China Sees US As Weak On Terror

This past Chinese New Year I spent 8 days in the village again. this was my 8th stay in the village where my significant other was born and raised.

If you don't know, let me explain to you that politics is all the "menfolk" talk about ALL WEEK.

Having said that, Americans are highly respected and will continue to be, I believe. We are second after Canada (see Bethune and Mark Rowswell).

Chinese have differing opinions on different American leaders, as do Americans. However, I do find that roughly 80% of the Chinese feel that the US needs to not "expand through force". The (village) Chinese are by and large pacifist in regards to other countries. They are NOT pacifist when it comes to "internal" issues. When these people get angry, they will attack (like earlier this week) government buildings.
More than one "Dayi" has been in a serious car wreck under mysterious circumstances.

"American Culture�s French Connection"

�Americans defend cultural diversity at home and deny it abroad while France defends cultural diversity around the world and refuses it at home.�

This post sounds like another instance of this.

--The New York Times - Books - December 26, 2006

Dan,

I can't believe you read "Iran Confidential", where the Ahmadinejad = Hitler references flow like wine. Godwin's Law was long ago repealed over there. And more importantly, you've linked to a post that primarily cites Atlas Shrugs? Dan... I thought I knew you!

So there are people from authoritarian countries who can't understand why Americans don't lock people up or execute them without a jury of their peers simply because they're a swarthy foreigner. For this to be the standard by which US performance is judged is pure Looking Glass.

Iran Confidential lists how "Muslims" are doing horrible things in the US, as if it was the religion that was the source of terrorism. I fail to see how "refusing to handle pork" constitutes a terrorist act. If it does, there are some Hasidic neighborhoods in Brooklyn we need to show to the DHS. That example alone points out the vicious rhetoric and lack of a logical argument in IC's post.

All you've pointed out is the violent garbage of a thinly veiled bigot. Discussing how various Chinese people view the US is fine, but I don't think its constructive to start the discussion by citing someone who claims that the US is lost without more bigotry and hate.

LaoLao --

So are you saying Americans are not viewed as soft?

Kevin S.

Good analogy.

davesgonechina --

1. I have hated Ayn Rand since college. I also believe one should use Hitler analogies incredibly sparingly. But I certainly do not think it so much of a stretch to compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler as to view someone who makes that comparision as being beyond the pale.

2. I also nowhere saw mention of locking people up for their nationality or ethnicity. Rather, I saw criticisms being made for the U.S. allowing subversion of our system and ideals.

3. I also dispute that CC ever accused "Muslims" of anything. He said "Muslim fanatics" and I think he did that not to say all Muslims are fanatics, but to distinguish the fanatics from those who are not. I also think you have misunderstood his "handling pork" allegation. He referred to "Muslim cashiers at chain stores are refusing to handle pork products" not to criticize Muslim beliefs, but to question whether the United States can affort to tolerate someone who works as a cashier at a chain store being able to call the shots as to what he or she will ring up. I think the question here is whether a Wal-Mart should be able to fire a cashier who will not deal with pork products. I see this as a rather complex issue; so complex in fact that I am unable even to take a position one way or the other without conducting further research. This dispute my extreme veneration of the First Amendment. And what about the other examples?

I agree that in discussing these things one must be ever vigilent to avoid veering off into "bigotry and hate," but though China Confidential used strong language in his post, I do not see it as calling for more bigotry and hatred of anything other than those who would seek to destroy. CC may be more willing than you or I to trade in some civil rights to fight terror, but I do not think that in any way makes him a bigot. Can you be specific on this?

Dan:

1. I do think the Hitler/Nazi Germany analogies (both have been used) is beyond the pale. The main reason why is that it immediately casts the Iranian leadership and Iran itself as beyond the pale, something which it is not. The Iranian leadership, no matter how many times CC and some of the conservative bloggers he link to employ alliterations like "mad mullahs", is by all signs rational and seeks self-preservation. The claims that they are a suicide cult seeking the return of the Mahdi obscures the fact that most if not all of their political actions have been to maintain their regime and live happy long lives doing it.

Iran has not had an internal pogrom of its Jews (yes, they have Jews - in fact a Jerusalem Post article not long ago interviewed an Iranian Jew who was going back to Tehran, because he thought people there were nicer. Lone nut? I dunno.) Iran has also not given up its political reins to a single dictator - Ahmadinejad is now a failed populist, having promised relief for the rural poor that never came, while the clerics maintain true power as always. Nice guys? No. Nuclear armageddon seeking Mahdi death cult? No, not that either.

2 and 3. CC's argument breaks down as follows:

9-11 was a "Muslim mega-attack"
Muslim fanatics are in the US
This is evidenced by taxi drivers refusing passengers, cashiers refusing to handle pork, etc.

The implication is clear: people who don't want to touch pork or drive people carrying scotch DO want to fly planes into buildings. The equivalent would be:

The assassinations of abortion clinic doctors were "Christian attacks"
Christian fanatics are in the US
This is evidenced by pharmacists refusing to give out the morning after pill.
This suggests people who don't want to give out the pill want to shoot doctors.

The failure of logic here should be obvious: these pharmacists do not necessarily want to shoot people anymore than these taxi drivers want to blow things up. Yet CC treats it as evidence of such malicious intent. As you say, it is a complex issue. It is fair to argue that the pharmacists must follow their medical code of conduct, or a cashier at Walmart must accept employee regulations - obviously if a Muslim or religious Jew wants to work in a pork slaughterhouse, it's not a good fit and claims of religious discrimination ring hollow. But to claim that this is somehow a sign of terrorists is ridiculous.

davesgonechina (i and ii) --

1. You think the Hitler/Ahmadinejad comparision is beyond the pale becuase "it immediately casts the Iranian leadership and Iran itself as beyond the pale, something which it is not." I agree with you regarding the Iranian leadership and the Iranian people. But, I completely disagree with you regarding Ahmadinejad himself. I absolutely refuse to accept your essentially calling someone crazy for comparing someone who constantly calls for the elimination of all Jews to Hitler. I don't care what country that person is from, that person can be compared to Hitler without the person making the comparision deserving to be written off. That story of the Jew is as kooky as the Jews who went to Iran's recent holocaust denial fest. The reality is that Iran has been executing Jews and Bahais for no reason for years. To paint Iran as some sort of paradise for Jews is itself beyond the pale.

2. I will agree that China Confidential's calling 9-11 a "Muslim mega-attack" is an unfortunate choice of words, but it is also true that every single person behind that terrible act was a Muslim and the act itself was done in the name of Islam. I myself would call those behind it Islamoterrorists to be sure to distinguish them from the majority of Muslims who would never in a million years condone such an action. But, I do not think calling it a "Muslim attack" constitutes bigotry, just as I do not consider calling an attack on an abortion clinic by a group of Christian terrorists a "Christian attack" necessarily anti-Christian.

"Muslim fanatics are in the US." You are not actually disputing this are you?

I would NOT call a Muslim cashier who refuses to handle pork a fanatic, but China Confidential certainly never called them terrorists. I completely missed the implication you find so clear. I saw the implication being that the United States is no longer standing up for its ideals (whatever those ideals may be), not that all (or even many or even some) of those people rubbing up against our ideals are terrorists.

There are "Christian fanatics" in the US and I do not even understand how you can argue otherwise. Are you claming there are no Christian fanatics in the US?

I do NOT consider a Christian who refuses to give out the morning after pill a Christian fanatic, but I would bet many people do. This does not suggest these "fanatics" want to shoot doctors. Fanatic does not equal terrorist. You seem to be making that equation. I do not think CC does and I certainly do not.

I agree with you that these "pharmacists do not necessarily want to shoot people anymore than these taxi drivers want to blow things up," but I truly do not see where you are coming up with CC saying otherwise.

We agree that "it is a complex issue" and "it is "fair to argue that the pharmacists must follow their medical code of conduct, or a cashier at Walmart must accept employee regulations - obviously if a Muslim or religious Jew wants to work in a pork slaughterhouse, it's not a good fit and claims of religious discrimination ring hollow."

At worst, CC is claiming that our "perceived weakness" on these issues is seen by China as us going down the slippery slope of terrorism. I don't even see this in the post, but perhaps some might. I do agree with CC that THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE U.S. HELD BY MANY in places outside the United States and that is what I see as the point of CC's post and that was certainly the point of my post.

Your ascribing "Muslim menace" to CC is unfair and below the belt. CC says this is how China sees things; he never says that is how he sees things. Don't be naive, this is how much of the world does see these things and you know full well that stereotyping is not nearly as verbotim in China as it is in the United States. In fact, I daresay the entire post is how China views the United States, not how CC views it.

When Yitzhak Rabin was murdered, those who typically ascribe terrible deeds to the Torah were so overjoyed they didn't even bother. CC never even mentioned the Koran in his post so again you are really stretching here, but I would agree with you that it is grossly unfair to blame the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, or even the gun or the bomb, for terrible human deeds done on behalf of or with any of these.

I also agree with you that by ascribing terrorism to Muslims, we do ourselves a huge disservice for reasons far too numerous to enumerate here.

Believe it or not, I take a very nuanced view regarding Islam and terrorism. I do not think Islam is the cause so much as so many Arab countries having essentially been frozen in time. To blame Islam is to fail to distinguish between countries like Turkey and Malaysia on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia on the other. Failing to distinguish is dangerous. I read Bernard Lewis's book, What Went Wrong? and I buy into most of it.

I have asked China Confidential to check in and I am hoping he can respond in his own defense so I no longer have to.

Can somebody please tell me what this discussion is all about?

I have read this post, the China confidential post, and all the comments, and I have yet to find one concrete example of any American domestic policy or action which indicates that America as a country is doing anything to treat domestic dangers in a way which could be seen as soft or hypocritical.

Are we trying to present the US as some kind of bastion of liberalism? There may be liberal elements in the US, but don't forget:

-the US has the highest percentage of any country in the world of its population in prison at any one time

-the US is one of the four countries which performs 94% of all legal executions

-in the US there are eight times as many black men in their twenties and early thirties in jail than white man of the same age

-the US is the most violent society in the developed world, with the highest figures on just about every index, such as murder, gun crime, etc

So where is this softness? I really don't understand the argument.

The only 'subversion of [the US's] system and ideals' I can see is the war on terror itself, which conveniently doesn't have an identifiable enemy, so can be fought for ever, and those fighting it can be sold as heroes without any concrete measure of success or failure ever being possible.

Americans will sooner or later become painfully aware that solving problems with violence doesn't work.

Let's be careful using words like 'islamo-terrorists'. The question is, did they do what they did because they were muslims or because they were violent people? Most muslims don't kill people. Every lunatic can find a cause. Were the provisional IRA terrorists because they were Irish? No. How was the problem in Northern Ireland solved? By acknowledging that there were legitimate grievances, and giving those who weren't fundamentally committed to violence another option, leaving those who were fundamentally committed to violence high and dry without a cause and exposed for what they really were.

It took some genuine acknowledgement of the grievances, and it could never have been done by military means.

One other point: Nanheyangrouchuan, what exactly is the EU going through with its 'non-white, non-christian' immigrants? There are problems, but they pale into insignificance compared to the violence and inequality in US society.

Thank you, Dan, for the courage to comment on my piece and for linking to China Confidential. Now two years old, the blog has focused on the dark side of China's rise, including its military expansion and strengthening ties to radical Islam and nuclearizing Iran.

Rightwing political Islam, or Islamism, is a global menace, an implacable foe, like Nazism or Fascism. The United States, unfortunately, secretly supported Islamist groups throughout the Cold War. The culmination of this disastrously misguided policy was the huge covert operation in Afghanistan, which ultimately blew back in America's face on 9/11 with the worst-ever attacks on US soil.

After 9/11, one would have thought--the Chinese, among others expected--that the US would have cracked down as hard as possible on the Islamist threat, including the gathering menace inside the US. But it didn't happen. Instead of revoking the visas of aliens from Muslim lands, the Bush administration praised "peaceful and beautiful Islam" and airlifted Saudi nationals home when no Americans were allowed to fly. Instead of attacking Iran, which had WMD and actual, meaningful Al Qaeda connections (despite the Shiite-Sunni divide), Washington went to war with Iraq, a secular, contained enemy. insead of getting tough--really tough--with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the countries that gave the world Al Qaeda and the Taliban, respectively, we drew closer to them.

Islamist militants are gaining, not losing, influence in the US. Their so-called spiritual leaders are more brazen than ever, though careful not to appear to cross certain lines for obvious legal reasons.

The US and the West in general are showing weakness, increasingly seem exhausted, in the long and difficult struggle against an enemy that seeks to end Western civilization.

And China ... and all of Asia ... are taking notice of this weakness.

Speaking of America's "relaxed attitude" to immigration and borders, I sometimes wonder what would happen if immigration were to ask me "are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party", and I were to responded by showing them my membership card.

Any guesses, anybody?

Personally, I doubt that I'd get any further than the doors of the interview room.

Joe --

I am impressed by your ability to narrow down to a very small subsector the people who say something of which you don't approve, yet have never once heard. By doing so you violate two "rules" in one fell swoop. You create a "straw man" and then seek to destroy it with ad hominem argument. This belies fear and prejudice more than good judgment.

Duncan --

Thanks for checking in with a voice of reason.

I agree with you on all points.

China Confidential --

Thanks for checking in and providing a fuller explanation.

Even if one were to agree with your statement that "Islamism, the political ideology, and Islam, the religion, are becoming virtually synonymous" (which I do not), that still does not justify equating the two and by appearing to call for the expulsion of all Muslim aliens (not just those in the United States illegally or with illegal intentions), you blur the line far too much for my tastes. Surely you are not saying the United States should have thrown out of the country all Muslims here on visas, legal or not? That very much reeks of what we did to the Japanese during WWII and it was wrong then and would be wrong now. Yes, the U.S. must remain ever vigilent, but no, we cannot allow the terrorists to compromise our ideals or we do lose.

ACB --

IF you are accusing me of calling Islam the enemy, you have obviously either failed to read what I have written or you simply fail to understand. I do NOT think Islam is the enemy. I find your need to tout the Muslims you have known as law abiding people strange and perhaps even a bit anti-Islam itself. Of course most of the Muslims you have known are decent law abiding people. Who would have thought otherwise? Certainly, not me, who used to live in a Muslim country and still maintains friendships with countless people from there and who socializes and represents Muslims nearly every day. Gee, would you go so far out on a limb as to say you know fine people from such and such a place too. You are sounding like my late grandmother who used to proclaim that her good friend, "Mrs, Watson, is black, but she's really nice." I have always thought of this as covert racism or mild racism. At best it is patronizing.

I resent your unfair and completely untrue accusation that I claimed Islam is the enemy, particularly since I both claimed and believe the exact opposite. It truly aggravates me how quickly horrible and completely unfounded accusations can fly and before you respond to this comment I would ask that you do actually go back and read my comments. In fact, I just thirty minutes ago chastised China Confidential himself for making it seem Islam is the problem and conflating Islamic extremism with the entire religion.

I not only do NOT think Islam is the problem, I think it is counterproductive and potentially dangerous to say so. It is never a good idea to lump the good with the bad because doing so disaffects the good.

I just cannot get over how you so quickly and wrongly ascribe views to me that are not my own. I link to posts ALL the time with which I disagree. All the time. If one were to ascribe to me the views of all the posts to which I have linked, I would probably stand on both sides on just about every issue out there. Shame on you, as blogger you ought to know better. Shame!

Joe --

First off, thanks for coming back and thanks for calling me on what I did. I actually appreciate it.

I owe you an apology and I am sorry. I should not have gone off on you and I think I did just because I was irritated at some of the allegations that were being thrown at me by others. My response to you was uncalled for.

You are right. There was absolutely nothing wrong with your speculating as to the kind of people who might hold those views. In fact, in another context I can just see myself (and I have done this), coming back to you and asking who you think those people are and speculating right along with you. Hell, I love doing that sort of thing? Who is it who is buying luxury condos in Wuhan?

I truly feel bad about my unfairly and completely undeservedly trying to nail you in the crossfire, particularly because I want this site to be a place of open discussion, not condescending, name calling bullshit and that's exactly what my comment was (well, at least I didn't use any names). I am embarrassed.

In legalese, mea culpa.

Mr. Fish --

For two reasons, I ain't buying.

First off, I am NOT of the view that the US is being too soft so I am not going to go off and list ways in which this is true. In fact, I think the balance between civil rights and preventing violence is pretty good right now in the US. I do think we must remain vigilent regarding those who seek to harm us, but, I am NOT calling for a toughening of any laws.

Second, like most Americans, I do greatly resent being preached to by Old Europe. I spent many years in Old Europe in the early 1970s listening to a pretty much unending stream of condescending talk about race problems in the United States. But once immigration started in Europe, the talk certainly changed. It is in Fortress Europe that racist scum like LePen, Waldheim and others seem to thrive, not here in the US. It is Europe that just cannot stomach allowing Muslim Turkey into the EU, not the US.

Yes, we have problems here in the US. Of course we do. But certainly no worse than Old Europe.

Immigration law currently is very strict on any association with terrorist organizations, including "material support," which has been defined quite broadly--i.e., if you donate money to the Muslim Happy Happy Joy Joy Orphans Club and it turns out that they actually funding the Not Quite So Happy Suicide Bomber Club, you are likely to be inadmissible or deportable. The Communist stuff has a bunch of exceptions and waivers, the principle one being for former members who haven't been a member for two years, and for people who are considered to be involuntary members--examples are rife in China where if you're the best student in your high school and so on, you get to be a Party member as a big reward. Also, if you're the immediate relative of a citizen, not just an LPR, you can be waived in under the AG's discretion.

Frankly, I find China Confidential's posts pretty hysterical in every sense of the word. I think the line services in the US government are doing a pretty good job of containing the threat of terrorism. The problem is that we are generating new terrorists in Iraq all the time and we are failing to adequately employ our soft power to engage with moderate Muslims. And, yes, China Confidential, there are moderate Muslims. I disagree with the Bush administration's recent outreach to Sunni terrorist organizations, but a strategy of aggressively pursuing, killing and detaining real terrorists while isolating them from moderate Muslims and avoiding creating new ones seems like a good plan.

I think the bigger threat is that we are being distracted with the Middle East, a sideshow compared to the rise of China, India, and the EU. That's the real reason that the US's hegemon status is threatened. And I say that as a liberal who believes that we'll look back with nostalgia on the Pax Americana--the US was a pretty benevolent behemoth.

Replace the stereotypes and generalizations in your post with anti-Semitic remarks and see how comfortable you are with it, China Confidential. You're better than that, some of the other stuff on your site is truly interesting and informative. The anti-Muslim bigotry is just as repellent as its cousins racism and anti-Semitism.

Alex:

Europe drew the borders in Africa and the M.E. and conveniently turns its back on the whole affair. What is Europe doing to clean up its mult-continent mess?

Gun violence. Yes, we have a problem with that. Europe has a worse problem with racism and race-based violence. Can you admit to that?

Bart --

I certainly agree there are moderate muslims (hell, I attended a Turkish high school for a year, so I ought to know), and I also agree that we need to be very careful about not alienating them.

Nanheyangrouchuan:

Thanks for the comeback.

Firstly, I'm not arguing on behalf of Europe.

Secondly, I don't think it is right to talk as though Europe is one homogenous unit - it isn't.

Thirdly, I've never seen the problems you are talking about. I grew up in a very multi-cultural environment, and whereas everyone knows that racism is a problem everywhere different races live together, I have experienced and seen very little of it.

Anyway, you aren't going to take my word for it. I'd be interested to know whose word you are taking, though.

Dan, would you like to come back on that point, seeing as you seem to agree on racism in western Europe?

Dear Dan,

Thanks for the post.

I think this discussion of violent societies and racism could get very interesting.

Let's start by talking about integration - can you give me an example of a country which has achieved 'real integration'? Let's find a benchmark.