom, and its very mutual aspect.
Are U.S. actions always justified because we make them, while other people’s actions are always unjustified because they go against current U.S. policy? It is this kind of simplistic arrogance that has led to the hatred of the U.S. in Islamist eyes, and at least mistrust among less radicalized Muslims.
Nor did the reader address the terrible fact that the work of an American fundamentalist Christian extremist designed to raise the ire of the Muslim population was the proximate cause of this riot.
The burnings of the Quran by other extremist Christian fundamentalists were the proximate causes of other riots. Were these acts hate speech, or were they legitimately raising concerns? Wait. How does the burning of a religion’s holy book reflect any First Amendment related concern? Since when is there a right to religious intolerance, as long as Christians do it? Do we have a right to burn books — an expression of a person’s First Amendment rights to speech — as a First Amendment right?
Clearly, there are hateful extremists on both sides, and as long as hatred continues to be expressed on both sides by private and public policy, and people are killed on both sides in instant forms of retribution, the war will continue and people will die.
It may be accurate to call our current foreign policy muddled, but in a muddy and unclear world, where clarity is a function of willing blindness and a series of prejudicial filters, at times a changing foreign policy for changing circumstances is required, one that shows forbearance in the face of a confused and weak government. Such a policy removes the further giving of cause for hatred against us and allows for a nuanced response that may have elements of a much stronger private remonstrance, thus saving face for the governmental officials involved, allowing them to act in a nonhateful way toward us.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
This kind of policy is commonly referred to as statesmanship, as opposed to brinksmanship, the policy of our previous administration. That policy failed miserably. It is time to try something older, more tested and different. It can’t be any worse than simply expressing our hatred at every opportunity.
