Pernicious Rumors

Shortly after September 11, 2001, I traveled to the Middle East and visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait.  There was a certain amount of sympathy for America at that time, but there were many very bizarre rumors and beliefs about the attack.  One very strong rumor was that Israel had managed the attack and evidence of that, it was said, was that Jews did not go to work in the twin towers that day.  The Israeli motivation was to discredit the Arab cause and Islam in the eyes of all Americans.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I tried very hard to talk sense into some of my friends there with very little impact.  The second rumor was that it had not been Saudis or Arabs who had hijacked the aircraft and crashed into the twin towers and the pentagon.  It was really Mosad, or Israeli intelligence agents posing as Arabs.  Again, the beliefs were hard to shake.  What I found, as well, was total denial that Saudis or Egyptians or that UAE citizens could have been involved.  I probed deeper and found that the prevailing view was that Arabs could not have pulled off such an operation.  And because of this, it must have been Israel. 

Let’s fast forward now to 2008 and a New York Times article of September 9, a few days ago.  The title was “9/11 Rumors That Become Conventional Wisdom” by Michael Slackman.  Slackman probed Arab attitudes in a shopping mall in Dubai, in a park in Algiers, in a café in Riyadh and all over Cairo.  Over and over people told Slackman that they “did not believe that a group of Arabs – like themselves – could possibly have waged such a successful operation against a superpower like the United States.”  They were convinced that both the United States and Israel had to be involved at least in the planning of the operation.  It was too sophisticated and well coordinated and successful to have been an Arab planned operation.  As Slackman quotes a Cairo shopkeeper: “Maybe people who executed the operation were Arabs, but the brains? No way…It was organized by other people, the United States or the Israelis.”  The myth of jews not going to work that day had also persisted.  “Why is it that on 9/11, the Jews didn’t go to work in the building?”

The story has over time morphed from an Israeli plot to an American plot against Muslims with the help of Israel.  This change in perspective has come about because of American actions since 9/11.  “What matters is we think it was an attack against Arabs,” said an electrician in Cairo.  There does not seem to be any hesitation about believing that Americans would attack their own citizens to justify an invasion of an Arab country.  Then, of course, the fact that we did not find Bin Laden is absolute proof that we did not want to find him since he gave us the excuse to continue the fight against Islam. 

It was perhaps understandable in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that the Arab man on the street would have reached some bizarre conclusions about the events.  It is absolutely frightening that such attitudes have persisted and become part of the Arab landscape. 

As appalling as the persistence of these rumors is, it is equally appalling that the Arab man on the street has so little respect for Arab capabilities.  This sense of inferiority is a fundamental block to any form of negotiated settlement to the Palestinian issue.  Without the confidence that they can meet the Israelis on their own terms, they will continue to believe that whatever solution is reached, they will believe they were forced to make compromises.  That doesn’t augur well for a viable and sustainable agreement. 

It is equally problematic that the Arabs believe that the United States and Israel, that is the CIA and Mosad, can do whatever they want in the world and if they do not do it, it must be for a reason.  Then the speculation about the reason starts.  The inflated sense of our capabilities creates a problem for us when we do not carry through on our statements and promises. 

It is also a problem that people in the region apply their own experience and concepts of governance to us.  Hafez al Assad felt no remorse about attacking and destroying his own city of Hama – Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and murdered the Shiites.  There is no trust or confidence in the good intentions of political leaders in the region.  “Mubarak says whatever the Americans want him to say, and he’s lying for them, of course,” according to the shop keeper in Cairo.  And what applies to their own leaders must also apply in the United States.  Cynicism abounds and there are enough statements by religious and other bigots in the US to feed the idea that the US is hostile to Islam.

Does it really matter? I believe it does.  Ultimately, the war on terror depends on the man on the street.  He must help the authorities by reporting suspicious activates - the basic concept of a neighborhood watch.  He must support his government when it attacks terrorists.  And when the people support the terrorists and not those who oppose them, it makes if that much harder for leaders in the region actively to support our efforts. 

Comments

[Caroline Miller]

As Russia is gaining strength and influence in its former satellite regions, it is difficult for the United States to ignore this longtime enemy resurging as a world competitor. Why wouldn't a country like Russia, who has endured the slump of the post communist era, not want to use any strength it has to muster its way onto the forefront once again? It is not surprising in the least that Russia would take a realist approach to policy, flexing their economic and military muscle. An idealistic foreign policy would not have the same dramatic effect. By countering Russia with a realist foreign policy, the US is putting their idealist policies in jeopardy.

The rise of Russia's influence could impact US policies in potentially useful or devastating ways. Perhaps as Russia becomes a dominant nation again and feels more established and respected in the global community, it would be more likely to cooperate with other dominant nations over issues that Condoleezza Rice raised, such as transnational terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and climate change. These are not irreconcilable differences that are of a cultural nature as Huntington suggests. This is more of an issue of Russia wanting to be recognized and respected as a world player. Yet, the US may be forced to make concessions in order for Russia to feel as a true equal. If they do not, Russia may become increasingly uncooperative and an even greater threat.

In accepting the fact that we need Russia to help solve these imminent global issues, we drift farther away from our idealistic goals of spreading democracy throughout the world. There is also no telling how the US would keep Russian influence in check. Rice believes the US can "marry power and principle," but can it by taking a realist policy with Russia? By opening the door to accepting Russia as a major power in order to solve short-term problems it is possible that the US will not be able to exercise as much influence over developing countries as it once did. Developing nations may see the rise of Russia and of China as signs of hope in achieving success without a US formulated democratic model. It would be difficult to transpose an ideological model onto these countries when a dominant Russia is competing for similar influence. Having a two pronged policy of realism with one nation and idealism with others will not work.

The current issues at hand that must be solved on a multi-national level make it difficult to pursue idealistic goals and realistic goals at the same time. So do we keep our seat as the dominant global threat and take on global problems of our own in order to keep freely spreading democracy, or do we take the risk of letting Russia become an equal force in order to have a chance of cooperating on global issues?

[Kevin Osborne]

Being a realist and an idealist at the same time is a difficult combination of political theories. Realists, such as Putin and Medvedev, seek to regulate and to create a strong state power. The Russians primary goal it to show their power and strength to the world, while showing that they are capable of becoming the feared powerhouse they once were. The recent Russian Georgian conflict, in respect to realism, shows that Russia is acting on their own interests to maintain and show its increasing power. Vladimir Putin stated, “Russia needs a strong state power and must have it…”
Secretary Condoleezza Rice has failed to provide conclusive evidence that idealism and realism can coexist, but there must be a way in today’s ideologically complex world to make this happen. Although Russia may not be burdened by any “universal moral principals” now, in the future, when they become a world power again, they will be looked upon to play an important role in maintaining the well-being of other nations. Russia is able to have their interest defined in terms of power now, but in the future they will have take a more idealistic view to aid the less powerful nations that currently rely on the United States for humanitarian and economic assistance.
Russia has failed to create a foreign policy where idealism and realism are capable of coexisting in the future, while other less developed nations will be able to align themselves with other powerful countries, such as the United States or China. Secretary Rice states that the long term objective of the American government is to “marry power and principle” and hopefully as Russia develops, they will adopt this view and make it their own. The United States has long been a world power and as other countries become more powerful, we may have to drop our current policy of looking out for human rights, but it is essential the United States continues to pursue its national interest. The United States may soon have to take up a strict realistic policy to maintain its superpower status in the world to compete with other nations that do not burden themselves with ideological concerns. The world is always changing and adapting, while countries may never be able to achieve the perfect balance between realism and idealism there is a balance that must be reached.

[John DeWitt]

It seems that the Russian bear has awoken from its slumber. Could the recent invasion of South Ossetia by Russian forces be the beginning of a larger change in the foreign policy of this once communist nation? If so, the reemergence of Russia as a global superpower will certainly play a role in future U.S. foreign policy. In her article “American Realism for a New World”, Secretary Condoleezza Rice addresses this issue. According to Rice, we must maintain our relations with emerging powers like China and Russia by creating a paradigm that combines “realism and idealism”. Instead of excommunicating Russia as we did during the Cold War, the United States must find a way to work around and with Russian foreign policy in order to avoid future conflict. We must recognize Russia’s rights as world power once again. This requires the creation of a realist paradigm in regards to Russian sovereignty as defined by Hans Morganthau.
On the other side of the equation, the current state of U.S. foreign policy is mostly based on idealistic tendencies. Given our missionary approach to aiding the spread of Democracy in the Middle East, one might become confused about where we as a nation will draw the line between realist and idealist foreign policy in the coming years. How can we stand by and watch Russia abuse the sovereignty of helpless Georgia, while still legitimizing our idealist occupation in Iraq. The answer is simple, in these times of uncertainty, we as a nation need to pick our battles. While we can’t always be realists, we also can’t always be idealists. The U.S. couldn’t possibly lift a finger to the Russian invasion of Georgia. If we did respond, all of the work we have done to stabilize our relationship with the Russians since the collapse of the Berlin Wall would be lost. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, we are faced with a battle that maybe we can win. The idea of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East starting with Iraq certainly does seem achievable, although I would argue that force may not be the best route.

[Sarah Moore]

In November of 2001, President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee pledged to fight terrorism together. Now, almost seven years later, we are able to reflect on the past and examine how far we have come in this wearying battle. Some would argue that we are safer now than we were in September 2001, that our war in Iraq and our preemptive foreign policies, rooted in the Bush Doctrine, have in fact, made us safer. Evidenced by the fact that since September 11, 2001 we have not seen another attack on American soil, there is some legitimacy in this argument. Unless, of course, you count the number of American lives lost in the battle itself. But in our struggle to make our own borders safer, have we in turn, endangered our closest allies? Despite European criticism, our Western friends in Europe have seen numerous terrorist attacks since the launching of the American War on Terror. However, even more significant than the attacks against our Western counterparts in Europe is the terrorism crippling our Eastern friend, India. Arguably America's biggest supporter in the War on Terror, India exemplifies some of our gravest failures in this war.

If the conventional thinking in the Arab world is that the American War on Terror is a disguised attempt to eradicate Islam, it seems that India, playing host to one of the largest Muslim populations in the world- over 150 million- would be more cautious in fervently joining the American cause. India’s geographic proximity to the Arab World should have also been a mark of caution. Instead, President Bush remarked in November 2001 that his administration was “committed to developing a fundamentally different relationship with India- one based upon trust, one based upon mutual values.” Of course, the problem arises when those mutual values are seen as a threat to Islam.

I recently traveled to India as a part of a larger research project concerning refugee reintegration. I arrived in New Delhi just after the May bombings in Jaipur and was still in Delhi when I heard news of the Ahmedabad bombings in July. The Indian Mujahideen, branded as an Islamic militant group, claimed responsibility for both attacks as well as those that occurred earlier today in New Delhi. As I received news of the attacks today, I watched as these places that had become so familiar to me this summer were left shattered. Although Delhi was only my home for one month, that home was attacked today- the neighborhood I lived in, the markets I shopped in, the cafes I ate in- I watched as people ran screaming from these very places I spent my days in, and I saw the devastation these attacks left behind. India is one of our closest and most important allies in this War and as I stared at these haunting images, I was left questioning: In our War on Terror, have we made our own borders safer at the expense of our allies? And if so, is this not our gravest failure of all?

[Olivier Perrachon]

While I was in Cairo for my junior semester abroad, I had made friends with many Egyptians. We spoke about politics from time to time. I had met one Egyptian businessman, who traveled regularly back to the United States. He was convinced like Mohamed Al Fayed that the royal family was behind the death of Princess Diana, while the western world believes it was an accident. He had evidence to back himself up. Another time, a Libyan studying at the American University in Cairo with me, asserted to me that Saddam Hussein was not bad guy and that United States should have never removed. Arabs are threatened by the United States. Ever since 1948, when the United States called for the creation of an Israeli state; Arabs felt betrayed and disenfranchised. They want the American presence to leave Iraq. They are cannot stand the harm we are causing and tired of being a spheres of influence. American ideals such as democracy spread disaster in the Middle East. It does not work unless Islamic based parties get involved. The United States has to learn to not fear Islam as a warrior's religion but to some extent put them on par with the Israelis. If not, I fear rumors such as these about 9/11 will continue to prevail the Arab world if we do not impose our sympathy.

[Nicole Edry]

“Ultimately, the war on terror depends on the man on the street.” I agree completely with this statement, as it is currently one of our biggest problems with our image in the international community. The catch-22 is on the one hand, many Middle Eastern countries resent our influence, and think that we are forcing westernization on them. (whether that claim is legitimate or not remains to be seen.) On the other hand, they associate us and our leaders as being cruel and willing to inflict over 3,000 deaths on their own people. So the U.S. represents the worst of the Western world, yet also represents the worst of the Middle Eastern world. Maybe if some people stepped back and realized the paradox in that view of the U.S., their opinion would be a little different.

When it comes down to it, seemingly anything can be twisted to serve one political motive or another. In the views of the people interviewed on the streets, the U.S. was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and thus caused the attacks on 9/11. However, if the government had done absolutely nothing then would we have been perceived as weak? Or would they have just found it suspicious that the government didn’t try and enact revenge, and seen it as proof that the U.S. is responsible for the attacks? I don’t condone the actions of the Bush administration, nor do I support the current ongoing wars. But I do think that any post-9/11 decision on what to do against terrorism would surely have resulted in some kind of controversy.

Going back to that first sentence, I think that I would add, “the outsourcing of a positive American image,” as being another crucial component to the war on terror. However, at this point, I don’t really know how feasible that would be to even attempt.

[Jared Leslie]

Pernicious Rumors

The misconception by the populace of Muslim nations, regarding September 11th, exemplifies the stranglehold unfriendly elements have over the dissemination of information to civilians. This stranglehold is perpetuated by people’s weary and suspicious nature of the capabilities of the United States and Israel. For Muslim nations to believe that the America or Israel would have destroyed the World Trade Center to prompt a western invasion of a Muslim country shows the level of deceit some Muslim nations believe the United States or Israel is capable of. There needs to be a concerted effort by the U.S. to dispel the current image of a power-hungry, murderous, and untrustworthy America. The war on terror as Ambassador Walker said, “...depends on the man on the street.” If that man is under the impression that the Central Intelligence Agency is an evil and destructive tool in America’s arsenal, then that man will be strongly opposed to assisting the U.S. in capturing/eliminating the terrorists. Ambassador Walker wrote, “And when the people support the terrorists and not those who oppose them, it makes it that much harder for leaders in the region actively to support our efforts.”
The quest for the ‘hearts and minds’ must be a central objective of the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other terrorist hot spots. I believe the current situation in Iraq, where the U.S. military forces have begun to hand over certain provinces to the Iraqi security forces, is allowing the Muslim world to see that the people’s safety, but ultimately with their freedom is the primary goal of the coalition in Iraq. The United States has made efforts to sway the ‘hearts and minds’ of the people responsible for hiding and harbouring terrorists. The current front on the war on terror in Iraq has been a constant battle for the support of the populace. In early 2003 there were multiple articles written about the inability of U.S. troops to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi citizenry. It is critical that America launch a massive campaign targeted at increasing support for U.S. troops in their struggle against a heavily entrenched enemy. It must be shown that the reckless disregard for innocent life by terrorist organizations is an atrocity that would be stopped if Iraqis were to fully embrace democracy and Americas’ presence. When the Muslim citizenry’s feeling of suspicion changes from distrust to trust, or from a negative attitude to a positive one concerning America’s presence, the tide of the war on terror will finally begin to turn in the west’s favor. It is, however, the man in the street and the woman in the market that will affect the change the United States desires through their support.

[Steven B]

Ambassador Walker has put his finger on a very important, and long underrated, front in the War on Terror: the battle for the hearts and minds of the “Arab Street.” Initially, the Bush Administration seemed to believe that the War on Terror was almost exclusively a military fight and therefore focused on capturing or killing terrorists. While the military campaign is undoubtedly one of the main pillars of the War on Terror, it is not the only one. The Bush Administration’s focus on military options was a huge miscalculation that has cost Americans precious blood and treasure. Fortunately, after numerous setbacks the Bush Administration seems to have slowly adopted a slightly more realistic position.

Within the past several years, the Bush Administration has partially realized that the central front in the War on Terror is for the hearts and minds of average Arabs and Muslims. To this end, the Bush Administration has stopped ignoring the Middle East peace process and worked harder (although not hard enough) to foster more dialogue between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Additionally, President Bush has stated that he would like Guantanamo to be closed one day, although it is still operation. The appointment of Secretary Gates, with his lighter touch, also signals a realization of the impact rhetoric has on hearts and minds. Finally, even the military under the leadership of General Petraeus has realized that it must win the hearts and minds of the populace in order to prevail in a counterinsurgency.

Notwithstanding these several positive steps, the next president will still have a gravely damaged image to repair. Winning the hearts and minds of the Arab Street is vital to the success of the War on Terror and will require the U.S. to put many more resources into public diplomacy. A good place to start would be to increase the number of Foreign Service officers; indeed there are currently more members of military bands than Foreign Service officers. Additionally, the next president will need to reexamine long-held U.S. policies, such as U.S. support for repressive regimes like Egypt, which generate resentment across the Arab world. Repairing the image of the U.S. will be a long process with few concrete signs of success, but it is essential to the security of the United States; indeed, persuading someone not to fight is certainly safer and cheaper than killing them.

[Maura Donovan]

To the American public, the thought of our own country sponsoring the worst terrorist attack in this millennium seems inconceivable. The effects of 9/11 reached throughout the nation and severely threatened our economy and stability. While participation in the 9/11 attacks is out of the question, there are plenty of Americans who believe our Government is capable of various other offenses. It is not uncommon to hear Americans discuss how Bush sent our troops to Iraq for oil, revenge and other less than noble goals. Without going into the validity of these claims, it still is relevant to note that even US citizens believe the current administration will send Americans into harms way to pursue “national security”.
I find it worrisome that the idea of US and Israeli cooperation in the twin tower attacks is so widespread and accepted in the Middle East. I am not, however, surprised. Seven years later, the US government has made little progress in the War on Terror in terms of convictions and justice. It has, however, practiced systematic acts which may be considered torture and refused to present charges on detainees, often held incommunicado, even years later.
In the Middle East, we are viewed as powerful in military and intelligence capabilities. Yet, we still haven’t found many of the terrorist cells that we have been invading countries for. It is understandable that the citizens of the Middle East cannot believe we are truly trying to find those responsible for the attacks. Even when “terrorists” are arrested, governments such as Pakistan receive financial and military rewards for these suspects and their cooperation. This makes every arrest’s legitimacy questionable. We should be promoting education and jobs but instead, we are destroying the infrastructures of Afghanistan and Iraq while we claim to promote “freedom”. We cannot create democracy and stability while continuing to endorse military tactics. The myths have continued because the United States and Israel have done little to counteract them.

[Phill Hoying]

The issues surrounding Arab self-perception are interesting to say the least and given the seemingly widespread belief in the weakness of Arab influence and a strong distrust in most things American, it is no wonder many people are turning to terrorism for change. To be sure, if I felt I was being attacked by a superpower that fictitiously created a problem and then blamed it on me, I would use any means necessary to defend myself and try to tell everyone my side of the story in an effort to have them join me.

Ambassador Walker did a good job outlining many of the issues involved in terrorism in the Middle East from lack of community support in reporting suspicious activity and disbelief in the power of Arab influence, to misconceptions of the US government and its policies.

However when Amb. Walker says, “it is also a problem that people in the region apply their own experience and concepts of governance to [America],” I ask why is applying their home experience to the U.S. government a problem? Surely the U.S. is not always the infallible crusader of freedom it pretends to be. In fact, I think the people in the region may be right in assuming the U.S. won’t play fair when dealing with them.

For a long time, U.S. diplomats could say individuals who are captured are charged and assumed innocent until proven guilty. They could say the U.S. follows international rules of law.

However, after news spread of the inhumane treatment of the Guantanamo Bay detainees (many held for years without a formal charge, only to be released after the U.S. found they had no ties to terrorism), or that the CIA flew terrorist suspects to secret camps in countries that allow torture, it seems the U.S. now finds ways to bend, interpret or blatantly break its idealistic protective laws. In some ways the government is even working against the average U.S. citizen (Patriot Act). However, I will not go as far to say the U.S. has ever killed its own citizens.

In further support of their position, the U.S. government has occasionally misrepresented information to its own citizens to justify war (Spanish-American War and Iraq War spring immediately to mind). If a government is willing to lie (or more softly put, misrepresent the facts) to its people, what will it do to foreigners?

Amb. Walker, as a former insider of the Foreign Service, does the U.S. government always tell foreign governments and peoples the truth? Does it always act with the best interests of other countries at heart or is it self-interested? Does it “spin” information to make it more palatable to host countries?

It is no wonder those who live in the Middle East distrust America and what it is telling them. Bush believes his policies of coercive interrogation (can you say semantics?) are important to the counterterrorism effort, but they seem to be very harmful to America’s image as a fair and protectorate state and only continue to dissuade the average Middle Eastern citizen from helping us. I agree with Amb. Walker, we need those citizens if we want to stop terrorism. We need to get the facts out in the open.

[Emma Woods]

In the case of terrorism, we cannot write off the opinions of the “man on the street” as insignificant or ancillary. Terrorism is a network that’s survival depends largely on the support of the masses, support that needn’t be active but merely assumed in order to be effective. While the terrorists themselves occupy a small minority in the Arab world, their objectives are advanced and ours undermined wherever non-violent men and women acquiesce to violence, wherever civilians themselves see civilian killing as justified, wherever mainstream Muslims trust radicals to defend their threatened religion. The rumors that 9/11 was in fact an Israeli and/or U.S. plot feeds into this cycle. The average Arab citizen feels so much contempt toward the United States and believes so deeply that we have our hands in every global affair that such a scenario makes much more sense than pointing the finger at al Queda terrorists. The persistence of such rumors breeds an attitude of intensified hostility toward the U.S. among Arab citizens and, with no reason to turn against terrorist groups in the region, an “us” vs. “them” mentality that impedes all progress and keeps our objectives from taking hold.
The 2005 PEW Global Attitudes survey found that while demographic factors such as poverty do not significantly effect attitudes toward terrorism, “some attitudes toward the U.S. are strongly associated with views on terrorism,” specifically “negative views of the U.S., a perception that the U.S. does not favor democracy in a respondents’ country, and a belief that the Iraq war has made the world more dangerous,” which all correlate positively with support for terrorism. This means that if our interest is in keeping terrorism from multiplying in the Arab world, it matters quite a bit what the “man on the street” holds our country responsible for. The war on terror is, in one sense, a war of ideas. At the moment, the idea of the United States as an enemy and a threat is powerful and prevailing enough not only to color beliefs about 9/11 seven years later, but also to justify terrorism in the minds of even those who suffer its effects.

[Abigail Evans]

After seven years of debate and speculation, it is astonishing that the United States has not solidified the causes of the September 11th attacks. While American citizens have come to various conclusions and assumptions about al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, the common understanding (or misunderstanding) from various regions in the Middle East poses a serious threat to curbing future hostilities between their respective nation and ours. We cannot forget the many unanswered questions that linger around the events, nor ignore the how the majority of the Middle East perceives the role of the United States. Unfortunately the actions of President Bush roughly seven years ago have placed our status as a world power in serious detriment, one that will prove difficult to remedy. Slackman said it best, stating, “That such ideas persist represents the first failure in the fight against terrorism — the inability to convince people here that the United States is, indeed, waging a campaign against terrorism, not a crusade against Muslims.” This comment speaks volumes regarding how pitifully we have engaged this war, and what damage control is necessary to rectify our actions.

What Americans leaders must try to do first and foremost is dissect exactly why Arabs lack “respect” or even confidence in Arab capabilities. This problem starts with the political leaders in the region, whose consistent dishonesty and corruption have crippled faith in government. Another concern is the unwavering Arab worldview that is stubbornly maintained. According to their common worldview, nearly everything is labeled a conspiracy. Because people are continuously plotting against them, there is never a reason to condemn the terrorist behavior that continues, whether a product of their nation or not. By placing blame on others and acting as permanent victims, the Arab worldview lacks accountability. This is a frightening detail, for it suggests that the vengeful actions of a few men can go reasonably unscathed within the Middle East. In its place, Arabs place speculation on the United States “superpower” and its quest for a continuous fight against Islam. Further, without the “confidence that they can meet the Israelis on their own terms,” there is little chance that any peace agreement will be reached in the near future.

Is there effort being made? Hardly. Arabs must no longer avoid moral responsibility and pretend that violence is an acceptable result of their own discrimination. In order for the Middle East to reach agreements with the United States and Israel, the region and its citizens must come to grips with its own inadequacies—a change in mentality and a commitment to moral and political accountability are crucial. Furthermore, the waning concept of trust must be maintained and upheld for future progress. This does not only apply to Arab nations, but also to those leaders and citizens of the United States and Israel. If no concerted effort is being made by these nations, neither will be able to compel the other in negotiations.

[Alex Caruso]

It is unfortunate that Arab’s hold faith in the fallacies highlighted in Michael Slackman’s article and extended in Ambassador Walker’s blog. At the end of the blog, Ambassador Walker raises the question do these rumors really matter? I agree with his answer, yes, they do. He writes, “Ultimately, the war on terror depends on the man on the street.” I would like to extend this idea further. In order for relations with the region on a whole to improve, rumors about the United States and doubts about Arab capabilities must be righted.

How can this be done? It is impossible to go change the rumors regarding 9/11. No source of information or interesting data can change people’s opinion 8 years after the event has occurred. The United States needs to think forward and involve themselves in initiatives around the Middle East that Arabs are interested in. In doing this U.S. must make sure they are playing a supporting role and that the Arab’s are running the initiative. In other words the U.S. needs to help the Arabs help themselves.

This would first help the Arabs instill more confidence in their own abilities and intellect. If they accomplish something they are passionate about, with limited U.S. assistance, it would give them a sense of accomplishment and prove to them that they are powerful themselves. For example if the U.S. helps the Palestinians and the Israelis negotiate a compromise it could empower the Palestinian people by giving them a national identity and establish land for them to be proud of.

Secondly, an act like this would slowly change opinion of the United States around the region. If the U.S. takes a supporting role helping Arab’s accomplish something they are proud of, it can help them slowly change their mind about the alleged hostility towards Islam.

[Cali Garson]

The war on terror does heavily depend on the average day citizen's view towards terrorist acts and the United States, however; having these citizens believe that terrorist groups were not capable of orchestrating September 11th might be beneficial to us. If the citizens of the Middle East all accepted that September 11th was put together by terrorist organizations one of two things may occur. Citizens will realize the capabilities of terrorist groups and be even more afraid to speak out against terrorism, or they will support terrorist groups even more because of the success they had attacking a country that does not accept Islam.

What we should be more concerned about is the thought that the United States is hostile towards Islam. If we engage in pro-Islam efforts where we show countries that we accept Islam they may second-guess terrorist groups. This action will partially de-legitimize
terrorist organizations and will allow Middle Eastern citizens to question their support for radical Islam.

[Victoria Simmons]

Dealing with terrorism and its entireties: its definition, the rumors, the actors, and misconstrued information, is complicated, and it is challenging to communicate accurate principles to everyone. After reading the blog, I agree with the statement, “Ultimately, the war on terror depends on the man on the street,” and I believe it is very important to understand that fighting terrorism goes beyond the role of the government. From the article it is expressed that people in Middle East are skeptical or unaware of their own people’s capabilities, which is unconstructive because ignorance does not solve problems. Instead it continues them because many will not put themselves in the position to help fix the issue at hand. The citizens of involved countries must understand the capabilities and motivations of their own government and involved actors, rather than turning a shoulder to reality and leaving everything for the government and leaders to deal with.
Additionally, rumors exist in the U.S and the Middle East, and are very difficult to stop. Many people believe rumors because the truth can be difficult to accept. Moreover, Arabs define themselves as a whole and do not want to believe the fact that their own people could be so vicious. Grenville Byford states in a Foreign Affairs article, “Like beauty, it would seem, terrorism is in the eye of the beholder” (34). With that being said, it is understandable to avoid attaching one’s own homeland to acts of terrorism, as the United States would never want to produce an ugly image by creating a terrorist definition that would incriminate U.S. citizens. Spreading false information is a way to avoid certain realities. In sum, rumors are a significant problem that will never stop because no one wants to take responsibility for actions that are considered to be inhumane or evil. Therefore, many will continue to believe whatever resonates best with them, which makes it challenging to cooperatively participate in the expansive war on terror.
It is important for the global community to understand what is going on around the world and at home in order to combine forces to fight terror. The problem is there is an everlasting issue of how to properly inform people of terrorist and counterterrorist actions. One way to help the issue and work to minimize rumors is the United States should stop making promises that contribute to the Arabs’ rumors of us and their inflated view of our capabilities. Ever since the founding, the United States has notoriously been a country that strives to be a super power, but now it is becoming necessary to take a more humble approach and not build up the idea that we are a group of imperialists who can, and will, take on everything for selfish reasons. The United States should try to encourage Arab people not associated with terrorist organizations to believe that the U.S is not a country consisting entirely of “George Bushes” that would harm their own country for a larger purpose. Also, it needs to be expressed and repeated that the U.S. wants to improve the situation and does not associate all Arabs with terrorism. All things considered, many factors stand in the way of successfully ending the war on terror. Because the battle involves many people of various backgrounds, it makes spreading information effectively a more daunting task.

[Cameron Gaylord]

Cam Gaylord
Pernicious Rumors
Seven years after 9/11, the “Global War on Terror” is still very much alive. Despite being engaged militarily on countless battlefields, the problem of anti-Americanism and global terrorism seems to be growing, rather than receding. While there was a period of international sentiment in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the reactionary measures of the United States following that fateful day has indeed fueled a form of “Huntingtonian rhetoric” regarding a clash of civilizations. While the image America wants to present is anything but anti-Islamic, the actions taken by the American military have fallen quite short of achieving this goal. This definitely presents a problem for the success of the struggle against extremism. If the United States is continued to be perceived by the common Arab man on the street as being both anti-Islamic and anti-Arab, jihadists will continue to have support against any American presence and objectives.
Regarding the inferiority felt by many Arabs, this poses a serious risk to peace in the region and to the legitimacy of American efforts. Ambassador Walker is right when he proclaims that the beliefs of the common Arab matters. If rumors pertaining to the abilities of Mossad and the CIA are allowed to continue, the common Arab will have little option but to resort to violence or support those who have the capabilities to strike the United States. Furthermore, peace efforts would be futile due to the fact that if the CIA is able to do as they please, the idea of a trusted and permanent treaty is naught.
If the United States wants to approach the possibility of a serious curb in terrorist activity, there needs to be a serious push for cooperation. The rumors only exacerbate the belief that there is little Arabs can do to help their cause. This belief that their very existence is in jeopardy, gives terrorist groups a bounty of prospective recruits who have either been denied political representation or economic opportunity, and are thus drawn to radicalism through a desire for inclusion and acceptance. This “failed generation” are the main culprits and victims of the global terrorist network. It is thus vital that the United States pursues policies to include the common Arab (especially the Arab youth), in the process of reconstruction and economic development in order to put them in charge of their own destinies. The idea is to generate confidence in the mind of the common Arab that they are just as capable of competing with the Israelis (or the Americans for that matter), meet, propose peace and de-legitimize those who would resort to violence as an acceptable tool of progress.

[Ash Wall]

The opinions expressed by the Egyptian shopkeeper as well as many others in the Middle East are both unnerving and of great consequence. It is shocking that seven years after the attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred there is still a large scale debate as to who is responsible for them. A recent poll conducted by worldpublicopinion.org found that in Jordan only 11% of those polled believed that al Qaeda was the group responsible while 17% and 31% respectively thought it was either the United States Government or the Israelis.

The issue, as Ambassador Walker points out, is an important one and he is completely correct when he states “ultimately, the war on terror depends on the man on the street”. The current attacks on coalition troops in Iraq through the use of improvised explosive devices are often happening in dense urban areas where the insurgent’s preparation for the attack is clearly visible to numerous Iraqi civilians. The fact that these ambushes are all too often not reported by Iraqi civilians is directly related to the false conclusions many Middle Easterner’s have drawn about the attacks of September 11, 2001. In order to convince the people of the Middle East to assist us in the war on terror we first need to convince them that there is a war on terror. If the citizens of Iraq believe that we have invaded their country under false pretenses it not only undermines our position but it also aids and gives credibility to radical groups such as al Qaeda.

One of the underlying issues is that the American government all too often focuses its attention solely on state governments and those government’s leaders. Although diplomatic interactions are certainly of vital importance, what is forgotten is the impression left on the average citizen, and we are paying dearly for it. The United States and our allies need to find a way to sway the public opinion on key issues and it starts with core issues such as who is to blame for September 11, 2001. Otherwise, all the rhetoric we produce is meaningless if the average citizens of the region don’t know, or believe, the facts.

[Emily Smith]

The repercussions of a low Arab self opinion run deep. Take the situation described above, that in various areas in the Arab world it is assumed that Isreal or the US executed the Sept. 11 attacks because no person in the Arab community was smart enough to execute such a scheme. A lack of faith in your own people negatively impacts the war on terror in a variety of ways. As stated above the average citizen “… must support his government when it attacks terrorists. And when the people support the terrorists and not those who oppose them, it makes if that much harder for leaders in the region actively to support our efforts.” Terrorism needs to grow at the grassroots level. Therefore, the citizens must in some way or another support the goals and techniques of terrorist organizations. It would be impossible for terrorist organizations to grow if they did not have the ability to gain support and the backing of either large communities or entire countries.
The question of changing public opinion is a difficult one because it gets to a complicated issue of empowerment. The issue of empowerment deals first with a low Arab self-opinion and secondly with the belief that the US attacked its own to justify an invasion of the Middle East. If the areas within the Middle East have a low opinion of their capabilities it is logical to assume that these areas need to be empowered to value their own ability to change their position in the world. However, in many ways that is exactly what terrorism is already doing. Terrorism gives power to those who don’t think they have a voice by engaging in acts of violence that put them at the center of the international political arena. Secondly, the message from the US that Arab nations are peoples are so hated that we would attack our own in order to justify attacking them only makes citizens feel more like small helpless children being bullied on the playground. By sending this message we make citizens of the Arab world think there is nothing they can do to change their slot in life and nothing they can do to change the US dismissal of their culture and society. Terrorism capitalizes on this disempowerment and gives the weak a voice.
As the US looks to change public opinion we must find a way to empower Arab states. We must do so in the presence of terrorism which has already empowered many groups with the region. We must capitalize not on fear of the other but change the way people view themselves and change an individual’s ability to live in a world where they feel appreciated.

[Bianca Dragan]

In 1821, John Adams warned against going abroad in search of "monsters to destroy." He worried that by doing so the US would become "the dictatress of the world," and "she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit." He stressed that the US should preach freedom and independence only by "the countenance of her voice" and the "sympathy of her example."
We think now in terms of "before and after 9/11" because America-the superpower was attacked on its own soil. What does not fit the "terrorism pattern" is that the attackers had no demands and did not declare any political and social goals before or during the attack. After the attack, they were given a variety of political agendas because of the unprecedence of this act, which had to have an important catalyst. Multiple number of possible catalysts entered the spotlight because of the world wide attention to accountability that 9/11 attracted. By occupying Afghanistan and Iraq under the flag of democracy, the US stretched its foreign policies from freedom to force and deployed American troops to foreign territories. As these two countries are both Muslim, this act unavoidably attracted attention to the religious aspect and perpetuated the stereotypes which as catalysts for continued acts of terrorism.
The aftermath of 9/11 altered the American way of life. The Americans' comfort zone shrunk as they felt the infringement of their rights began to swell, i.e. their constitutional right to privacy of papers and effects (4th Amendment), stricter airport security measures, and wiretapping, among other things. The attack affected the core principle America was founded on: individual freedom. 9/11 censored the American dream; now visitors/immigrants to the US are forced to wait in lines at the American customs to be fingerprinted and photographed…
It is only normal that no one (not only the Arab people) can believe that a terrorist faction could hurt the US right in the core of its values. It is only normal that no one can believe that the US with all the American resources and alliances could not catch the leader of the terrorist group. It is only normal that no one can argue that national interest did not drive the US into occupying Afghanistan and Iraq when the "war on terror" seems a campaign without an obvious end. Fanaticism and terrorism are not new phenomena nor are they going to go away. Consequently, it is only normal that no one can name who should be the losers in the "war on terror."
What fed this "normality" was the illusion of omnipotence that the world had on the US. The global order is sustained with American soft power. America's remarkable combination of technological dominance, wealth and "inflexibility" in defending their own way of life and of other nations made the country a superpower, a Goliath. How many people believe that the story of David beating Goliath is true? We call it "just a story" and dismiss it as impossible because there are no such things as giants. If they were true, the giant could not possibly get hurt by David. We like the story because of David's unprecedented act. Investing the act of hurting the giant with ideals such as religion (David killed Goliath with the help of God), innovation (David brings with him only a piece of string and stones), and determination to prove a belief will create the context of fostering an "unprecedented act." 9/11 showed that international superiority does not necessarily mean security and although the American ideals are universally valid, they are not necessarily applicable to all societies. When the US was attacked in its "inflexible" values and ways of life, it started a war on terror. When conservative societies are unavoidably "attacked" by America's great soft power and democratic ideals, they gather "string and stones," searching for John Adam’s "monsters to destroy."