Financial Aid Alone Won't Solve the Problem But...

Submitted by Joel Davidson (United States), May 22, 2002 at 01:53

This was a fascinating article and it certainly does point out many reasons why money alone will not help the situation. (Pipes has largely changed my thinking here). However, I have one comment and two questions:

Comment: "Revolutions take place, it has often been noted, only when a substantial middle class exists" (Pipes). In fact, however, the Leninist-Russian revolution occurred in an extremely poor nation with almost no middle class. Marx believed the revolution would occur first in a more industrialized nation with a substantial working class, but it didn't.

Question 1: If it is not the poor, in general, who become Islamists, is it possible that creating a more stable economy and more democratic government (I agree that a rich dictatorship is not in our interests) would enable the poor to lock up the Islamist terrorists more easily? Certainly they'd have more time to police, etc.

Question 2: Isn't there a humanitarian benefit in helping the poor of other nations, regardless of whether it solves our terrorism problems? I agree that if aid makes terrorism much worse, it will in the long-run hurt the recipients because we will eventually have to attack the country to get to the terrorists. But if it doesn't dramatically increase terror, helping millions of people is a worthwhile goal.


I look forward to reading more stimulating essays. Thanks!

Sincerely,
Joel

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".