by Chris Bodenner

Christina Larson points to the "tragic irony" of the recent Chinese crackdown on Uighurs:

[T]he Chinese insistence that Uighur dissent is rooted in ideology and religion, and that recent incidents of violence--such as the string of bus bombings and attacks on police that last year riled southwestern Xinjiang--are the work of Islamic extremists and agitators tied to foreign campaigns. In truth, the Uighurs' observance of Islam is largely apolitical, but by treating the Muslim faith itself as a threat and sharply curbing religious practice in Xinjiang, Chinese security forces may end up breeding the very kind of insurrection they are now trying to quell.

I had that same creeping feeling during the Republican uproar over releasing our Guantanamo Uighurs to a luxurious life in Bermuda. We had detained those poor innocent bastards for years without a shred of evidence against them, so the least we could do was give them a house with a swimming pool. But more to the point: it was in our own national interest to generously compensate them, lest they become so pissed off that they actually do resort to radicalism and revenge. What Newt and others mocked as appeasement was just sound preemptive policy - something neocons supposedly believed in.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.