Many in the world see these perpetrators as fighters for a new justice, and we must alter the conditions of what is alienating so many in the world so that we are seen as the champions fighing for justice and fairness in the world -- and not muderous, well-organized gangs of terrorists ...

... The only long-term way to beat back the generation of anti-American, anti-Western terrorists that have evolved is to couple our military and police responses to a much more comprehensive strategy that steals legitimacy from their actions – and that means we must consider many of the grievances that silent majorities in Islamic nations hold.

Very good post Steve.  I think you and I are in agreement about the basic problem.  So my question is:  Where do we begin?  What concrete steps can we take to begin the process of winning hearts and minds?

Forget it.

This debate will never happen in this country.

Things were bad enough in the cold war, much worse now when any such fuzzy thinking can be construed as "therapy for terrorists."

Face it: Too many people now have a political interest in a "war on terror" that extends indefinitely into the future.  And too many  people are willing to believe it's just that the evildoers hate our freedom....

I'm sorry to be so negative, but anyone who thinks there will ever be room for this kind of political debate is living in an alternative universe.  Any politician who entertained this discussion would be eaten alive.

Perhaps in fifty years, when people are finally exhausted by the WOT, and if we still have a democracy left in this country by then.... 

One part of why might be how these clearly not downtrodden people are treated in Europe. Many European countries have a twofold problem. They have shrinking populations and growing foreign Islamic residents. In many of these countries these Muslims will never become citizens of these countries no matter how many generations their families live there. This exclusion combine with disrespect leads to a great deal of disaffection and anger. I believe a large number of the 9/11 killers had spent a lot more time in Europe than they had in the United States.

Leaping from the Okinawa rape case to Islamic anti-American terrorism is beneath this blog.

The Okinawans are possibly one of the world's most pacifist peoples.  Despite the heinous crime committed by the three Marines in 1995, Okinawans responded by a mass rally, not violence.

No "long-time Japan hands" ever thought that Japanese or Okinawans would use violence against the U.S. or U.S. interests--at least none with a shred of respect for the Japanese or the Okinawans.  The coy use of the parenthetical "yet" in "There obviously has not (yet) developed a violence prone protest movement in Okinawa" is grotesque.  The "Although...unlikely, it's possible" gambit is even worse.

The Okinawans and Japanese have been outraged at the crimes committed by U.S. servicemembers.  They have never forgotten, however, that the incidents are crimes...and that crime can can only be met and defeated through reason and patience. Only a tiny group of extreme leftists, disowned by everyone, has ever taken direct action--and then only by firing ineffectual bomblets from toy-like mortars at empty U.S. military parking lots.

Japanese and Okinawans and the men and women of jihad are not comparable. To even hint at a consilience is revolting. No, it is worse than that: it is stupid.

Two things splicer,
1) I do not understand why people are apparently unable to stand back and look at the lenghty rants and statements made by bin Laden and other groups from a 'deconstructionist' angle --
after all, we would never take a 'political' statement at face value, would we? We would never fail to see it in relation to its context, would we?
So why is it that the statements put out by a terrorist group succeed at disorientating us 'Westerners' so much? 
2) Following from 1) The grievances Steve refers to are clearly NOT synonymous with the 'grievances' detailed on a terrorist's website or a bin Laden video.
Steve is talking about 
the grievances of a silent majority in the Muslim world
He argues that these people have legitimate grievances, and that these grievances ought to be addressed. (I would like to add, that they ought to be addressed by political leaders around the world, not only by (but including) the United States.) 
These grievances are NOT identical to the rants of a bin Laden.
And once people get that far, I think tremendous progress would have been made...

was the largest civil protests against American military presence on Japan's islands since 1960.

I would be careful on this one.  There could be another, non-terrorist reason why there might be a desire for the US no longer to have bases in some areas.

sPh 

In all of the cases mentioned, whether over here or over there, the truth about history would have to be faced by the peoples concerned. Are we willing to do that here? Are we willing to admit that our "way of life" has been built on the misery of peoples all around the world? Are the Japanese willing to face their recent history? Few Japanese realize that the crimes committed against the Chinese in the name of the Japanese people were possibly even worse than those committed by the Nazis, and certainly their equal? The same can be said about Arabs/Muslims and numerous other national entities. In this kind of nationalistic make-believe world, where myth parades as truth, can we ever resolve the problems? Or, is it power to the strongest, and "right" the prize of the survivors only?

Rove did NOT eke out 51%. Go back and reread the exit polls...

>>>>America faked its way through a series of concessions to the Okinawa islanders, promising much but delivering little.

---- political terrorism comes from a breakdown in communication between the rulers and the ruled. In political leadership it is crucial at least to listen to the concerns of the ruled. You don't necessarily have to do what everybody wants, but it is important for them to feel they have at least been given space to say what they want. 

We the USA have taken on much of the security responsibility for Japan. On some level this is a good deal for both of us. But military bases are places which often swing their wangers around, even in the USA they are notorious for flouting environmental laws. Maybe that's another thing, maybe the fact that we can always fall back on our guns makes it easier to stop listening.

Robert Pape's book,"The Logic of Suicide Terrorism", speciifcally ties the grievances to real or perceived occupation by a foreign power of what is perceived as ones homeland.  The theory has not received enough discussion, what with everything else  going on.  There are some good links in a recent Kevin Drum post  here</a"&gthttp://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_07/0067
02.php">here</a>, including a link to a book review by Mike Scheuer, author of "Imperial Hubris."  It certainly bears out this thesis.   

Steve,

I comepletely agree with you -- if we're serious about undermining support for terrorism, we need to understand the grievances which lead people to buy into terrorist groups' ideologies.  That's not "therapy for terrorists" -- it's fighting smart. People often confuse moral arguments about terrorism with arguments about causation -- but arguing that, as a practical matter, A causes B, doesn't mean that B is morally justified by A.

Just as an aside, I wanted to mention an idea I've been thinking about over the last couple of months -- I think there might very well be a niche for some sort of organization similar to the Truman National Security Project -- except promoting a more pragmatic/realist Democratic vision for U.S. foreign policy.  I'm aware of such groups as the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy -- but what I have in mind would be partisan -- trying to promote what we see as sensible pragmatic views within the Democratic party.

Anyway, I just wanted to throw the idea out there, and see what you, and other like-minded TPMCafe posters, think of the idea.

I lived on Okinawa for nearly 12 years, from 1975 to 1987, and I return for visits to friends there on a regular basis. Okinawans and Japanese are very different, and share very little culturally aside from the Japanese language, although Uchina-guchi, the Okinawan dialect, is still preserved in song and spoken by elders.

Okinawans are peaceful. Yes, it's true that Japanese have been violent, both within the mainland country and beyond. Okinawans have not. Never. The yearly protests against the American bases in Okinawa are loud, but peaceful.

During my time there, the protests were mainly concerned with getting back their land, and a return to Okinawan peaceful values. This tiny island is 65 miles in length, and averages 5 miles in width. The northern part of the island is mountainous. The southern part is suitable for farming and economic development. This is where the American bases are located, on land that Okinawans need for farming and for their growing population. American bases occupy about 20% of the island.

70% of mainland Japanese want the bases to remain in Okinawa and want a continued American presence. 70% of Okinawans believe they bear a disproportionate share of the burden of housing American bases as outlined in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and think mainland Japan should host some of the bases. Okinawans are frustrated not only with the American government, but with Tokyo as well.

Okinawans are certainly angry over crimes committed by American servicemen. They are also angry over dangers inherent with hosting bases, like plane crashes, and noise associated with planes at the air bases and the fire range practice.

However, to suggest Okinawans would resort to violence if their demands are not met is, in my opinion, simply not tenable. It is not in the nature of Okinawans to be violent. The American bases are a reminder of war and violence which clash with Okinawan culture and values.

And just as a tidbit that may or may not have anything to do with the topic. Okinawans enjoy the longest longevity in the world, with more centarians than any other region, beating even Japan. So, I wonder if, in addition to diet, their tendency to lead peaceful, stress-free lives contributes to this longevity.

I agree that the answer to the Islamist terror problem cannot be found without reference to OBL's six or seven points. But pigs will fly the day this administration even considers this road. They will begin rolling back their tax cuts for the wealthy first.

How stress-free and peaceful do you think the Okinawans would have been over the past five decades if they had not had the protection of American forces to keep China and possibly Korea at arms length? We have no way of knowing, of course, but American troops or Okinawan troops, one or the other, would have been needed. Quite frankly, even with the obvious abuses and errors, I think the American record of handling territory and peoples captured in military conflict is superior to any other I know about in modern history. It's certainly far superior to that of the Japanese!

Thanks for a thoughtful post Steve.  I agree.  I think central to this line of thinking needs to be a self-imposed mandate that we will never, under any circumstances, negotiate with terrorists.  And yes, I know that that line is so trite at this point as to have become the punchline in a movie.  But if we want to sell the idea that understanding our enemies' legitimate grievances will have some value in the long run, then we need to be clear that we are not talking about appeasement or sitting at the table with bin Laden. 

The IRA has it's Sinn Fein.  It's a sickening game they play at pretending not to be a terrorist organization, but an absolute necessity for ending that conflict.  Are we currently willing to talk with Islamic versions of Sinn Fein, distasteful as that might be? 

Would terrorism stop if we addressed legitimate concerns in the Islamic world?  I doubt it, but we would certainly be in a much stronger position to build alliances with moderate factions and isolate terrorists from the support they now receive from Muslims who normally might support a more peaceful form of protest.  Ironically, this approach would almost certainly be better for US business interests as well.   

They kicked me out of the right wing, so now I'm stuck with you guys.

cscs -

I agree that bin Laden has framed his attacks against the US on those issues, but note that al Qaeda appears to have broader motivations than rebelling against the US, has operated prior to taking up against the US, and has continued to operate against a much broader range of targets.  So I don't see anti-US sentiment as the underlying cause of their existence.

The relatively good socioeconomic conditions of the 9/11 (and apparently 7/7) attackers is consistent with my point.  While they may not have had the luck of the draw of, say, Jenna Bush, they have enjoyed some benefits of Western institutions.  Which is reason to further doubt a proposal that we ameliorate the world's aggrieved.