Stephen Sunes Examines The Heart Of Terrorism In His His New Book, Tinderbox

"Why do they hate us?" in the aftermath of 9/11 is a question most Americans ask with the presumption that "they" are misinformed - that "they" don't understand what America is really about. After reading Stephen Zunes's book on the subject, there are few that could not seriously question whether it very well might be the other way around. Perhaps it is the American public who is out of touch with the reality of what America has come to be.

In Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism, Zunes does a remarkable job of coherently filling in the gaps of what in most American cases is a very incomplete picture of U.S. actions in the Middle East in the years from the Cold War to the present day (more precisely late 2002).

That resulting picture is disturbing. It portrays the United States as consistently inflicting its will upon the region in a brutal game of realpolitik. In general, it has done whatever it took to back big players in the region who will cooperate with American petroleum interests and military ambitions and gotten rid of those who would not. It has intentionally destabilized the region so as to have a prolonged excuse for its meddling. Finally, it has consistently ignored the interests of countries that have little to offer in geopolitical power.

In this pursuit of control over the region, the United States has created conditions that are a remarkably perfect breeding ground for the creation of dangerous terrorists. Zunes goes into extensive detail on four basic ways the U.S. has done this.

The United States’ economic exploitation of the region has included everything from profit extraction by foreign oil companies, to toleration of rampant corruption, to economic sanctions. These actions understandably frustrate the people of the Middle East because they see foreigners getting rich with their resources while they, at the same time, are denied a respectable quality of life.

The militarization of the region is another dangerous trend carried out by forcing weapons into the region in the name of “aid,” supporting wars and revolutions, and arming dangerous sub-national groups for short-term goals. By militarizing the region, the U.S. is essentially arming volatile and angry people --teaching them that battle is the preferred modus operandi for getting their will heard.

The U.S. has also promoted brutally oppressive dictators, monarchies and military regimes. In doing so, it denied many people of the Middle East a free political voice. In places where a opposition group has managed to gain a political voice, the U.S. has often failed to negotiate with or even recognize them. Nothing can do more to provoke a terrorist response than closing the outlets for self-determination among a frustrated populace.
By doing all this, while publicly extolling the virtues of democracy, freedom, and peace (even at times, demanding that foreign governments submit to these maxims), America acts with blatant hypocrisy.

The United States also acts in very poor faith in regard to international organizations (such as the United Nations) and treaties, using them at times when they benefit us and completely ignoring them when they do not. If people in the region ever had respect for the principles of the United States as the leader of the “civilized” world, these actions would convince them that such notions were nothing more than propaganda.

Tinderbox shines in the way it picks out areas and foreign policy interests, and precisely explains how these themes are expressed. One example that shows the staggering extent of our folly is Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was a country that the U.S. had only one interest in -- its potential to offer trouble to the Soviet Union. In response, the U.S. armed and trained unstable Afghan fighting groups in terrorist tactics to use be used against the Soviets.

After the Soviets finally pulled out of Afghanistan, America stood by as the country deteriorated into a devastatingly poor wasteland ruled by one of the most repressive regimes in history.

When the area proved to be a safe-haven for anti-American terrorists, the U.S. launched a conventional war against the entire country in order to root out a small fraction of its people. In doing so, it allied itself with local warlord groups and Pakistan. In Pakistan’s case, the U.S. leadership made it clear that it considered its poor human rights record, military dictatorship, support of other terrorist organizations, and nuclear weapons as non-factors, as long as it cooperated with our military aims.

Seeming to have learned nothing from the experience, the United States has once again largely withdrawn from Afghanistan, leaving others to attempt to piece the nation back together. Following a policy that practically ensures that the region would once again become a hotbed for anti-American sentiment and military instability, the current U.S. administration has ignored pleas from the fledgling government in Kabul to discontinue arming and supporting regional warlords.

While it should be disturbing, analysis of this type is not necessarily groundbreaking. The real merit of Zunes’s book lies in the way it provides, in a readily accessible fashion, documentation of the actions taken and thorough explanation of the corresponding consequences.

Zunes does, however, make some arguments that are more thought-provoking. For instance, he defies conventional wisdom by arguing that American foreign policy seeks to weaken not only our rivals but our “allies” as well. To support this argument, he uses the example of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. He contends that our massive aid program and lack of good faith in negotiations for a peace settlement have worked to endanger Israel’s security and well-being. If it were not for American intervention in the form of military aid and protection from UN sanctions, Israel would not be able to pursue its colonization of the Occupied Territories. America’s support for Israel’s right-wing governments and their policies regarding the Palestinian lands, he argues, provokes violence against Israeli citizens and diverts attention and money from important domestic issues.

Zunes contends that most of the leadership of America is aware of this, but chooses to continue down the current path for two main reasons: 1) Israel buys, with our aid, vast quantities of American military hardware, and 2) the instability caused by this situation provides a continuing invitation for a strong American military and diplomatic presence in the region. He writes, “It has long been in the interest of the U.S. government to maintain a militarily powerful belligerent Israel dependent on the United States. Real peace could undermine such a relationship.”(p.165)

In viewing America’s overall policy in the area, this news should not necessarily come as a surprise. Its foreign policy is not much different from that of other great world powers throughout history. Exploitation of foreigners for the sake of one’s own citizens is nothing new. The exploited have never liked it but, in the face of the exploiter’s overwhelming military forces, there has never been much they could do about it.

The fact that America’s policy is consistent with a historical model, though, should be a cause for great concern, for it fails to recognize a new and profound change in the playing field, the change brought about by the tactics of terrorism and the technological availability of weapons of mass destruction. These factors give the exploited newfound power that must be respected.

It appears that the terrorist acts of September 11th did not impress this fact into in the minds of America’s leaders. In finding out why, a variety of explanations arise. Zunes explores likely suspects ranging from political control stemming from industries and special interest groups with entrenched interest in the status quo to racism.
In the end, Zunes sees the main stumbling block as being lack of understanding on the part of U.S. citizens. He correctly feels that only when they finally get turned on to the folly of their foreign policy and mobilize to exert political pressure for change, will the leadership of America forge a new path. He wrote Tinderbox with the express purpose of helping to bring this about.

He is right about the need for citizen awareness and action. However, the concept needs to be taken one step further. What the people of America need is not so much to break down the current policy, but, instead, to replace it with a better one. Leaders need to be pointing to the real benefits of changing our current economic system to one more sustainable and just for the world. They should be extolling the ways that converting our war machine to a system of world law would lift an enormous financial and moral weight off our shoulders. And most importantly, new leaders need to emerge and explain to Americans that their country, as the sole superpower, one that is highly educated with large amounts of capital, and a rich tradition of ingenuity under pressure, is in the prime position to lead these changes and thus derive the most benefit from them. Such a policy could awaken the American economy and, more importantly, awaken the spirit of American citizens from their fatalism and apathy.

Sadly, to date no such leaders have emerged. Be it a symptom of political inertia or lack of inspiration, our current politicians sit and wait in fear, desperately clinging to the notion that an ever tightening grip and a manic micro-management of the Middle East will somehow prevent the inevitable from occurring. However, when we make it clear to terrorists that we will not develop a more enlightened policy towards their homelands unless they force us to, what can we really expect?
-- Eric Schultz