To add on to what Cliff is saying:
I am not entirely certain how we can take any kind of blame for these attacks. Yes, Western actions in the Middle East have been ham-fisted, clumsy, short-sighted, and all around abject failures. The fact that the first response of a clear majority has always been to try to be understanding, to try to account for the imbalance that exists within the two worlds, and to try to reconcile those perspectives at home - where we have control - has to weaken jammie's argument even further.
Military strikes - especially of the drone variety - tend to exacerbate delicate situations ever further, and in cases like Iraq, and Libya have actually lead to near-complete collapse. This in turn has allowed hydra-like movements, such as ISIS, to gain power and momentum in pursuit of their goals. Power abhors a vacuum, and yes, Western clumsiness allowed the radicals to rise, but that doesn't change the fact that their motives have existed for decades, have only gained credibility through a series of Pyrrhic victories against their opponents, and at some point, must be given credible resistance.
To ask an oft-repeated question, how do you engage in rational dialogue with an opponent who believes the killing of innocent civilians to be the most legitimate means of conducting a political and military campaign? Even our most vicious responses - drone bombings, increasing barriers to immigration, and deportations - pale in comparison to this chilling motive.
|