A few weeks back, I noticed that Bush had made the odd admission (for a Republican at least) that resentment over US foreign policy had in large part caused 9/11. Despite the fact hat it went largely unnoticed by both the media and the blogosphere, it struck me as an incredibly important change in his rhetoric. In the past, members of the president's party have been quick to label any such claims as part of a "blame America first" approach to politics, an explanation some have gone so far as to label treasonous.
At the time, however, Bush was speaking extemporaneously, and although I thought it significant, I largely wrote it off as unintentional. Now that's the same claim has made it into prepared remarks, however, it surely deserves much more notice.
First, here's how the thought was delivered a few weeks back:
For a while, American foreign policy was just, Let’s hope everything is calm — manage calm. But beneath the surface brewed a lot of resentment and anger that was manifested on September the 11th.
And so we’ve taken a foreign policy that says: On the one hand, we will protect ourselves from further attack in the short run by being aggressive in chasing down the killers and bringing them to justice.
Intentional or not, he's clearly drawing a connection between US foreign policy and 9/11.
And here's how it was delivered yesterday:
The conflict in Lebanon is part of a broader struggle between freedom and terror that is unfolding across the region. For decades, American policy sought to achieve peace in the Middle East by promoting stability in the Middle East. Yet the lack of freedom in the region meant anger and resentment grew, radicalism thrived and terrorists found willing recruits. We saw the consequences on September the 11th, 2001, when terrorists brought death and destruction to our country, killing nearly 3,000 of our citizens.
It's a bit less explicit here, but the claim is the same. Decisions made by American leaders played a distinct role in radicalizing the Middle East.
Given that such claims from the left were once labeled by those on the right as treason, that's a striking shift, no?
But I still have to ask: does the president understand the implications of his remarks? Because to be honest, if he does, the rest of his remarks make no sense.
Take, for example, this claim from the very same speech:
America recognizes that civilians in Lebanon and Israel have suffered from the current violence, and we recognize that responsibility for this suffering lies with Hezbollah. It was an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah on Israel that started this conflict. Hezbollah terrorists targeted Israeli civilians with daily rocket attacks. Hezbollah terrorists used Lebanese civilians as human shields, sacrificing the innocent in an effort to protect themselves from Israeli response.Responsibility for the suffering of the Lebanese people also lies with Hezbollah's state sponsors, Iran and Syria. The regime in Iran provides Hezbollah with financial support, weapons, and training. Iran has made clear that it seeks the destruction of Israel. We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks.
It was an explanation he repeated when he opened the floor for questions later in the same event:
As I mentioned in my remarks, Hezbollah attacked Israel without any knowledge of the Siniora government. You can't run a government, you can't have a democracy if you've got a armed faction within your country. Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis. And the reason why is, is that first, there is a new -- there's going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon, and that's going to be a Lebanese force with a robust international force to help them seize control of the country, that part of the country.
Here's the problem with that as I see it. By acknowledging that "resentment" plays a critical role in fomenting terrorism, he is acknowledging that it is people's perceptions of reality that are central to the conflict. Resentment is, after all, an entirely subjective emotion, one based on your perceptions of the reality you see around you. So although objective reality certainly has a role to play here, it is ultimately not what matters most.
Or to put it more bluntly, it is hearts and minds we're seeking to change, not simply facts on the ground.
But that's what makes his comments about Hezbollah so illogical. Given the central role of perception, even if Israel had come out objectively victorious, it wouldn't matter unless everyone in the region agreed that they had. But even a cursory glance at the news would tell you that simply is not the case.
52% of Israelis, for example, believe that the IDF was unsuccessful in its offensive. Given that, as Larry Johnson points out, at the start of the conflict Hezbollah was firing less than 100 rockets per day, and by its end they were firing in excess of 250 per day, I suspect the majority is both objectively and subjectively correct.
Meanwhile, in response to a similar reading of events, Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has claimed a "strategic and historic victory." And the "Arab street" is right there with him. Here's just one example from Lebanon:
"Of course this is a victory, praise be to God. What is important is our dignity," said one, who only gave his name as Hajj. "Israel used everything it had at us, and we threw it all back."
Until this month, the perception was that Arabs couldn't stand up to Israel. But now all that's changed. Objectively Hezbollah survived Israel's best, and as a result, subjectively they've won a huge victory. In this case, subjective reality matters far, FAR more than the objective one. And while I realize that this understanding requires some nuance, its not one that should be terribly hard to comprehend.
One last thought... What's deeply ironic about Bush's inability to grasp the role of perception is that he clearly sees himself as a champion of freedom and democracy. But democracy is a process, not a result, one built entirely on people's perceptions of reality. Through democracy, individuals are given the opportunity to express their perceptions and influence their political reality. Objective reality is important, but in a democracy it never has the final say. The people do. And that, it seems, is something this president simply does not understand.
UPDATE: Conservative columnist George Will seems to agree:
Hezbollah has willingly suffered (temporary) military diminution in exchange for enormous political enlargement. Hitherto Hezbollah in Lebanon was a "state within a state." Henceforth, the Lebanese state may be an appendage of Hezbollah, as the collapsing Palestinian Authority is an appendage of the terrorist organization Hamas. Hezbollah is an army that, having frustrated the regional superpower, suddenly embodies, as no Arab state ever has, Arab valor vindicated in combat with Israel.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
