Fighting the War on Terror in the long term

[b5d_]

Whew. this is a bit of a long one. I'm definitely saving it after this is done. Also BTW, I'm not as new as my post count would indicate - I switched names from David, God of Frogs.

The War on Terror is an epic struggle, akin to the Cold War. Our adversary, like then, has a distinctly anti-market (with their prohibitions on usery) and even anti-democratic ideology, making it difficult to reason with on even a basic level. Still, they are very entrenched – most Muslim populations are more radical than their unelected rulers – meaning that this problem will not be going away soon. In fact, the main difference between now and then is that now the power is dispersed among various religious figures, instead of heavily concentrated in one regime. In other words, the threat is from the right, rather than the left – but it’s otherwise almost exactly analogous.

Previous approaches to this war have not drawn this historical connection out vary far. The conventional response from the left is to bring out divisions within Islam in the hopes of provoking change from within – but this won’t work any more than pointing out the differences between Leninist and Maoist communism would have brought down the Soviet Union. Neoconservatives have looked to promote democracy in the Middle East – but their approach lacks any sort of endgame to make people vote the way we actually want them to, analogous to Keenan’s plan to make the Soviet Union to collapse as it did. Both of these approaches draw heavily from our experiences in the Cold War, but we can get even further by drawing from some of its more subtle lessons.

The reason why it took so long during the Cold War to convince the world of our moral superiority over the USSR was that we did indeed have something to learn from Communism. Here at home, the Cold War gave political impetus to the civil rights movement of the 60’s, and kept the gap in the distribution of wealth from growing too wide. One has to recognize that political Islam does at least appear to have some aspects that are superior to our Western rationalism – their use of charity to help run a society, but also its ability to take a hard line when necessary – and we need to show that we can use democracy to achieve those same ends.

The guiding principles here are variants of the guiding principles of the Cold War – containment and mutually assured destruction. In this case, there is no direct MAD, because no terrorist group is going to get their hands on the multitude of bombs the USSR had. On the other hand, those bombs they do manage to acquire, they are almost certain to use. We need to have an official policy that a nuclear attack will be met by a nuclear attack – even lacking completely verifiable intelligence on the source, as will probably be the case. Since it will probably be the Muslim world that will bear the brunt of such an attack, any potential nuclear terrorist will know that Muslim popular opinion will turn against them instantly. Hopefully we will never have to use this policy, but only by stating it in advance will it have any kind of deterrent effect.

Containment, in contrast to during the Cold War, will actually be a relatively peaceful exercise. Since this is mostly a matter of ‘soft power,’ we will need to surround the Islamic world on all sides. The way to do this is by encouraging global free markets and political collaboration. For the US, in the short to medium term, this will probably mean closer ties to China. While we should still press for democracy, and make it clear that we will not get into any Asian land wars, we should also welcome them as a diplomatic partner – perhaps even taking the place of Europe, whose strategic importance has waned since the end of the Cold War.

With only a few exceptions, our foreign policy during the War on Terror can be taken as an analouge to Cold War policies. Microfinance, for instance, is a unique product of democracy and free markets. It is not entirely a free-market affair – it needs charitable ‘subsidies’ to establish itself before it becomes profitable – but once it does, it brings the free market to large numbers of people who have never experienced it before. The World Bank, and the other ‘Bretton Woods’ institutions, were established as gargantuan free-market entities to challenge the totalitarian rule of the communist USSR. Nowadays, since the threat comes from below, it is important that we establish free-market institutions that work on the individual level.

Foreign aid is often seen as the antithesis of democracy – it’s almost a given that a politician can win support by cutting aid budgets. The best way to get around that is to offer the aid in-kind, as a kind of consulting service, rather than as direct goods. For instance, Africa is a region that has a fair amount of natural resources, yet tends to squander it due to incompetent management and political infighting.

This is obviously a centuries-old problem, and we probably will not be able to abolish it, but one historically recent opportunity for sub-Saharan Africa is their relationship with China. Chinese investors have been putting money into African real estate, and China is interested in securing Africa’s oil resources for its growing energy demand. This represents a bargaining chip that may come in handy in the future – a unified African leadership could threaten China’s holdings in exchange for some sort of protection, both economic and military.

It is important to keep ideas like this one flowing, which is why it’s in the government’s interest to promote the think tank 'industry.' During the Cold War, we funded the Voice of America, to challenge the lies the USSR was built on. However, nowadays, the issue isn’t the availability of the news, but its accessibility. The free exchange of ideas is one of the hallmarks of democracy, and if we fund ‘ideas factories’ like these, it represents a wager that our ideas will prove superior to those of a religiously oriented society.

Christian sub-Saharan Africa is just one front in political Islam’s war with the world, which as they see it includes struggles against Hindus, Buddhists, communist atheism, and Judaism. In India, they are actually doing just about everything they need to be doing – they are a functioning secular democracy. In fact, they’re so stable that we don’t particularly need to be offering them incentives to stay that way. Bush’s recent nuclear deal with them (if it goes through, assuming it wasn’t just a domestic political ploy) serves no purpose, and can only increase the chances that nuclear weapons get into the hands of terrorists.

Buddhists in Thailand are another point of friction with the Muslim world. Fundamentalist Buddhism may seem like a contradiction to western ears, but it does exist - to the point where the leaders of some Buddhist countries will actually get elements of their policy from astrologers. This obviously is no better than any other kind of fundamentalism, and has to stop. A book I recently ran across called The Tao of Democracy (disregarding the fact that Taoism isn’t quite Buddhism, and that the authors are nutcases) nevertheless points to how we can ‘market’ these ideas to this part of the world.

Europe (as well as Russia) may be going too far in the secular direction, to where they end up actually discriminating against religion. While they probably handled last year’s cartoon crisis about as well as they could have, France’s laws against wearing head scarves are symbolic and counterproductive. Britain’s laws against free speech are even worse – the use of force doesn’t help us except directly in response to force, or unless there is good reason to think that it would directly prevent the use of force. Some of the above applies to the US too.

Finally, the Israeli-Palestinian situation is not as complicated as it is often made out to be. While of course the Palestinians are at fault for lots of things, Israel hasn’t been doing all it can either to prevent Palestinian violence, for instance by taking a hard line on settlements. We had reason to support Israel during Cold War as an anti-communist ally, but now, their mistakes don’t just affect them – they also come back to hurt us. We need to cut off our aid to them, which I honestly don’t really understand in the first place, and consider even tougher measures if necessary. We should also not unduly punish the Palestinian people for their votes in a democratic election – our campaign to promote democracy in general is more important than the outcome in one particular country. We need to put pressure on both sides until they start to act more peaceful towards each other, or else the situation risks spiraling more out of control than it has already.

The only region where I’d recommend not applying this Cold-War type philosophy is Latin America. (I’ve mostly left out Asia, because this part of the world tends to have strong, functional, state structures, and while these aren’t the ideal way to run things, they do take care of the terrorism problem themselves.) Terrorists have made somewhat of a showing in South and Central America, but only as strategic allies – they have never tried very hard to justify themselves, and they will probably never have the support of much of the population at large.

Unlike Europe, which had military control over its colonies, when the Monroe Doctrine made Latin America our colony, our control was implicit – and it therefore never ended definitively as with the rest of the world. We are still in the process of letting them go, and the reason that free trade keeps having detrimental effects in that part of the world is that it weakens our colonial grip. Taking too hard a line here could risk blowback in a war that has nothing to do with this, just as supporting Bin Laden during the Cold War turned out not to be in our interests for the War on Terror.

We also will not be able to tackle the Chinese democracy problem directly anytime soon, but this is another area where encouraging China's relationship with Africa will help. The Chinese government has skillfully kept itself in power, despite sporadic opposition, by making the various opposition groups mistakenly think their disputes are with the government instead of each other. The missing piece of a revolution is political education for the peasants. Being made into pawns, despite the obvious drawbacks, will provide a valuable lesson in politics that they can then take back to the mainland, to scare the regime into opening up.

All of these ideas benefit their respective parts of the world, but they also benefit us. Africa’s relationship with China protects them, helps the Chinese, and for us, it draws enemy fire to a harder target. This is the principle that democracy is founded upon - the rational pursuit of self-interest - at its best. In a sense, while the Cold War was won by standing down and assuaging Soviet fears, this one will be won by playing out their every conspiracy theory. It’s in our interests to make sure the whole world, other than the Muslim world, becomes economically and politically successful, because only as the hard-line Mullahs and other Muslim opinion leaders become more shrill do they start to lose their credibility and be replaced by equally respected moderate leaders – and can we say that we’ve actually won the War on Terror.

[jjimm]

Goodness, where to start?

First, I think you have some good ideas. However, I think you're making some flawed assumptions. First, and most importantly, that the "War on Terror" actually exists. It's really protecting a country's interest against terror, which is what most of the world has been doing, and the US merely got reminded about in 2001, despite the evident threat displayed in 1993.

Since it will probably be the Muslim world that will bear the brunt of such an attack, any potential nuclear terrorist will know that Muslim popular opinion will turn against them instantly.

The above is flawed. I suggest that any potential nuclear attack by the US/west on a Muslim target will have the diametrically opposite effect to what you propose, regardless of who attacked the US/west.

Microfinance, for instance, is a unique product of democracy and free markets. It is not entirely a free-market affair – it needs charitable ‘subsidies’ to establish itself before it becomes profitable – but once it does, it brings the free market to large numbers of people who have never experienced it before.

This I see as quite reasonable.

our ideas will prove superior to those of a religiously oriented society.

...providing you can get SOCAS working, like it isn't at the moment. The secular monetarist word of the US sounds like Christian dogma to the religiously ideologically blinkered, and further, any irreligious ideas will seem heresy, so you need to handle that, too.

[Thai "fundamentalist Buddhism"] This obviously is no better than any other kind of fundamentalism, and has to stop.

While I am not in favour of the policies of Thaksin and his cronies, Thailand is about the most successful capitalist democracy in Asia - I don't think you should "have to stop" anything. And leaders/astrology... Ronald Reagan, glass houses, stones, 'nuff said.

Britain’s laws against free speech are even worse

As someone who enjoys and employs Britain's rights to free speech on a regular basis, can you elucidate here? Also, you appear to be considering, then dismissing, the use of force to overthrow these alleged laws against free speech in Britain. Unless you've just written that badly, it sounds a trifle insane.

This is the principle that democracy is founded upon - the rational pursuit of self-interest

I believe that was actually Adam Smith, and was about capitalism, not democracy, which is about self-representation.

Finally, I think your conclusion, while theoretically rational, is not borne out by realpolitik - and the parlous-yet-extremist-and-violent state of the Palestinians is a microcosm of the flaws in your theory.

Finally finally, you should report your name change to a mod, since resubscribing under a new name often gets a tap with the ban-stick.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

You may or may not have stated it already, but should the US get involved in regime change? They have been for pretty much their entire existence and it's ended up hurting them in a lot of ways.

China and India could end up being the big winners in the global marketplace. Their emphasis is on education. Ours is on...um...acquisition of profit?

Are we to spread democracy throughout the globe?


Personally, I'm not convinced that we have to bring anyone down. What we need to do is accept more of a nonviolent approach. We have to heighten the difference between "us" and "them". We have to let the people decide for themselves. The end result of this is that it's out of our control. That could be a big problem.

[b5d_]

Originally Posted by jjimm

First, I think you have some good ideas. However, I think you're making some flawed assumptions. First, and most importantly, that the "War on Terror" actually exists. It's really protecting a country's interest against terror, which is what most of the world has been doing, and the US merely got reminded about in 2001, despite the evident threat displayed in 1993.

See, that's where I'd break from the realists, who see states as the only entities capable of organizing themselves into a threat. Aside from day-to-day civil functions of government, most Muslims see themselves as Muslim before any nationality. They essentially function as a single nation, with 'leaders' and a coherent 'foreign policy,' and as such I don't think it's prudent to think of them as being less of a potential threat than, say, China.

Originally Posted by jjimm

The above is flawed. I suggest that any potential nuclear attack by the US/west on a Muslim target will have the diametrically opposite effect to what you propose, regardless of who attacked the US/west.

Depends on how long this goes on. One would hope they would break sooner rather than later, but we have to keep this policy consistent until they do.

As someone who enjoys and employs Britain's rights to free speech on a regular basis, can you elucidate here? Also, you appear to be considering, then dismissing, the use of force to overthrow these alleged laws against free speech in Britain. Unless you've just written that badly, it sounds a trifle insane.

Britain has made certain kinds of 'hate speech' illegal, and arrested Mullahs, even without evidence that they materially helped terrorists in any way. These actions (by the state) are the 'force' I'm referring to.

I believe that was actually Adam Smith, and was about capitalism, not democracy, which is about self-representation.

Is there some reason it doesn't apply to democracy too?

[b5d_]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

You may or may not have stated it already, but should the US get involved in regime change? They have been for pretty much their entire existence and it's ended up hurting them in a lot of ways.

It depends. If it's in direct retaliation for an attack, like in Afghanistan, then yes. Otherwise no.

Are we to spread democracy throughout the globe?

It's a good idea, but we shouldn't think that that alone is going to stop Islamic terrorism.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Well, there's a school of thought that believes that if every country is democratic, there will be a thing called "Democratic peace", in which no democratic country would go to war with another because there's diplomacy.

I don't buy it for one second, but someone believes in it.


I don't know if democracy should be worldwide. With that being said, I do believe that everyone is equal. I also think that if everyone has the same government, we lose a big chunk of progress. We need different ideologies to foster discussion and have differences.

I'm starting to hijack ya. Feel free to beed me with a reed.

[jjimm]

Originally Posted by b5d_

See, that's where I'd break from the realists, who see states as the only entities capable of organizing themselves into a threat. Aside from day-to-day civil functions of government, most Muslims see themselves as Muslim before any nationality. They essentially function as a single nation, with 'leaders' and a coherent 'foreign policy,' and as such I don't think it's prudent to think of them as being less of a potential threat than, say, China.

That doesn't really address my commnet. It does illustrate that by "War on Terror" you actually are using the US government misnomer by which you actually mean "War in Islamist Terrorism".

Depends on how long this goes on. One would hope they would break sooner rather than later, but we have to keep this policy consistent until they do.

As long as "this" goes on, it is not going to alter the reality that if the US nukes somewhere, it's going to turn the recipients and their allies against the US. I'd probably join in too.

Britain has made certain kinds of 'hate speech' illegal, and arrested Mullahs, even without evidence that they materially helped terrorists in any way. These actions (by the state) are the 'force' I'm referring to.

As you might imagine, I follow the UK news quite thoroughly, and either this is a misrepresentation of the controversial 'glorifying terrorism' laws, or you're going to have to provide concrete citations of this.

Is there some reason it doesn't apply to democracy too?

Yes. There are other forms of democracy apart from the US capitalist model, though clearly this is one of the most successful.

[b5d_]

Originally Posted by jjimm

That doesn't really address my commnet. It does illustrate that by "War on Terror" you actually are using the US government misnomer by which you actually mean "War in Islamist Terrorism".

Well, yeah. I'd actually broaden it to the "War on Political Islam," to make it clear that the only way one can avoid it is to keep religion totally out of policy.

As you might imagine, I follow the UK news quite thoroughly, and either this is a misrepresentation of the controversial 'glorifying terrorism' laws, or you're going to have to provide concrete citations of this.

BBC
To make a statement glorifying terrorism if the person making it believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that it is likely to be understood by its audience as an inducement to terrorism

An inducement is not the same as aid.

Yes. There are other forms of democracy apart from the US capitalist model, though clearly this is one of the most successful.

There is less and more democracy, and different policies under democracy (of which economic policy is one), but there aren't different forms of democracy. Different people vote for different things.

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

Well, there's a school of thought that believes that if every country is democratic, there will be a thing called "Democratic peace", in which no democratic country would go to war with another because there's diplomacy.

I don't buy it for one second, but someone believes in it.

I don't think they will never go to war with each other (I know the history,) but statistically, I think there is a relationship.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

There could very well be a relationship, but I'd like to see it.

In the end, it comes down to money and power, which are synonyms.


Additionally, an "inducement" could be seen as the opposite of "aid". Isn't aid supposed to be altrustic and inducement is prodding something towards a goal?

[b5d_]

There could very well be a relationship, but I'd like to see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

In the end, it comes down to money and power, which are synonyms.

To be specific, the latter includes the former.

[gonzomax]

In the first place terrorism is a tactic. Thats like decaring a war on cavalry in the old days. There is no place called terror. By calling it a war it allows the president to do things which should be illegal and unacceptable. jailing of suspected terrorists ,no legal defense and no trial for instance. It is a legal term and has great weight. It also exites the people and makes them pliable so they go along with things that should offend them.
In response to the Towers being knocked down and 3000 dying we have bombed the bejesus out of two nations ,killed 60 000 people,men women and children, and have destroyed cities.We have rejected the idea that citizens of other countries are entitled to the most basic human and legal rights.
There is no way to tell if you ever win. So you go to war forever.

[b5d_]

In the first place terrorism is a tactic. Thats like decaring a war on cavalry in the old days. There is no place called terror.

See my comments above on renaming it. I'm using "The War on Terror" mostly as a convention; I'd prefer "The War on Political Islam." The place is the Islamic world, with the caveat that by "Islamic" I mean a political, rather than metaphysical, philosophy. Other than that though, this area is pretty well defined.

In response to the Towers being knocked down and 3000 dying we have bombed the bejesus out of two nations ,killed 60 000 people,men women and children, and have destroyed cities.

I think if you tallied the totals of Islamic-on-Islamic violence, you'd find them to be much higher than that. Just off of the top of my head, I believe the Iran-Iraq war killed over a million. If we can help reduce that, I think we would be justified in our actions.

There is no way to tell if you ever win. So you go to war forever.

You win when Islamic political leaders (who today, unfortunately, would be Bin Laden) start to renounce violence.

[gonzomax]

Point is we are not spreadiing Democracy.We are spreading capitalism. Capitalism is ,and always has been exploitive. Anything for profits works in the US where we have been cultured to accept it with little questioning. Does your war on political islam recognize that Iraq was not a religious administration. That Sadaam and his minions were selfishly robbing the country blind but not establishing a religion at all. Therefore the war in Iraq is completely counterproductive to a war on Muslims .Iraq and Iran fought over oil .We are there for oil. History books will record this as the 2nd oil war. War is a byproduct of this sort of capitalism we now are practicing.
Osama was an enemy of Iraq and wanted Sadaams regime replaced with an Islamic one.
Would the war end if we denounced violence.Actually Osama has long ago become a mere figurehead. The Terrorists have morphed into a many headed organization with local autonomy.
This war is couterproductive in many ways. The destruction of cities and the deaths of men ,women and children is not easily forgiven. Read Bremers 100 points if you want to see why we went there.http://teresaalsara.blogspot.com/200...00-orders.html

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by b5d_

See my comments above on renaming it. I'm using "The War on Terror" mostly as a convention; I'd prefer "The War on Political Islam."

You know, I don't think that's catchy enough - you need something pithier, snappier, to really get people's attention. Hey, how about "The Crusades" - that'll get them talking...

[b5d_]

Gonzo:This idea that the Iraq war would help much of anything was never really thought out that well.

Actually Osama has long ago become a mere figurehead.

A mere figurehead? He might have inspired thousands to want to become suicide bombers, and millions more to protect these people. That's an important job.

[FWorld]

Originally Posted by b5d_

Our adversary, like then, has a distinctly anti-market (with their prohibitions on usery)

Islam is not anti-market, as Muhammatd was a merchant. Trade is highly encouraged as a respected, honest profession, on the condition that both parties should exchange goods voluntarily and in an Islamically acceptable manner. Naturally, this leaves questions as to the scope of the freedom of trade when it clashes with Islamic ideals.

and even anti-democratic ideology, making it difficult to reason with on even a basic level.

Depending on who you ask, Islam's teaching can be very democratic. The grandson of Khumeini firmly rejects wilayat al faqih, and favours a secular democracy.

Still, they are very entrenched – most Muslim populations are more radical than their unelected rulers

I doubt that the Algerian population stronly agrees with either the secular regime or the murderous Armed Islamic Group, nor is that population especially radical.

We need to have an official policy that a nuclear attack will be met by a nuclear attack – even lacking completely verifiable intelligence on the source, as will probably be the case.

Wait, isn't that how you aimed for Afghanistan and ended up in Iraq?

Since it will probably be the Muslim world that will bear the brunt of such an attack, any potential nuclear terrorist will know that Muslim popular opinion will turn against them instantly.

Part of the problem we're dealing with is that some radical idiots want to bring the end. Some Zarqawi-style clerics see that the Muslims have strayed and deserve being wiped out, or that killing Muslims is not a bad thing since true Muslims would go to heaven anyway. Few of those pay attention to opinion polls.

[We should surround the Muslim world] by encouraging global free markets and political collaboration.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Qatar are trying their best to join the WTO. Some are considering ending their boycott of Israeli products just for that goal. They are definitely trying to become part of the global economy.

During the Cold War, we funded the Voice of America, to challenge the lies the USSR was built on. However, nowadays, the issue isn’t the availability of the news, but its accessibility.

.

America operates one radio station, sawa and one television station al hurra, both broadcasting to the Arab world in Arabic, and available to any household that gets al Jazeera. Neither has had much of success in gaining an audience.

The free exchange of ideas is one of the hallmarks of democracy, and if we fund ‘ideas factories’ like these, it represents a wager that our ideas will prove superior to those of a religiously oriented society.

I thought America was a religiously oriented society, with its president talking about crusades and shit.

Christian sub-Saharan Africa is just one front in political Islam’s war with the world, which as they see it includes struggles against Hindus, Buddhists, communist atheism, and Judaism.

One example of the falseness of your hyothesis on Islam's war with the world is Hamas. They explicitly refuse to export their struggle with Israel to the rest of the world. Unlike the left minded Fatah and Popular Front for the Libertaion of Palestine, both secular, and both with a history of attacking Israeli interests abroad, and of hijacking planes.

In India, they are actually doing just about everything they need to be doing – they are a functioning secular democracy. In fact, they’re so stable that we don’t particularly need to be offering them incentives to stay that way. Bush’s recent nuclear deal with them (if it goes through, assuming it wasn’t just a domestic political ploy) serves no purpose, and can only increase the chances that nuclear weapons get into the hands of terrorists.

True. And I'm happy the BJP is losing elections. Too bad it's the communists making the biggest gains.

This obviously is no better than any other kind of fundamentalism, and has to stop.

See, this here is your problem. Thinking that you're in a position to decide what goes and what does not, what should stop and what should not stop. Not that consulting astrologists on major policy issues, or seeking divine assistance in deciding where to invade, is excusable, in America or elsewhere. But the tone and the assumption that American (confused and often double) standards should apply bring to mind two words: American arrogance.

France’s laws against wearing head scarves are symbolic and counterproductive.

The majority of the Frenchfeel that it's important to the secular identity of the state. You know how the French are. Besides, it's restricted to public/official buildings. As a matter of fact, the sheikh of al Azhar (the/a major seat of Sunni scholarship) approved of the ban, reminding Muslims that foreign women in Saudi are required to wear the head scarf.

See, that's where I'd break from the realists, who see states as the only entities capable of organizing themselves into a threat. Aside from day-to-day civil functions of government, most Muslims see themselves as Muslim before any nationality. They essentially function as a single nation, with 'leaders' and a coherent 'foreign policy,' and as such I don't think it's prudent to think of them as being less of a potential threat than, say, China

I think your break from the realists is far wider than you imagined. Care to comment on the Iran-Iraq War, the invasion of Kuwait, the civil war in Lebanon and the civil war in Iraq? So how are all Muslims of the same mind again?

The only region where I’d recommend not applying this Cold-War type philosophy is Latin America. (I’ve mostly left out Asia, because this part of the world tends to have strong, functional, state structures, and while these aren’t the ideal way to run things, they do take care of the terrorism problem themselves.)

Could you point out Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Thailand on a map?

Finally, the Israeli-Palestinian situation is not as complicated as it is often made out to be.

Phew, glad you could sort that one out for us.

I think you should watch your language for implicit assumptions and generalisations.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by b5d_

Gonzo:This idea that the Iraq war would help much of anything was never really thought out that well.
A mere figurehead? He might have inspired thousands to want to become suicide bombers, and millions more to protect these people. That's an important job.

George Bush did that.

[b5d_]

Originally Posted by FWorld

I doubt that the Algerian population stronly agrees with either the secular regime or the murderous Armed Islamic Group, nor is that population especially radical.

How about the Muslim world in general? Keep in mind that sometimes it isn't neccesary to speak out, just letting things go by is enough.

Originally Posted by FWorld

Wait, isn't that how you aimed for Afghanistan and ended up in Iraq?

Nobody asserted that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. (The administration might have worded things carefully so that people would get that impression, but it's not the same thing.)

Originally Posted by FWorld

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Qatar are trying their best to join the WTO. Some are considering ending their boycott of Israeli products just for that goal. They are definitely trying to become part of the global economy.

And it may be in our interests not to let them. (It's in our interests to bring free markets to places surrounding the Muslim world, but not in it.) Think Dubai port deal. Any time you integrate at-risk countries into the world economy, you are increasing your chances that some of this money ends up in terrorists' hands. Remember that rich people are actually more likely to become terrorists than poor people.

Originally Posted by FWorld

America operates one radio station, sawa and one television station al hurra, both broadcasting to the Arab world in Arabic, and available to any household that gets al Jazeera. Neither has had much of success in gaining an audience.

This is my point exactly. (I'm not sure whether you were agreeing with me or not.) It's all there, but we have to find ways to get people to actually pay attention.

Originally Posted by FWorld

I thought America was a religiously oriented society, with its president talking about crusades and shit.

The 'crusades' rhetoric was obviously a gaffe, but in general, the government should be able to say whatever it wants, as long as its actual policy comes from empiricism.

Originally Posted by FWorld

One example of the falseness of your hyothesis on Islam's war with the world is Hamas. They explicitly refuse to export their struggle with Israel to the rest of the world. Unlike the left minded Fatah and Popular Front for the Libertaion of Palestine, both secular, and both with a history of attacking Israeli interests abroad, and of hijacking planes.

Palestinians ally themselves with the left, because that's who's willing to take them, but that doesn't have anything to do with ideological continuity. In fact, much of this has to do with South America - see my discussion there.

Originally Posted by FWorld

The majority of the Frenchfeel that it's important to the secular identity of the state. You know how the French are.

Well yeah, exactly.

Originally Posted by FWorld

Besides, it's restricted to public/official buildings. As a matter of fact, the sheikh of al Azhar (the/a major seat of Sunni scholarship) approved of the ban, reminding Muslims that foreign women in Saudi are required to wear the head scarf.

From what you say, if this group is considered legitimate among the Muslim population at large, this may actually be a sophisticated PR stunt - or, in military terms, a trap. It might have been what they wanted all along to make it better known exactly what the French stand for.

Originally Posted by FWorld

I think your break from the realists is far wider than you imagined. Care to comment on the Iran-Iraq War, the invasion of Kuwait, the civil war in Lebanon and the civil war in Iraq? So how are all Muslims of the same mind again?

They all (unapologetically, as far as I can tell) see warfare as a solution to religious differences.

Originally Posted by FWorld

Could you point out Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Thailand on a map?

Saudi Arabia isn't Asia. Do you need to me to point that out on a map for you?

Afghanistan would go under my discussion of MAD, and I already discussed Thailand. What do you think of these other places?

Originally Posted by FWorld

I think you should watch your language for implicit assumptions and generalisations.

Such as?

[FWorld]

Here's my bit for fighting ignorance.

As for the unstated assumptions and generalisations, your post said or implied

All Muslims, or most, hate the West and are radical
Islam is at war with the West, Hindus, Jews...(you actually did say that)
There are no differences to speak of within Islam and between Muslims
Islam is a single, monolithic entity
All Muslims think in the same manner

By pointing out that Hamas rejects the idea of exporting the war against Israel, I was pointing out mainstream Muslim organisation that is not at war with the world.

By pointing out to radical supposed Islamists that massacred their own people, I was showing you that not all Muslims would appreciate being labelled radical, because that now has negative connotations. Another example would be Abu Mus'ab al Zarqawi, hated in both Jordan and Iraq for massacring innocent civilians.

By mentioning wars between Muslims, I was showing you that Muslims do not share an identical mental map, else they wouldn't have been at war with each other.

Your assumptions show a bit of prejudice or ignorance. Probably both.

As for aiming for Afghanistan and ending up in Iraq, it was a joke. Not a very original one, but so what.

[gonzomax]

http://www.ilaam.net/Sept11/AmericanWars.html
We are slaves to the military -industrial complex. Three years ago we were at relative peace.Iraq was an insulated country and no threat to us at all. Our illustrious president gave a speech identifying the axis of evil. He said Afghanistan,Iraq,Iran and N,Korea were enemies. He then attacked Afghanistan, with some justification. He followed up with a war against Iraq who was no threat except to its own population.
Iran is after the bomb. N.Korea is after the bomb.what a surprise. They are arming to protect themselves against us.What kind of hell is in our future.
Radical muslims are to Islam like Neo cons and the radical right is to Christianity.

[b5d_]

Actually, most of this, I've said pretty explicitly, near the beginning of the OP.

Originally Posted by me

The conventional response from the left is to bring out divisions within Islam in the hopes of provoking change from within – but this won’t work any more than pointing out the differences between Leninist and Maoist communism would have brought down the Soviet Union.

There are of course different sects, and some are more radical than others, but we can't just tell people to change their religion to suit our policy needs - much less being a foriegn country as we are. We can, however, tell everyone to keep their religion out of government policy.

There are a couple reasons why we need to do this with moderates as well as hardliners (in addition to followers of other religions). For one, the hardliners will never be wiling to espouse peace with the West if they feel they're being treated unfairly. Also, it can be hard, sometimes impossible, to predict which factions are going to erupt, and which religious rules can be broken. Religion by its nature is irrational.

Also, philosophically, many of the apparent moderates agree with the basic tenets of hard-line Islam, but just haven't thought through the full implications. It would be impossible to get any hard numbers on this, but given how uneducated, and in some cases brainwashed, the population is - and how low their logical standards can be (look at the Cartoon Crisis. Can you imagine what would happen to any of these people who advocated boycotting all of Denmark because of the actions of a few, if they decided to debate here on the SDMB?) - I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that this is a huge latent threat.

I'm sure whenever I say that most of the Muslim world is radicalized against the US, you can point to exceptions here and there. But I don't think that changes my overall conclusions.

Originally Posted by FWorld

Your assumptions show a bit of prejudice or ignorance. Probably both.

Have you ever tried to change a creationist's mind?

[griffin1977]

Originally Posted by b5d_

How about the Muslim world in general?

I'm sure almost everyone in the Muslim world would condemn the violence of the Algerian Civil War. Plenty I'm sure agree (as would most of the US) with the right of the populace to rise up if the government refused to recognise the result of legitmate election, because they didn't like the party that was getting elected. That doesn't mean they agree with slitting the throats of whole villages of men, women and children.

Originally Posted by b5d_

Palestinians ally themselves with the left, because that's who's willing to take them, but that doesn't have anything to do with ideological continuity.

Thats simple BS, and shows you either do not understand the issue or are diliberately distorting it to make your argument. All the main palestian terrorist organisations were, until advent of Hamas, a secular and left-leaning. In the early days of Hamas they were actually supported by Israel as an alternative to Fatah and the other secular palestinian organisations they considered there main enemy.

[griffin1977]

Originally Posted by b5d_

I'm sure whenever I say that most of the Muslim world is radicalized against the US, you can point to exceptions here and there.

The US is deeply unpopular in the Muslim world, in particular, because of the ACTIONS of the US. Not because the entire muslim world is run by extremists. The invasion of Iraq was a gift to extremists and made moderates life much harder. This is where any comparison between the cold war and the war on terror (or the global struggle against extremism, or the long war, or the war against Eurasia or whatever its called this week) break down.

At the end of the day world wide public opinion did not effect the outcome of the cold war at all. The cold war finished as it did because politically and social conditions INSIDE the soviet union. If the soviet union had decided to reimpose its will on eastern europe in 1989, the west would have been as helpless to stop them as they had been in 1956. This is not true of the war on terrorism, the history of anti-terrorist strugles is a history of pyhric military victories that resulted in defeat because of their effect on public opionion (Easter rising in Ireland, Battler of Algiers, etc).

[b5d_]

Originally Posted by griffin1977

Thats simple BS, and shows you either do not understand the issue or are diliberately distorting it to make your argument. All the main palestian terrorist organisations were, until advent of Hamas, a secular and left-leaning. In the early days of Hamas they were actually supported by Israel as an alternative to Fatah and the other secular palestinian organisations they considered there main enemy.

Well, okay, I'm not sure why they ally themselves with the left. But I still would consider them philosphically right-wing, unless they would really align themselves with Russia, Europe, Latin America, and other traditionally left-leaning places before they would the rest of the Muslim world (the idea that you should define one's alliances by religion, rather than ideological similarity, is inherently right-wing.) But I don't really see them taking any kind of hard line against Muslims, like they do with Israel.

The same goes for the terrorists (and those that support them) in Algeria, both in the 50's and the 90's. Are they really for democratic, anti-colonial rule, or is that just a shill for another agenda?

Re: your second post. First of all, as many people have correctly pointed out, terrorism is a tactic. If you're going to look at history pre- about 1980, you would want to look at Islamic history, for the purposes of this discussion, rather than terrorist history.

Secondly, the Cold War was won because of conditions inside the USSR, but we helped created those conditions. Actually, to be very precise, we didn't interfere with them creating themselves. I don't think it's fair to say that public opinion didn't have anything to do with it: public opinion shaped the politics of the last half century that got them in that position.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by b5d_

Also BTW, I'm not as new as my post count would indicate - I switched names from David, God of Frogs.

You need to contact an Administrator, right away, to resolve having two names assigned. Currently you are in violation of board rules.

Thanks.

[ /Moderating ]

[griffin1977]

Originally Posted by b5d_

Well, okay, I'm not sure why they ally themselves with the left. But I still would consider them philosphically right-wing.

Hamas is fairly right wing, at least on social issues, but that is NOT true for the main stream palestian factions. Fatah is philiosphically left/centrist, some of the other factions withing the PLO are out and out communists. Thats clear weakness in considering this "The Islamic World" as this monolythic entity, as you do. Its wrong to view even a tiny portion of the islamic world (e.g. palestinian factions) this way. And making decisions about it as if it was leads to insantity like the Iraq war.


[quote]unless they would really align themselves with Russia, Europe, Latin America[quote]

Not sure what you mean by this. But they WERE aligned with left-wing terrorists (red army faction, ETA, IRA) in other places for most of their history. In fact the current advanced IED used in Iraq could have come because of this relationship (http://www.nogw.com/download/2005_ira_bombs_iq.pdf).

The same goes for the terrorists (and those that support them) in Algeria, both in the 50's and the 90's. Are they really for democratic, anti-colonial rule, or is that just a shill for another agenda?

In the 50's no obviously, the campaign stopped when france withdrew (and many of those who fought the french are on the other side of situation now). As for the Algeria war of the 90's, of course the terrorist themselves did That war was a model for subsquent Extremist Islamic campaigns. Your point ?

Re: your second post. First of all, as many people have correctly pointed out, terrorism is a tactic. If you're going to look at history pre- about 1980, you would want to look at Islamic history, for the purposes of this discussion, rather than terrorist history.

Obviously both are relevant, you point ?

[b5d_]

Originally Posted by griffin1977

Hamas is fairly right wing, at least on social issues, but that is NOT true for the main stream palestian factions. Fatah is philiosphically left/centrist, some of the other factions withing the PLO are out and out communists. Thats clear weakness in considering this "The Islamic World" as this monolythic entity, as you do. Its wrong to view even a tiny portion of the islamic world (e.g. palestinian factions) this way. And making decisions about it as if it was leads to insantity like the Iraq war.

A few things here. First of all, the Israel issue was originally one of colonialism, where it was basically seen as a European settlement. After that, we sided with Israel during the Cold War against communism. During that time, we considered anyone with a 'big-state' philosophy to be leftist - which was a good approach for the time, but it left out right-wing big-government philosophies. When Iran had its revolution, we thought it was left-wing, even though there were conservative elements to their approach as well (which have since taken over.) So, in short, given the geopolitical environment, groups like Fatah could have been considered leftist at one point. This entire pan-Islamic movement is very new historically. Now, Hamas clearly has more legitimacy, and they are right-wing.

You're also right that this is just a tiny portion of the Islamic world. Like a big abstract painting, many of these patterns only really start to come out when you look at it from a distance.

Not sure what you mean by this. But they WERE aligned with left-wing terrorists (red army faction, ETA, IRA) in other places for most of their history. In fact the current advanced IED used in Iraq could have come because of this relationship (http://www.nogw.com/download/2005_ira_bombs_iq.pdf).

This just goes to prove my point. They're happy to accept tactical aid from leftist groups. In fact, if they ever do get nuclear weapons, I expect they will do so from Russia, but that wouldn't have anything to do with accepting a communist ideology. Whether they will cooperate with leftists if they have nothing to gain, much less if they have anything to lose, is an entirely different question.

Obviously both are relevant, you point ?

My argument is strategic, rather than tactical.

[gonzomax]

I love this stuff. We supported Sadaam the terrible when he fought Iran. We armed him and Rumsfield was involved in selling the poisonous gas.
We helped overthrow Iran elected government because they were going to nationalize the oil companies. We installed the Peacock Throne and dictatorship prevailed. It was outr time to assist dictators who helped our oil companies.They diont hate us for our freedoms like Bush keeps saying. It was our deeds. If we acted properly ,even now .perhaps relations would improve.But the exploitation of the mid east must stop.

[b5d_]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

But the exploitation of the mid east must stop.

I'm not sure what we're doing would really count as "exploitation." For it to be exploitation, they would have to be acting in their own self-interest. But they're not - putting religion into policy doesn't help anybody. If people there aren't doing it themselves, most of them are defending people that do.