Proponents:  Gregory Davis, as discussed above, Nicholas Drummond, and other assorted neo-conservatives.

Plausibility:  Not high.  I’m not an expert on the details of Islam, but I have spent some time in the Muslim world.  My own experience, admittedly anecdotal, taught me that Muslims weren’t much different from any of the rest of us.  They faced the same challenges, had the same desires, and tried to live their life as well as they could.  Furthermore, there are over a billion Muslims in the world, and almost none of them use their religion as justification for attacking the West.  I think it is a mistake to take the actions of a very small minority as indicative of the whole.  Finally, Islam is hardly a monolithic religion–Muslims practice their religion in many different ways in many different areas.

Counter-Terrorism Policy Ramifications:  Accepting this view would be to accept that we are at war with Islam.  It means that Islam is so counter to our values that we can never really be safe from the Islamic threat.  There is little to nothing America can do to ease the threat.

My Opinion:  Terrorists use Islam to justify their actions.   We need to recognize that Islam plays a role, but it doesn’t play THE role.  Islam alone is not enough to justify acts of terrorism.

On 20 September 2001, in front of a joint session of Congress, President George W. Bush said,

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government.  Their leaders are self-appointed.  They hate our freedoms:  our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

Thus was put forth the idea that Al-Qaeda and their allies attacked the United States because of the freedom and rights held by its citizens.

Proponents:  George W. Bush and various members of his administration, as well as some politicians, usually Republicans, but not exclusively.

Plausibility:  Not high.  Osama bin Laden has never (at least to my knowledge) ever said that he hates America because of its freedom.  His reasons for attacking America generally revolve around previous American attacks on Muslim lands.  Additionally, Muslims in general do not hate America’s freedoms, as discussed in this book.   

Counter-Terrorism Policy Ramifications:  Since the United States is not going to give up being “free” in order to stave off terrorist attacks, this line of thinking requires that the US endlessly be at war with those would commit terrorist acts.   

And this is exactly what happened in the post 9-11 Bush administration.   They called the war the “Global War on Terror” and the “Long War.”  The war, according to this thinking, cannot be won  by any other means than by killing all those who “hate our freedom.” 

It is also a cynical view.  It means that control of the situation is in the hands of the terrorists and the United States can do very little to affect their attitude and ambition.  The US probably can’t make them hate freedom less, and it isn’t going to stop being free.

Further, it  assumes, implicitly, that terrorists are irrational.  Is isn’t, in our mind, rational to hate freedom, so therefore, terrorists must be irrational.  If they are irrational, they can be dangerous, but they cannot have any legitimate grievance.  It both overstates (they are irrational so they will do anything) and understates (they lack legitimacy) their danger to the United States.

My Opinion:  A theme that will come through in this series is that we should listen to our enemies.  Bin Laden doesn’t talk about hating our freedoms; he talks about the US occupying Muslim countries, killing Muslims, and stealing oil.  Lastly, the “They hate our freedom” theory doesn’t pass a common sense (at least from an American perspective) test.  Would a hatred of freedom motivate anyone to commit terrorism, especially suicide terrorism?

Conclusion:  This line of thinking has been thoroughly discredited by academics, media members, and politicians.  This link does a fairly good job of summarizing the dissent.

So, over the next few days, I’m going to examine a few of the most common answers to the question, “why do the terrorists* hate us?”  The answers I’ll examine are listed below:

1. They hate us for our freedoms.
2. Islam is an inherently violent religion.
3. Islam is a failing religion.
4. Bin Laden is an apocalyptic crazy man.
5. Poverty breeds terrorism.
6. American policies create terrorism.
7. Hybrid causes/conclusion.

Each day I’ll offer the proponents, the rationale, the plausibility, and the counter-terrorism policies that can be designed around each theory.  I’ll conclude with my own opinion on each answer.

If I’ve missed one, add it to the comments and I’ll attempt to analyze it.

The Americans at war have little in common with the frivolous American home front.  While American soldiers will fight and die in Afghanistan for the ninth Christmas this year, home front Americans will wake up at the crack of dawn to take advantage of “Black Friday” deals on Christmas gifts.  The home front Americans will go shopping, thinking little of the American military beyond the ubiquitous yellow ribbon on the back of their SUV or Minivan. 

This civil-military gap causes great harm to America.  As Boston University Professor Andrew Bacevich has said, “…the high esteem we have for our military doesn’t necessarily translate into a desire to be one of them.”  Americans do not encourage their sons to join the military—that job is best left to others.  The average civilian is so disconnected to the military experience as to actually believe the yellow ribbon show of support absolves them of any responsibility for the actions of the American republic.

My own family experience is fairly typical.   I am the only one in two generations to have served in the military.  Yet my family is as flag waving, pin wearing, and military loving as the rest of America.  My family celebrated my service, but neither volunteered, nor protested when America went to war.

Despite 5,000 American dead, there has been no large-scale public outcry against the wars.  Certainly Iraq was a contentious issue in the 2004 election cycle, but the anti-war effort was not sustained.  Americans re-elected George Bush and went back to the mall. 

It is hard to fault the average American for the situation.  Most are loyal and patriotic, honestly wanting the best for America and Americans.  So they volunteer for a political campaign, get involved in issue advocacy, and ultimately vote for their chosen candidate.  And therein lies the rub—the only thing worse than betting on the American public to end the wars is betting on the American politicians to end them.

Barack Obama was elected, at least in part, because he promised to end the war in Iraq.  As it stands, there are 130,000 troops occupying Iraq, and he is contemplating an escalation in Afghanistan that would raise the number there to around 100,000.  This is the foreign policy of the leader of the Democratic Party—the traditionally pro-peace party. 

It is not as if the American public can vote for the opposition party with the expectation that the Republican Party will end the wars.  The contemporary GOP never misses a chance to support a war, intervention, or defense contractor.  In many ways, the GOP is worse.  In the face of the “Global War on Terror,” George Bush himself told Americans to go shopping and travel to Disney World.  Most of the key GOP leaders wholeheartedly support Obama’s proposed escalation—criticizing only his slowness in making the decision.     

And so New Moon makes millions while small numbers of American families are destroyed by policy elites who should know better, and the American public who do not care to.

Similarly, the United States has trapped itself in a terrible Catch-22 in the Muslim world. The more America intervenes in Muslim lands, the more ill will it creates among Muslims. Ostensibly, more ill will towards America among Muslims justifies more American intervention in Muslim lands. And you don’t have to take my word for it. In 2004 the Defense Science Board said almost the same thing. “American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States…”