Analysis: Why they did it

By CLAUDE SALHANI UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 (UPI) -- In the two weeks since the horrific Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the main question on many people's lips has been, why?

Why would anyone commit such indescribable acts of terror? Why would anyone harbor such unimaginable hate against the United States? Why would "they" want to kill in such a way?

Space considerations prevent me from going into too deep an answer on this topic which has been the subject of extended research by this writer for several years, particularly in the last five, mostly for the purpose of a fact-based novel, which was rejected by a literary agent only last week as "being too close to reality."

The short, and greatly over-simplified answer, if one can be found, is that America would not listen to alarm bells that have been ringing now for many years. The crisis in Pakistan, for example, did not crop up overnight.

"The whole story of the United States supporting dictators like (Pakistan's) Zia ul Haq is at the origin of the whole mess in which we are now. It's the contradiction of U.S. foreign policy," George Irani, professor of Conflict Resolution at Royal Roads University in Victoria, British Columbia, told United Press International.

What Irani means is that the United States has continually supported the wrong people, then ignored, or abandoned much of the world. The lack of interest in world affairs is not exclusive to the U.S. government either, but is often reflected in the general attitude displayed by many Americans. As a Lebanese acquaintance put it recently, "a Turkish fireman who had a wall collapse on him did not have a bunch of superstars sing in his honor ... and Larry King does not interview his mother and fiancée."

In the days following the Sept. 11 attacks, two minor events made me ponder the question even more. During a teleconference between a group of some 40 journalists and a high-ranking member of the Reagan Administration, during which the current situation in Afghanistan was discussed, questions were asked regarding "American national interests." At no time was any reference made to Afghani, or Pakistani interests. The half-hour discussion centered mostly on what was good for the United States and what was expected of Pakistan.

The next day an explosion occurred at a chemical factory in the southwestern French city of Toulouse, the country's fourth-largest, killing 29 people, injuring hundreds and sending a large toxic cloud over the city. No mention of this incident was made on the various radio stations in the Washington area that I listened to on the drive to work, and this, several hours after the event. And neither was there any mention of it on CNN for most of the morning.

Only a day earlier, French President Jacques Chirac was at the White House voicing his support for President George W. Bush's war on terrorism. At the time the reports first filtered out, it was not yet known if the explosion was terrorist-related or an accident, as it turned out to be.

What is the relation between those events and the Sept. 11 attacks? None, really, but they emphasize all the more how much Americans need to develop a greater interest in the rest of the world. And by this, I mean real interest in developing, and improving the lives of those in the underdeveloped world, where hatred and attacks against Western values are hatched, planned and launched.

It is not enough to want to sell them Coca Colas, Nike shoes and Microsoft's latest version of Windows 2000. Unless the rest of the world develops along with Western Europe, Japan and the United States, an imbalance of justice will continue to breed radical fundamentalism that sees the U.S. as looking exclusively after its own interests, while supporting corrupt regimes.

"This goes back to the perception that the United States has no friends, but only interests," said Irani, the professor in British Columbia.

Part of the problem here is that unlike Japan, which is at ease with its identity and stable in its relationship with the West, the Arabs and Muslims on the other hand see Western influence as obtrusive on their culture.

"Islam and the Arabs need to make up their minds about the West," said Irani. "Islam and the Arabs have forever been between the push of the Mediterranean and the pull of the desert. They see globalization as a threat."

Shortly following the Sept. 11 attacks, I wrote that any retaliation or war by the United States against Afghanistan, or other states, should be followed up with a "Marshall" type plan. What made our enemies of yester-war our allies in today's conflict is the fact that they were helped in their quest toward democracy and economic independence.

"If nothing is done to democratize Islamic and Arab countries we will have a catastrophe," said Irani.

Secondly, the United States should engage as an unbiased broker in the Middle East conflict in order to eradicate a main rallying cry of the Islamists, which is the Palestinian issue. Any conflict in central Asia or the Middle East that fails to address those issues -- Palestine, democratization, and the economy -- will simply be revenge for the Sept. 11 attacks, and will not offer a lasting solution to the existing problems.

A large part of the problem is economic. One of the reasons men are willing to sacrifice themselves is because they are securing their families' future through religious suicide. Islam, in this case is an excuse.

"A young man of 19 who has just entered university in the Arab world in the past might have been attracted by an organization with Marxist tendencies ... or he might have joined a nationalist group.... But now Marxism lost its attraction and Arab nationalism, annexed by regimes that are authoritarian, incompetent and corrupt, has lost much of its credibility," writes Amin Maalouf, a Lebanese writer and journalist, in his book "In the name of Identity: Violence and the need to Belong."

"The recruitment of fundamentalists has moved from the poor to the middle class," explained Irani. "They (the movements) promise to take care of the martyr's family after his death. The same happened with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. The Islamic movements provide an infrastructure that the governments do not, such as schools, hospitals, and funds for the family, etc. "Most of these folks who joined (the Islamist movements) had no prospects for a better life," said Irani.

In many cases, America supports what they are fighting against. They see America as the main recipient of their hatred.

"They hate us by proxy," said one U.S. diplomat speaking on background. "The reason they hate us is that they see us as supporting their corrupt regimes."

In many Arab and Islamic countries, for example, criticism of the government in the local media is forbidden, often punishable by imprisonment or even death. However, lashing out against the U.S. is permissible as governments regard it as a safety valve, where "excess steam is released."

"This was the case in Kuwait before the Iraqi invasion," said a diplomat familiar with the region.

Islamist movements, such as Islamic Jihad, Hamas and others, blame the U.S. for supporting and arming Israel. When Israel's American-made warplanes, helicopters and guns attack and kill Palestinians, many see it as an extension of the United States. They hate Israel, but they hate the U.S. even more. They believe pressure from the United States could have prevented what they regard as injustice. Iran's Islamic revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini called Israel the "little Satan," but reserved the ultimate title of "Shaytan Bazorg" - great Satan - for America. In his view, it was America that was behind the evil of Israel. It was America that supported the Shah and his secret police, the SAVAK. So it was against America that the Ayatollah lashed out by storming the U.S. Embassy and holding its diplomats hostage for 444 days.

Likewise, the Islamists - or politicized Muslims -- in other parts of the world see the U.S. as looking exclusively after its own interests, with no regard for the rest of the world. Many people in the Middle East are incensed when little or no interest is shown when thousands die in other parts of the world.

A lot of references have been made, some justified, others simply absurd, at the lack of interest shown by the United States towards the plight of Iraqi civilians during the Gulf War or the way the Shiites in the south were abandoned by the U.S. when Desert Storm stopped short of over-throwing Saddam. Or the massacres of Sabra and Chatila, the continued Israeli settlements on Palestinian soil, and the wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and Chechnya, where thousands of Muslims were killed.

Bin Laden, for example, was infuriated at the continued U.S. support of the Saudi royal family, whom he accuses of immeasurable corruptness. This was partially the root of his dispute with the United States. He was further angered when U.S. troops were dispatched to Saudi Arabia, land of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina -- in 1991 to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, a move he considered an affront to Islam.

While the above might not present an entire picture as to the "why," of the Sept. 11 attacks, it nonetheless offers a tiny glimpse into the complicated issues that America needs to comprehend before it launches itself into a new imbroglio in central Asia. In simple terms, globalization represents much more than peddling American-made goods overseas. It's being part of a world community.

Failing to comprehend that would simply add to the increasing hatred against the United States that is already brewing in much of the developing world.

President Bush said in his speech to the nation last week that the fight against terrorism will have multiple aspects. Eradicating the root of the hatred should be one of his primary concerns.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2001

Answers

while the US is looking after its own interests, the regimes it is dealing with is looking after its own interests as well. If the general public of that regime doesn't like what the US is doing, they have to look toward their own government first.

Don't blame us if you have a self-serving dictator in control of your army and weaponry. US interests demand that we do what we can to neutralize that threat to us.

Frankly, quit blaming us for your countries problems. It's your government much more than ours that is at fault.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2001