American Ambiguities

[monk222]

♠
Bernard Lewis revisits his argument in The Wall Street Journal about how the Islamists have come to see weakness in the American position, and warning that they may be right.

During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"

A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals--notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.

Considering the timing, one can get the impression that Mr. Lewis is questioning our resolve in Iraq, though certainly Dubya's inadequacies as a leader is more of the issue, which admittedly complicates matters when it comes to Islamist perspective.


(Source: Bernard Lewis for The Wall Street Journal)

xXx