Discreet Charms of Terrorism

In the account of the first hijacking I i found the reactions of the hijackers and the passengers towards one another after the ordeal not as surprising as they seemed. The vision of attackers and the attacked crying together and signing and receiving autographs sounds crazy, but in all reality its not. It is safe to say that a major cause of conflict is the inability to identify with the other individual. Which is why i think this attack ended the way it did. The attackers and the attacked had the opportunity to see themselves in the other, and in that moment they weren't different they were human. I believe that we often share much more with the other than we realize, but do not have the capability to see it. So in this realization I how a "terrorist" must feel inside... This thought is so beyond my reach that i can not even begin to imagine a possible answer which is why i think it is so challenging to deal with this problem. Individuals of terrorism have experienced something so intense they are willing to not only jeopardize their own lives but the lives of other as well and in most cases they can not tell us if it was worth it. But maybe these articles can give us a clue. If a suicide bomber was somehow able to reconnect with their victims would they experience this same kind of remorse? Would the victims sympathize with them? How would a potential "terrorist" or someone about to commit a terrorist act react to this story?

IR in theory and practice (Kelsey Hunter, Week 14, Substantive)

The relation of academic study of IR and practice (policy making) should be one of tension (p. 734).

Halliday's piece "International Relations and Its Discontents" gave me a lot to think about. The quotation above especially struck me, because all semester I have been struggling to apply IR theory to actual events, and I have found it to be a difficult task.

Because I have struggled with how to apply IR theory to policy and current events, I enjoyed Halliday's discussion of the roles of IR as a social science in education. It allowed me to see a bigger picture (one that I already knew) of why we study IR and why we should study IR. He feels that International Relations must be judged by the following criteria: 1) formation of the mind (thinking, writing in a rigorous manner; think clearly and conceptually, formulate ideas, think independently), 2) transmission of theory (to put the facts and "givens" of the world in a conceptual framework, place issues of contemporary life in context), 3) training for area of professional expertise, 4) provide knowledge that will help solve contemporary issues (in the creation of foreign policy. Halliday believes that universities are failing to adequately "train the mind" due to a preoccupation with contemporary issues and events. He would say there are too many courses on current events and not enough on things like methodology (which shouldn't be in the IR department anyway according to him), writing and research skills or perhaps even courses that force students to debate and discuss (seminars). However, I do not feel as though I am necessarily missing any of those four requirements. I feel now as though I could apply what I've learned at Lehigh in a more policy oriented environment. I certainly feel as though I know how to think (something that I have been developing even more with the process of writing my thesis).

In application to my thesis, I found Halliday's discussion on scientism to be interesting. "Scientism" is one of his biggest complaints- the application of quantitative analysis to IR. He calls it a "distraction" Uh-oh, let's hope Halliday does not read my thesis. Halliday would have me believe that I have fallen into a trap of trying to "predict" civil war. He does not believe social science has the obligation to predict anything, but instead social science should explain. Beware of merely "understanding" and "interpreting" the situation, as these exercises become too subjective and lose any quality of objectivity. Fortunately, I think I've recognized that I have not lost sight of how IR theory should work. The reason I've struggled so much with my thesis is because I'm trying to fit theory and quantitative analysis together, something that I feel the contemporary literature on the economic causes of civil war fails to do. Also, I am not using quantitative analysis to predict civil war: I am using it to explain civil war and what causes it. Through a quantitative analysis I hope to prove the connection between poverty and civil war in order that we may address the underlying conditions that may lead to conflict.

I also found his lament over the disconnect between IR theory and actual policy making to be interesting. He points out that most in the "outside" world believe that IR is irrelevant to policy debate and is merely a "commentary on the news" (p. 739). Halliday feels that there are important debates in the academic world of IR that could contribute substantially to formation of policy, thereby grounding policy in theory, which I suppose he believes would make the policies stronger. I think that in order for IR theory to cross over into the mainstream of economics and law, scholars need to continue applying IR theory to contemporary issues, but also need to make those applications more accessible to policy makers and the general public. Sometimes I read academic articles on IR theory and I am completely lost, and I am an IR student! I can only imagine how policy makers feel when trying to de-construct theories and apply them to real life on their own.

"The power of formulating one's own argument" (Christine Porcaro, week 15, substantive)

When I first printed out Science as a Vocation I was not very excited at all to read it. I did not think it was going to be interesting and I was really dreading it. BUT, as soon as I started reading it, I became very interested. I am sure that this was Prof. Pervez's intent, but I was able to see a strong connection between the reading and our class. Throughout this semester we have been given facts about IR theory, opinions about different theories and varying opinions from the varying articles we have read. Max Weber talks about how a lecturer should not impose his/her opinion on the students. "It is irresponsible for such a teacher to fail to provide his listeners, as is his duty, with his knowledge and academic experience, while imposing on them his knowledge and academic experience, while imposing on them his personal political opinions."With this said I feel that this semester we have been given the tools to create our own opinion without being overwhelmed or persuaded by the opinion of the professor. I think that is important because when trying to form your own opinion it can easily be over shadowed if you have been presented with biased facts. I do, however, encourage within a class a "devil's advocate" kind of discussion to occur. In a lecture structured type class this is not something that can happen...so in this case Max Weber is correct in saying that personal opinion needs to be left at the door if one is going to do the lecture any justice. But in a smaller type classroom to be able to present an opinion or argument, not as one's own but just as an alternative argument, I feel that that can create even more discussion and more ideas to come forth. It makes students think more about how they view something so that they can form their own argument based upon the facts already presented to them. So when looking back on this semester I feel that this class has done a good job of combining a lecture based class and discussion based class. Max Weber claims that it is very difficult as a teacher to have students think about things independently, which I completely agree. It is very easy for a student to just shut off their brain right after class. What I thought was interesting was that I feel that the final paper does just that. It makes students think independently about how they perceive international relations. Of course no argument will be perfect but as Max Weber states, "to be superseded scientifically is not simply our fate but our goal. We cannot work without living in hope that others will advance beyond us. In principle, the progress is infinite."

Educating and creating understanding (Christine Porcaro, Week 13, Substantive)

During our class discussion on religion about 2 weeks ago, someone brought up the point that maybe by educating people about different types of religion and culture that there wouldn't be as much blind hatred and more cooperation among people. The point was also brought up that there have been may ways in which people can learn about different religions and cultures but the people that usually choose to take advantage of these opportunities aren't the ones that need the educating. When reading "An Anthropological Excursion into the Muslim World", I kept replaying the class discussion that we had. I know that this reading was assigned for the terrorism week but I feel since religion and terrorism seem to be very much intertwined I still feel that it is appropriate. In the reading the author says "I would redouble my efforts to help non-Muslims and Muslims alike appreciate the true features of Islam and thereby forge a bond between them. Without that common understanding, the entire world would sink deeper into conflict." When I read that, I thought of what Professor Pervez said when she was talking about Osama bin Laden . She said that he was a very well educated man. Knowing this, it is hard to think that he doesn't have an understanding of our culture. He understands it and hates it. I would like to think that that educating people would create a mutual understanding but sometimes educating people created an understanding but the hatred still exists. There is also a chance that the hatred could just increase with increased understanding. So in the end it could just be a question of is blind, ignorant hatred better than educated, informed hatred.
I feel that I learned a lot from this article because it presented Islam and its complexities. People in the US so readily think Islam and terrorism are synonymous. I love being able to read about different cultures because I feel that having a better understanding makes my opinions less ignorant. With saying this however, I feel that a lot of people that should read this, probably wouldn't. And as I said above, further understanding doesn't always lead to a person gaining compassion for anothers cuture. I do not feel however that this should stop us from trying to educate each other. I do feel that terrorism and the Unites States' retaliation to terrorism is fueled a lot through ignorance. I do not claim to know a lot about the Middle East but I would put money on the fact that our President doesn't know a whole lot either. I do not think that increased understanding will eradicate all problems in the world, such as terrorism, but I believe that understanding something that seems odd and foreign will make it seem, in the end, more personal and close to home.

"The Clash of Civilizations" (Kelsey Hunter, Week 13 Substantive)

Akbar Ahmed's chapter "The Clash of Civilizations" makes some very interesting and important points about why the problems between the West and especially the Muslim world may exist. There are several important quotations I'd like to discuss.

"Many observers agree that responsibility and awareness are being abandoned as a result of globalization, even among political leaders" (p. 198). Ahmed discussed the emphasis placed on individualism in American society and how it takes away from the community, which is an important entity in Muslim societies. Globalization is responsible for individualism being emphasized around the world, as Americanization accompanies globalization and may be the same thing. As other countries are forced to compete with American products and in American markets, those countries must adopt individualism and abandon some of the responsibilities that were formerly inherent in their societies. He believes that Americans live in bubbles, especially those white-upper class Americans, and they are out of touch with other races, cultures, and ethnicities as well as out of touch with events happening globally or in other parts of their own city. Most importantly, while little is done to engage these other groups, even less is done to dispel stereotypes about these groups. The stereotypes, especially against the Muslim community, are being enforced by video games, tv, movies, and the news and even go so far as to discourage tolerance of non-Christians. (I was really appalled when I read this, because I had no idea such things existed. However, I was not surprised they existed.) The "climate of fear and hatred" is being perpetuated by the media, Hollywood, and talk show hosts. Ahmed dedicates several pages to discussing this climate of fear and those who have perpetuated it. My post about the Lehigh Center for Islamic Studies was exactly about this climate of fear and hatred, a climate that still exists and seems to be worsening 6 years after 9/11. This is further evidenced by the incident on Jerry Klein's radio show in 2006! (p. 208).

Another quotation is from the end of the chapter "a giant step in the way of creating trust and goodwill would be to reach out to the Muslim world and emphasize respect for its culture and religion" (p. 243). This followed his discussion of the disastrous attempts of Americans to "help or control" the Muslim world, including the U.S. actions in Iran in the 1970s which created such a backlash against America and the American backed government that the Ayatollah Khomeini was able to take over. So Ahmed believes that the U.S. shouldn't back allies of convenience in the middle east (like Pakistan) by giving them military support, but rather give them support for their educational programs to create alternatives to the radical madrassahs that have become so popular as a response to the increased distrust and hatred for the West. I think this view is exactly how the U.S. should proceed, but proceed with extreme caution. The attitudes of both Americans and Muslims (well at least the radical segments of these populations) will not change overnight and more will need to be done than just provide funding for education. Stronger diplomatic relations, rather than military, need to begin. Promoting cultural and religious understanding both at home and abroad is also important, but as pointed out in class, these need to be more broad based than just exchanges between elites.

I do believe the clash of civilizations is here, but I don't think it has to be here to stay.

Akbar and The War on Terror

Akbar Ahmed’s “An Anthropological Excursion into the Muslim World” makes the case that people, led by their governments need to appeal to the principles universal to all religions in order to bring clashing groups together. This would be an ideal situation, on in which the United States could reach out to the Muslim world and hope to persuade moderate Muslims to dominate the dialogue so that extremists would have trouble gaining a foothold in the Muslim world. This is an excellent long-term strategy for fighting the War on Terror, but what about combating short-term threats posed by extremists who we are not going to change in this lifetime and who are still focused on their terrorist goals? Ahmed does not really address the fact that it is just as crucial for the West and especially America and Israel to deal with current terrorist threats. Americans living today want security now as well as security in the long-term. The invasion of Afghanistan was necessary because 9/11 was planned from there and America needed to destroy that safe haven for terrorism I order to combat the current wave a irreconcilable extremists. It can be debated whether or not it was necessary to invade Iraq but now that al-Qaeda, as evidenced by intercepted communications from Zawahiri, wishes to make a stand there we must fight them and keep them from getting control of any part of Iraq. I do believe that more needs to be done though in the way of influencing moderate Muslims so that they can force extremism out of the Muslim world. Whether this is accomplished through aid or perhaps something radical like changing the regime of one of our oppressive allies in the Middle East, more needs to be done. The United States and the West need to continue their offensive operations aimed at destroying the current extremist movements’ ability to attack us but do more to fight the extremist mentality by appealing to moderate Muslims as Ahmed says we should.

The War for Globalization?

Globalization has created many struggles between people along certain lines and religion is one of them. These struggles are seen as isolated and not united. But is it possible that these outbreaks of tension along social, cultural, and religious lines are actually all part of a grater war on the everyday level of IR to combat ignorance and division that we could call the war for globalization? During our class discussion yesterday the issue of the Islamic Student Center at Lehigh University was brought up. I did a little research of my own on the issue and discovered that in fact there are many who oppose such a center because it “supports terrorism” or because if “Muslim do not respect our way of life, why should we respect theirs?” This first thing I thought when I looked at this debate is that it is a good example of IR in everyday practice. An effort by a leading US educational institution to promote awareness about a predominantly foreign religion is under attack by citizens who are afraid of the implications. Normal people are displaying the divide that exists on a global level between West and East in their everyday practices. How do you correct this? With an Islamic Student Center! By having such a place on its campus, Lehigh is moving forward in spreading awareness of Islam in a country that obviously needs it. Before I came to Lehigh I was also ignorant of Islam. No Muslims live in my hometown in Massachusetts and so all I really had to base my view of Islam on was what I got from the media after 9/11, some of it good and some of it bad. I am in ROTC with Gabe and his Muslim roommate is in my military science class. Meeting him and interacting with him has defiantly given me a great opportunity to learn about Islam. I think that the ignorance of Islam on the part of many Americans is something that needs to be corrected if we are to win the war on terror. It is ignorance that got us to the point of having to fight this war, so why would we not fix that state of ignorance now? Also I have to address this issue of Muslims not respecting our way of life. Who does “our” represent? It better not represent “Americans” because religion does not determine if someone is a citizen of the US. An example of this is Gabe’s roommate. Like I said, he is an ROTC cadet who is looking at contracting and becoming a doctor and an officer in the United States Army. Whether or not he contracts, he is still one of the best cadets in the program. I have no doubt that he could make a great officer. Going back to IR, ignorance on the part of people is not something that can be fixed by a government and ignorance of Islam is what got the US attacked on 9/11 and into this war. So there is nothing that the state can do to fix the root cause of this war (sorry realists), but there is something that can be done by the people themselves. IR in everyday practice comes into play here because it is people who must fix their ignorance through meaningful experiences and interactions that they create for themselves, for example by making an Islamic Student Center at a major American university. A major front of the war on terror must be fought at home to battle existing social norms and beliefs. This struggle reflects that on the everyday level, globalization is in some ways a battle to bring down social, cultural, and religious barriers that separate people and limit their ability to come together and expand globalization. Perhaps globalization is the third world war and the battles that take place between people along social, religious, and cultural lines are just battles in the greater war to destroy these barriers and peaceful globalized world.