New at Reason

May 18, 2004

Cathy Young on the Nick Berg tape.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Chalabi Loses His Allowance | Main | Voluntary Cities →

See all 35 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|5.18.04 @ 1:02AM|#

I'm surprised to actually agree with Joe. The terrorists don't care about PR. They simply want to kill as many of us as possible. They don't have any political goal short of annihilating their enemies, so there's no way to accomodate them. This isn't Northern Ireland. They are an abomination that must be removed, and the governments that foster and spawn them must be removed. This is a long, long war that we're in. The terrorists recognize this. Too bad that a lot of Americans don't.

|5.18.04 @ 1:14AM|#

RC Dean:
"America goes home and reverts to the "police" approach of the '90s, during which terrorists throve"

Far more Americans were killed in 1982 and 2001 under the watch of Reagan and Bush Jr. But don't let the facts bother you.

|5.18.04 @ 1:28AM|#

Raymond, didn't our government help foster and spawn them?

garym|5.18.04 @ 1:31AM|#

I'll repeat what I've said before: The terrorists want to provoke counter-atrocities. They want to enrage Americans into doing horrible things so as to enrage Moslems into joining the jihad.

|5.18.04 @ 1:56AM|#

Not to put too fine a point on it, but "all who eat meat are kin to the butcher." Claiming that the terrorists who cut off Berg's head are a distinctly separate group of terrorists from the "PR-oriented" terrorists is missing the point.

As all Americans feel shame (and properly so) at the actions of the "six idiots who lost the war," all Middle Eastern terrorists have Berg's blood on their hands.

|5.18.04 @ 2:15AM|#

raymond, methinksyou go too far in the opposite direction. Al Qaeda do indeed have political goals, both long and short term, which the killing of Americans is intended to further. They are most certainly not just waging a war of attrition.

garym puts it well, but I'd add a third goal; they want to inspire (certain) Muslims to jihad not just via the counter-atrocities, but also through the atrocities themselves.

|5.18.04 @ 2:41AM|#

joe,

Yes, they do have political goals: The establishment of a worldwide theocracy along with the death of infidels. All the more reason to attack the countries supporting that goal.

Eazy,

Maybe our government did help foster and spawn them. All the more reason to remedy our mistake by going after them anywhere they may hide.

|5.18.04 @ 3:00AM|#

garym makes a very important point: the basic strategy behind "terrorism" is to provoke draconian responses among the enemy government that will turn its own people against it. (We've done it too; remember the Boston Massacre?)

|5.18.04 @ 3:13AM|#

But, Raymond, if we inadvertently fostered and spawned Al Qaeda (and armed them, too) by acting with the best intentions (i.e., funding the resistence in Afghanistan), what is keeping us from making a similarly well-intentioned but destructive mistake today (i.e., invading Iraq and breeding jihadism there rather than focusing on Afghanistan)?

As Gary and Jim say above, and as Robert Wright has argued so effectively in essays in the Slate and NY Times archives, we're not fighting a finite group of people. U.S. actions now will be fundamental in shaping the next generation of Arab Muslims, and what we're doing, if done badly (i.e., bombing Karbala, operation Copper Green, etc.), will come back to us a thousand-fold.

fyodor|5.18.04 @ 3:39AM|#

raymond the hawk,

Your answer to everything seems to be: ATTACK!! Your consistency and self-knowledge are laudable, but your reasons hardly support your conclusion (use of singular form intentional)!! Showing the radical Islamist terrorists that nothing they do will further their goals will likely deter their movement better than giving them the war they want. Unless we're really prepared to kill everyone in the middle east?

|5.18.04 @ 4:01AM|#

I think Cathy is wrong. The prisoners abused were known terrorists and those caught actively fighting against us, not common criminals. Some of you have got it right. The bad guys don't want us out of Iraq. They did that to Berg keep us there. They WANT war and conflict.

|5.18.04 @ 4:29AM|#

fyodor,

If we can get cooperation from Middle Eastern governments then maybe attacking isn't necessary. The problem, however, is that in some cases Middle-Eastern governments almost have an incentive to sponsor terrorism AND help us fight terrorism. So we have to be careful whom we get in bed with. And, if we align ourselves with tyrannical governments, we only feed the resentment that doves are so quick to blame for terrorism against the US.

Really, unless Middle Eastern governments implement genuine liberal reforms while also truly fighting terrorism, I see no choice but to remove those governments.

fyodor|5.18.04 @ 4:49AM|#

raymond,

You cite a true enough paradox about accepting anti-terrorism cooperation from the corrupt dictatorships currently in power in the mid east. But another true enough paradox is that as much as we may be resented for cooperating with and subsidizing those governments, we'd likely be hated all the more for forcibly removing them. Hell, if only 56% of Iraqis like that we invaded to remove Saddam and we're still fighting a vicious insurgency a year later, think how much less popular we'd be for invading to remove regimes that may be as unelected as Saddam but are far less brutal and despised!

|5.18.04 @ 5:02AM|#

Chilly,

So these NBC/Reuters reporters -- who, while detained without being charged with any particular criminal act or terrorist affiliation, were apparently made to stick their fingers in their butts and then lick them -- were terroists?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5181020

|5.18.04 @ 5:03AM|#

Chilly,

So these NBC/Reuters staff members -- who, while detained without being charged with any particular criminal act or terrorist affiliation, were apparently made to stick their fingers in their butts and then lick them -- were terroists?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5181020

|5.18.04 @ 5:06AM|#

(delete the first of those two and this note if possible)

|5.18.04 @ 6:36AM|#

Eazy-

Well, since those reporters are part of the liberal media trying to undermine our military, obviously their humiliation was fully justified! :)

Raymond-

You're one of the few hawks I've ever heard who will acknowledge the problem of blowback. Specifically, how support for oppressive regimes might spawn resentment. It does point to a big problem in the war on terror: The governments with the most intelligence resources in the Middle East are obviously the Middle Eastern governments. If we can get their cooperation then there are a lot of benefits to reap. But we have to be careful whom we align ourselves with since (a) alliances with bad guys might make us new enemies and (b) we all saw what happened when we supported the mujahedeen vs. the Soviets, or Saddam vs. Iran.

The Economist recently pointed out a conundrum in Pakistan: Certain elements of the Pakistania gov't are clearly sympathetic to the Taliban. Gen. Musharaf doesn't appear to be one of them per se (at least not at the moment, anyway) but he's only useful to the US as long as there is a terrorist threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This creates a moral hazard for Musharaf. If he challenges the Taliban sympathizers in the intelligence services, he faces a number of unattractive possibilities:

1) They overthrow him.
2) He remains in power but fails to uproot them, making him appear useless for the US and ineffectual at home.
3) He succeeds, and the US no longer needs him.

I don't know what the right approach is in all cases, but I do admit that when in doubt I would tend to err on the side of not supporting unsavory people. Not for the moral purity, but to avoid the nasty consequences of a well-armed and well-trained former associate turning on you.

The Lonewacko Blog|5.18.04 @ 7:06AM|#

The killers' tape was only a mistake if you assume they're trying to win a PR war. They're not - they're trying to command the loyalty of that part of the Muslim world that likes to see Americans killed. Cathy is bringing a democratic mindset that assumes popular support is important to a political movement. This video was more about "preaching to the choir."

WorldNetDaily had a (apparently non-native) scholar translate the video, and WorldNetDaily agrees with Joe.

|5.18.04 @ 8:04AM|#

thoreau,

Yes, there is a danger from blowback no matter what we do. But in the end, anybody playing both sides is playing on the wrong side. Those governments have to go. If we can scare some of them into liberalizing then great. But I'm afraid that we're in a dangerous position here, and the use of force will be necessary.

Besides, liberalization might give the Islamo-fascists the upper hand in some places. A more liberal government will certainly risk a backlash from fundamentalists, and a liberal government that lacks resources may not be able to keep the terrorists in check. If liberalization under pressure from the US results in a coup by fundamentalists then maybe it would be better if we just invade. If you don't think that fundamentalists can seize power in a coup, maybe you'd better talk to some Iranians.

|5.18.04 @ 8:09AM|#

Speaking of Iran, I'm afraid that we will have to invade Iran or there WILL be mushroom clouds over an American city. And the doves who insisted that Saddam could be deterred from using WMD should actually agree with me on this. Here's why:

Iran is close to getting nukes. I agree with those who say that the Ayatollahs would never risk their own lives and power by giving nukes to terrorists. But popular unrest in Iran is growing. If the theocrats are on the verge of losing power anyway, then they'll have nothing left to lose by nuking an American city. We need to invade, and SOON. With US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq we have Iran pinned down anyway.

Only Ed|5.18.04 @ 10:39AM|#

I suggest we release photos of the prisoners being treated with extraordinary charm and deference. This will surely result in:

1) No more hostage-taking

2) A down-trend in sawed-off heads

3) A flowering of Arab culture

4) Lower gasoline prices

5) Five Emmy nominations for NBC's new Thursday night entry: "Meet The Ayoubs!"

|5.18.04 @ 11:40AM|#

We're open about our mistakes...only in the lowest ranks.

|5.18.04 @ 11:47AM|#

|5.18.04 @ 12:19PM|#

Joe-

I agree, but we should emphasize that the choir is in all likelihood fairly small (or at least I hope so, and I hope so for survival reasons, not PC reasons). Still, if your terrorist network has a few thousand members, and there are a few thousand other terrorists out there who belong to rival factions torn over some obscure issue, plus a few hundred thousand others who might contemplate joining, even a handful of recruits is a big win.

|5.18.04 @ 12:28PM|#

joe,

I think it could still be reasonably argued that it was a PR mistake if you consider the audience to be not that subset of the Muslim world but rather the rest of the world.

Mo|5.18.04 @ 12:30PM|#

joe,
Even on that case they failed. When Hezebollah and Hamas distance themselves from your act you know you miscalculated big time.

|5.18.04 @ 12:36PM|#

J, I don't think they gave a damn about the rest of the world.

Mo, revolutions come to be dominated by the most extreme faction. How many wanna-be jihadists now think H & H are wussies, and AQ the real deal?

|5.18.04 @ 12:38PM|#

The PR war is the only war the terrorists are fighting. Look at the name "terrorist" - it has never been about military victory, it has been about propagating terror (via PR) to win political victories.

The terrorists are actually doing quite well in the PR war. They have essentially won in most of Europe, have more or less conquered the UN, and may well have pretty much the foreign policy they want from the Democratic party (America goes home and reverts to the "police" approach of the '90s, during which terrorists throve).

When nearly half the US thinks we are losing in Iraq and want to pull out, then I would say the terrorists are winning the PR war.

|5.18.04 @ 12:42PM|#

There are a lot of places claiming that there is some kind of conspiracy going on with this whole thing, that something is fishy, or staged, or just wrong with the whole event. I'm surprised that hasn't been addressed already by the H&R bloggers.

an article at newsfrombabylon

some points of interest at the holocaust humanity

I don't know how reputable these sites are, but the issues raised are of interest to me. I'm not saying I think they're right, but I am curious if anyone else has heard about the theories.

|5.18.04 @ 12:47PM|#

"The PR war is the only war the terrorists are fighting. Look at the name "terrorist" - it has never been about military victory, it has been about propagating terror (via PR) to win political victories."

That has been the traditional terrorist M.O., but I believe we're dealing with a different breed of terrorist in Al Qaeda. Older terror groups, like Hamas and Hezbollah, are primarily concerned with the PR war; that's why they condemned the tape. But if you think back to the Daniel Pearl murder, the killers didn't release it alone, but as part of a recruitment video aimed at potential jihadists, urging them to join the fight.

I believe it was someone in National Review that first described this distinction, and coined the phrase "Millenial Terror" to distinguish it from its antecedant.

|5.18.04 @ 12:59PM|#

Jonah Golberg is a Twirp!

Why should we care what Europe thinks about us? They are just a bunch of arrogant snobs that think we should give up our cars for bicycles.
They can take their Koyoto and freeze in the dark.

|5.19.04 @ 7:12AM|#

I think the idea that these killers don't care about PR is way off base. If they didn't care about PR they would have just killed him and left his body by the road with no announcement.

This killing is something they are obviously proud of, something they think is the duty of every Moslem to be doing, and I think that in their evil minds they believe they are setting an example for the rest of the 'faithful' Moslem world to follow. These are serious nuts, not just some high school kids fooling around with cameras trying to impress their friends.

fyodor|5.19.04 @ 10:17AM|#

raymond,

Well, you're following the logical conclusion of our Iraq operation. Invade the whole friggin' Middle East and MAKE them be liberal. Ever hear of the old saying about leading a horse to water, raymond? You can't MAKE anyone be liberal. Your plan is a prescription for Empire and permanent war.

Douglas Fletchter,

If I may, I think you're arguing semantics. There's PR and there's PR. Joe and others are arguing that the Berg killers have no concern about how their actions are viewed in the West or even among moderate Muslims. What they DO care about is what we often describe in US politics as motivating your base. Now, that's PR in the sense that you're sending a message, but not in the usual sense of trying to look "good" including to your enemies. So that's just a matter of how you're using the term.

|5.19.04 @ 10:17AM|#

You miss the point; they are engaged in public relations, but WE are not the public they care about. This was not done to impress or scare us; it wasn't intended for us at all.