Johann Hari : "Flawed" US Policy Creates Terrorists

Interesting article by Johann Hari in the Irish Times.

Hari is very much of the "Western policy creates jihadism" school of "thought" and isn't shy about saying so.

"The West reacted to 9/11 by giving Bin Laden precisely what he wanted. We tossed aside our best values. And each time we did it, the number of jihadis grew."

When your enemy wants to be martyred for his vile cause, it is only a pleasure to give him precisely what he wants. But nevermind.

He is circumspect about Bin Laden's death:

The operation wasn't perfect: I would much rather Bin Laden had been taken alive and put on trial. But it was a precise raid. It took real risks to minimise civilian deaths. Most people in the world can support an action such as this.

Which is an acceptable enough opinion - leaving aside the pious, left-wing platitude in bold.

Hari readily accepts the words of Bin Laden's son, who parrots the favourite (and false) left wing opinion that,

"my father was so happy. This is the kind of president he needs, one who will attack and spend money and break [his own] country".

Which is outright nonsense. I remember George W. Bush's election campaign - his platform was one of the most non-interventionist in living memory. Wikipedia quotes him as saying:

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

And he would have done, were it not for 9/11. So, while Bin Laden "succeeded" in reversing this policy, it is Bush who is responsible for the ensuing aggression?

Who exactly was it who awakened the sleeping giant?

At this point I should add that I am in favour of the scalpel over the sledgehammer, but for pragmatic, not moral reasons. I would like each and every dictator on the planet trembling in his boots at the thought of a scud missile dropping on his head over breakfast, rather than having time to construct and elaborate system of human shields and underground bunkers.

Nonintervention with the explicit threat of quick and excruciatingly painful intervention would be a far more cost-effective strategy for the West, and strategic assassination is something everybody can get on board with.

So, Hari is partly right, even though he doesn't quite "get it":

"For the past decade, right-wingers have been chest-thumping about being tough on jihadism, while promoting policies that create far more jihadis."

No, Jo.
Jihadis create jihadis. These are people who commit murder over cartoons. Over events in countries they've never been to. They burn flags of countries they've never heard of. They are not experts on U.S. foreign policy.

"If you really hate jihadism," he continues (without adding whether or not he does) "then you need to search for the policies that actually undermine it."

Mines spring to mind. Then comes the money quote:

"The single most important thing we can do is to make a key structural change in our societies,"

Ahh. Yes, if only we weren't the way we are, the jihadists would leave us alone. After all, they've just defending themselves, right? So what is this key structural change?

"breaking our addiction to oil. Today, we need the petrol from the Middle East to keep the wheels of our civilisation turning and that sets up an inevitable conflict."

He is again partly right. But for the wrong reason. Yes our need for ME oil is bad, because it concentrates wealth in the sandier parts of the Islamic world, and let's the jihadist tail wag the Muslim dog.

Sorry, goat.

Why "inevitable conflict"? we relied on Japan for our cars and TVs for years with no conflict. Without recognising jihadism as the problem, Hari is doomed to see Western policy as the instigator of all Islamic ills. Indeed, he is left with the following conclusion:

"If we follow instead a path of precisely targeting the jihadis while being generous and open to the rest of the world, they will wither."

Is that a promise?