Reflection on: Terrorism and the Middle East: The Threat and Solutions

I walked into Jennings Hall for the American Enterprise Institute Event, knowing very little of what it was about. Due to this, I was unsure of what I would learn from this event and how it would pertain to international affairs. When the topic was announced, I was intrigued to hear Dr. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute and Dr. Edward Crenshaw of The Ohio State University’s thoughts on terrorism and the Middle East. Honestly, during the conversation I felt overwhelmed. They each had sides to the conflict that I hadn’t heard before, and I found myself trying to comprehend exactly what they were saying. Both had extensive knowledge of the Middle East and Islam. I was able to take in much of what was being said as the two debated, but I wish I knew more on the issue.

The primary point I feel was made by both men, was that the terrorism from the Middle East is not the result of poverty and lack of education, but rather based in ideology. They stated that this issue was similar to the Cold War, a war of ideologies. For this reason, they both insisted that this type of terrorism should be called Radical Islam.

Dr. Michael Rubin knew verses from the Quran. I believe that understanding the mentality of those an issue concerns is incredibly important when finding a solution to the problem. Other points made, I found, not ignorant because they were both well educated on the matter, but pessimistic towards humanity. For example, one solution brought up was that the best way to solve conflict in the Middle East rooted in cultural differences, specifically the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was “blood”. In other words letting them fight it out. This tactic was claimed by Dr. Edward Crenshaw, an idea that which Dr. Michael Rubin agreed. I feel this overlooks so much of the situation, and is an answer lacking creativity. It also ignores the fact that Palestine is not recognized by the rest of the world in the same way as Israel. Due to access to resources, it seems clear who would win. Regardless of that, many innocent lives would be lost. It would be no better than what is going on today.  The second generation idea was brought up, meaning that the most violent individuals are typically the children of immigrants because they have their feet in two cultures, and don’t exactly fit in. This was extremely hard for me to wrap my head around. It was an argument that could potentially fuel anti-immigrant debate, rather than inspire people to look to better ways for immigrants to be included in society.

I left slightly early, during the Q and As because I had class. While walking to class I called one of my high school friends, whose parents are from Pakistan (going back to the idea of second generation) and she is also a practicing Muslim. I wanted to hear the thoughts of someone who knows much more on the issue, and has experienced discrimination due to heritage. Specifically concerning the idea that terrorism steaming from the Middle East being called Radical Islam, she felt the ideas being laid down by Dr. Rubin and Dr. Crenshaw ignored the effect the title had on the Muslim community as a whole. I plan on talking to her more about the issue, but our conversation was cut short because I reach my classroom.

I won’t say that there wasn’t anything that I agreed with, but overall I did have problems with what was said. One thing I did find helpful was some advice from Dr. Rubin. Though I’m unsure whether or not I will go into International Relations, Dr. Michael Rubin shared that if an individual is looking to go into a career under the international umbrella, they predict where future conflicts will occur and then specialize in those places (he mentioned Algeria and Mauritania) so they are one step ahead of everyone else. All in all, I found the debate extremely interesting as I was able to see other sides of the debate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *