<HTML>Derek -
Of course you are right. History is contingent and historical forces have brought us to this conflict. But whether or not Islamic fundamentalism is a product American foreign policy is debatable. In my view, it is rare indeed for history to display such simple and direct causes and effects. Many strands of contingency stand behind everything that happens.
My main objection is to those who say "America is getting what it deserves." Did American policy force Japan to attack Pearl Harbor? Some say it did, and so America is to blame for Pearl Harbor. I find that sort of reasoning a little skewed: it takes a particular starting point (the American embargo on oil to Japan) and ignores what happened beforehand that caused the embargo in the first place (Japanese assaults on China and elsewhere). I read below someone saying that we start with post-WWII to "explain" Bin Laden. But why WWII? What contingencies prior to WWII shaped the decisions made in its wake? And how far back can Bin Laden's mindset be traced? You can very rarely apply brakes to the process of historical explanation. It's why I find the historical blame-game some are playing rather pointless. It quickly devolves into a simplistic tit-for-tar argument over priority in culpability.
Whatever about the historical forces behind the current conflict, what happened this week was a major turning point. I, too, await to see what America does in response. Perhaps we're better off waiting until something happens before discussing these matters further.
Best,
Garrett</HTML>
