Earlier this month, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a 24-year-old US citizen of Middle Eastern descent, opened fire at two military sites in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing five. This act of local horror was also one of national significance, for it vindicated the late US diplomat and strategist George Kennan’s warning that US foreign policymakers should hold in check their urge to act, especially militarily. One can never know when the blowback will come, Kennan said, but it will.
Indeed, unforeseeable consequences were precisely what concerned Kennan when the US charged into Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq two years later. After all, it was no coincidence that many of those the US was fighting in Afghanistan, including former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, had been associated with the mujahidin, the guerrilla-style units of Muslim warriors whom US forces trained as insurgents during the 1979-1989 Soviet occupation. Likewise, the US had armed former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to go to war with Iran in the 1980s.
Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans asked: “Why do they hate us?” Yet, though the US has experienced no attack on its soil since then, then-US president George W. Bush’s administration pursued, virtually unchecked, the destruction of two Muslim countries — and the devastation has continued beyond Bush’s tenure with an ever-intensifying campaign of drone strikes.
These policies have helped push Afghanistan to the precipice of state failure, while opening the way for the Islamic State to take over more than one-third of Iraq’s territory. The resulting discontent in those countries and across the Muslim world has increasingly been felt in Europe — and now is emerging in the US, too.
To be sure, US criminal investigators have not officially identified the motives of the Kuwaiti-born Abdulazeez, who does not seem to have belonged to a terror network. However, there is plenty of precedent for an alienated and disenchanted young man, brought up in the West (Abdulazeez attended high school and college in Chattanooga), to seek a cause worth fighting for — and to find it in the perceived humiliation of Islam by the US and the West.
Of course, as soon as the word “Islam” appears, Western media start painting such “lone wolves” as agents of some vast Islamic conspiracy, rather than deeply wounded and desperate individuals. Such an interpretation makes the act easier to understand: a cog in a terrorist network would be compelled, even brainwashed, to mount such an attack. However, when the attacker is a solitary individual — a US citizen, no less — it raises serious questions about the system from which he or she (though almost always a he in these cases) emerged.
According to some press accounts, Abdulazeez felt a sense of failure at his inability to meet the US’ standard of success, of which money is the primary measure. Though he did not appear deeply religious, he allegedly praised the late Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born al-Qaeda cleric and an advocate of attacks on “hypocritical” America, as a model of triumph over failure.
Another question about the US system stems from the refusal of Abdulazeez’s health insurer to approve his participation in an in-patient drug and alcohol program. This is far from the first time the US has experienced a mass murder by someone whose mental-health issues, including addiction, had been overlooked. Does this reflect a systemic failure? More fundamentally, does it controvert the US’ principles?
Rather than considering such questions, the US remains focused on the external scourge of Islamic terrorism. Kennan recognized this tendency decades ago, when he warned that shortsighted policies at home and abroad had already put the US in a vulnerable position. Instead of basking in its own superiority, the US should learn from the mistakes of its enemies, including Russia, he said.
In the 2000s, Kennan compared the Bush administration’s “global war on terror” to Russia’s wars against Chechen separatists in the north Caucasus. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Russia’s firt president, Boris Yeltsin, promised its subjects “as much sovereignty as they can swallow.” The Chechens, who had sought independence from Russia for centuries, took this promise as an opportunity for self-determination. However, Yeltsin, unwilling to lose any more territories after the Soviet Union’s initial breakup, reneged on his pledge.
In 1993, the first Chechen war erupted. Russia managed to defeat the separatists and maintain control over Chechnya, but it was a Pyrrhic victory, given that it drove many disillusioned and angry Chechens toward religious fundamentalism.
As a result, when the second Chechen war began in 1999, the fight was no longer just about Chechen independence from Russia; it was a fight for Islam, waged against Christians everywhere. Russia, under Yeltsin’s successor, Vladimir Putin, defeated the separatists again, restoring federal control over the territory. Fifteen years later, Chechen extremists are fighting alongside the Islamic State.
One might object to comparing the US’ desire to export democracy at the barrel of a gun to Russia’s imperial death spasms under Yeltsin and Putin. However, whether we like it or not, there is a strong parallel between them: Both countries are perceived to be dictating to Muslims.
It was Kennan who first drew my attention to this similarity, when in a private conversation about 9/11, he noted that, for many Muslims, Russia and the West were becoming indistinguishable. Both were viewed as secular states antagonistic to Islam.
Kennan warned that, just as the first Chechen war bred national and individual resentment, the US’ wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would only fuel more hatred and frustration — which would eventually blow back onto the US.
“The failure to fit the system makes people attack that system, so it is never wise to bomb nations to freedom,” he said.
Nina Khrushcheva is a dean at The New School in New York and a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, where she directs the Russia Project.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under