# Bush's new Israel policy / finally I think I "get it" (Bush overall foreign) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 16, 2004, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368 "2004-04-16T15:10:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/21 "2004-04-17T15:22:08Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > For Bush, encouraging terrorists to attack the United States is a win win. If they can stop an attack, it’s a big bragging point. If they fail, no one can possibly accuse the war President of not trying, and, since the American public has been so well spun on Spain as appeasers, he can urge Americans not to “appease” terror by voting him out. Either way, increased terrorism is a win-win. ``` To put it more mildly. Bush doesn't see his style of fighting terrorism as being too dangerous... since more attacks won't hurt him politically. If he really beleives it will solve anything long term is debatable... but probable. I agree with the Win - Win with Terrorism for Bush. Personal Gain isn't that "INCREDIBLE" is it ? After all he's not the president to be charitable or nice. He's a politician representing certain interests. If you think its conservative interests... and if I think their oil and religious interests is just debating which interests he stands for. (Nope he is not representing US interests necessarily). ``` ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/22 "2004-04-17T15:26:26Z")
oh… forgot to mention. I think Bush already sees the world as “us vs them”. Good vs Evil. His actions are only making it more true in a way. “Them” is not necessarily islam… since the Saudi “allies” or friends of his aren’t Evil. (Corrupt only ? hehe ) Those that join him aren’t evil: Pakistan for example. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/23 "2004-04-17T20:29:24Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Of course, you’re all simply wrong. Bush is neither stupid or evil, but foolish people who decide a priori he is because they are incapable of comprehending his goals: the complete transformation of the Middle East into democratic staes and the elimination of poltical and religious terrorism. > > But please, continue misunderestimating him. That is why you fail. Please come by [Defending the Democratic Domino Theory of the ME](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=235228) or [The American Domino Effect](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=251247) and let’s talk about this “complete transformation of the Middle East into democratic staes and the elimination of poltical and religious terrorism.” Please come on down and describe _ **how** _ these goals will be achieved under the WH’s plans. Opposition to the WH’s proposed plan for the “complete transformation of the Middle East into democratic staes and the elimination of poltical and religious terrorism” arises from comprehending the proposed, yet vague, _means_ for achieving the goals rather than from not comprhending the goals as you have stated. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/24 "2004-04-18T13:08:50Z")
**AHunter3** : > [@](#): > > _Finally I see a coherent pattern, something aside from “Damn, he’s dumb and inept!”, a real intention and execution of plan, going on with the Bush administration’s foreign policy since 9/11._ Interestingly, I also recently had an epiphany of sorts. To me it seems that all the moves made by the Bush administration since 9/11 make sense once you realize that his team has covertly declared war on “Islamic civilization.” The neo-cons strike me as the type of policy-makers who basically accept Samuel Huntington’s “_Clash of Civilizations_” logic. Huntington writes that “Western civilization” embraces certain humanistic, modern values (such as equality of the sexes, freedom of religion, etc). that are fundamentally irreconcilable with the values of “Islamic civilization.” Since the identities of both “civilizations” are based on diametrically opposed value systems, each side rejects the other as a way of life _in toto_. Huntington argues that this situation will lead inevitably to conflict. Huntington’s views mesh well with the Likudnik proclivities of the American neo-con movement as well. Huntington’s arguments suggest that there is no real policy alternative other that of the hard line, since no matter what else we try, we will nevertheless find ourselves enmeshed in conflict sooner or later. For example, [_Juan Cole_](http://www.juancole.com/) bitterly lamented Israel’s assassination of Sheik Yassin last month, arguing that it lead to increased tensions in Iraq and made things worse for the CPA. He reported that leaflets condemning Yassin’s murder were found scattered around Fallujah after the recent murder and desecration of the four “private contractors” there. The leaflets claimed that the mutilations were a revenge for Yassin’s assassination, if I recall correctly. Yet the US refused to condemn Israel for the attack. It is obvious that the administration’s decision to support Sharon’s land grab will be perceived as a provocation in the “Arab world.” If the administration wants to support a viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, publicly voicing one-sided support for Israel’s latest settlement maneuver would not be the policy of choice. Even given the domestic ramifications of the Bush’s pronouncement, one can hardly interpret the policy shift as anything other than a calculated provocation of Islamic fundamentalists. Finally, we have Najaf. I suspect that’s where things are going to really kick off. I am of the impression that even Sistani has warned that he will withdraw his support for the US occupation should US forces enter the city. Juan Cole reckons that attacking Najaf will at the very least spark rioting and unrest in most of the rest of the Middle East. One of Muqtada’s spokesmen has warned, “_We are prepared for a confrontation, and we believe that this attack will represent the zero hour for the launching of a massive popular revolution._” And yet: > [@](#): > > \*\* The negotiations between Muqtada al-Sadr and the Coalition ceased on Saturday, and it looked to some observers on the ground as though a US attack on Najaf might begin any moment. > > Qais al-Khaz’ali, a spokesman for Muqtada, said that the negotiators alleged that the US had made demands that formed insuperable obstacles to the talks, and that as a result tensions were escalating. He added, “We expect the American forces to assault the city of Najaf at any moment.” > > …al-Hayat in a breaking story says that Coalition spokesman Dan Senor denied al-Khaz’ali’s pessimistic account, and said that numerous parties had stepped forward to try to negotiate a peaceful settlement, and that that was what the Coalition Provisional Authority also wanted…. > > …The negotiators had met the Americans for 5 hours on Wednesday, and then met on Thursday with the grand ayatollahs and with al-Sadr. _One of the US demands seemed to the Shiites “crippling” to negotiations, and they have now lapsed_…. > > …Iran warned the American government that it would “pay a heavy price” if its forces attacked the cities of Najaf and Karbala. Ayatollah Muhammad Taskhiri, the representative of Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, told al-Hayat, “The American forces will have committed the biggest act of stupidity in their entire lives if they took this vile step.”… > > … ’ the commander of British troops in southern Iraq, Brig Nick Carter, admitted that he would be powerless to prevent the overthrow of Coalition forces if the Shia majority in Basra rose up in rebellion. Brig Carter, of the 20 Armoured Brigade, who has been in Iraq for four months, said British forces would stay in Basra with the consent of local Shia leaders, or not at all. Last month, 14 British soldiers were injured in Basra, at least three seriously, when they came under attack from demonstrators armed with petrol bombs, rocks and a grenade. “A crowd of 150,000 people at the gates of this barracks would be the end of this, as far as I’m concerned,” Brig Carter said. “There would be absolutely nothing I could do about that . . .” During an interview in Basra last week Brig Carter acknowledged that the Coalition’s presence in southern Iraq was entirely dependent on the goodwill of the local Shia Muslim leader, Sayid Ali al-Safi al-Musawi. He represents Ayatollah Sistani, Iraq’s leading Shia cleric. “The moment that Sayid Ali says, ‘We don’t want the Coalition here’, we might as well go home,” Brig Carter said. '… > > …Anyone who doubts that events in various places of the Muslim world are related should consider that the siege of Fallujah even appears to have provoked a firefight between Jordanian and US peacekeepers in the UN contingent at Mitrovica, Kosovo. So much for the UN saving the US in Iraq. Who’s going to keep peace among the peace keepers?… > > …With al-Anbar province tense and US troops surrounding Najaf, one could not imagine a worse time for Bush to give a green light to Sharon for further provocations. One can only conclude that neither Ariel Sharon nor Bush and his Neocon advisers give a fig about the lives of US and Coalition servicemen in Iraq. Otherwise, they’d stop with the theatrics….\*\* It is hard for me _not_ to conclude that the US is purposively provoking the Shiite community. If the US wanted peace, then this would seem like a series of terrible policy missteps; but if the US wants war, then they’re going about it in a strategically cunning, methodical manner. **Apos** : Brilliant. That was the most lucid analysis and critique of the Right’s foreign policy rhetoric I’ve ever seen. I’m stealing it. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/25 "2004-04-18T13:59:13Z")
**Mr Svinshela** Another post maintaining your excellent standard. I have one thing to add by way of clarification. You have perhaps conflated the Arab and the Islamic worlds, in my view restricting the span of Bush’s inflammation of hostility to the Middle East. In fact the centre of population of the “Islamic world” is much further East. Recall the tragedy of the Bali bombing for example. Instead the current policies we discuss are inflaming popular feeling against the US & Israel across the Persian Gulf and continuously to East-Asia. It’s a large fact, too large to let pass although its effects and significance are more that I feel able to comment on. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/26 "2004-04-18T14:14:33Z")
We have to be willing to go to war in order to enforce respect for UN Security Council Resolutions. Unless, of course, they are a corrupt and effete organization, in which case, we don’t. All clear now? Good. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/27 "2004-04-18T16:03:37Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > To me it seems that all the moves made by the Bush administration since 9/11 make sense once you realize that his team has covertly declared war on “Islamic civilization.” Or that they have more-or-less explicitly declared war on _Fundamentalist_ Islam. This is not a secret, it’s been discussed on these boards many times and people keep saying “I don’t understand.” I think one of those [right-wing rags](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/opinion/18FRIE.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists) summarized the entire philosophy today: > [@](#): > > I’m fed up with the Middle East, or more accurately, I’m fed up with the stalemate in the Middle East. All it has produced is death, destruction and endless “he hit me first” debates on cable television. Arabs, Israelis, Americans — everyone is sick of it. > > So now President Bush has stepped in and thrown the whole frozen Middle East chessboard up in the air. I don’t like his style, but it’s done. _The status quo was no better_. Emphasis added. The mistake is in thinking that Bush wants “stability.” He doesn’t. Decades of “stability” seeking led to 9/11. He is deliberately creating instability in an effort to reshuffle the deck (kick over the chessboard, whatever) in hopes of creating a better long-term situation. > [@SimonX](#): > > Please come by Defending the Democratic Domino Theory of the ME or The American Domino Effect and let’s talk about this “complete transformation of the Middle East into democratic staes and the elimination of poltical and religious terrorism.” 😉 And I yet again invite you to come by [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=236360&page=1&pp=30&highlight=flaw) and come up with a better idea. Anybody can carp. I’ve not heard one serious, comprehensive alternative plan. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/28 "2004-04-18T16:28:19Z")
> [@](#): > > The mistake is in thinking that Bush wants “stability.” He doesn’t. Decades of “stability” seeking led to 9/11. This is the fantasy that Bush profits from. The fact is, things like 9/11 could have been prevented by fairly minor policy changes, and if they had, we wouldn’t be here talking about how the world has changed. 9/11 was carried out by a handful of people: and handfuls of people are always capable of doing major damage, but they are far from the only things going on in the world. As a problem, it didn’t necessarily require a massive re-writing of everything and smashing through all processes that were working and weren’t indescriminately. For the latter, it still doesn’t. Of course, without 9/11 we probably still would have invaded Iraq. Just sooner. > [@](#): > > I’m fed up with the Middle East, or more accurately, I’m fed up with the stalemate in the Middle East. All it has produced is death, destruction and endless “he hit me first” debates on cable television. Arabs, Israelis, Americans — everyone is sick of it. > > So now President Bush has stepped in and thrown the whole frozen Middle East chessboard up in the air. I don’t like his style, but it’s done. The status quo was no better. Fantasy #2. In fact, the situation in the Middle East was ALWAYS been characterized by chaos, not frigid stability. This noob seems more concerned with how exciting the debates on cable news networks are than on the real world. Bush’s moves have shaken up the Middle East, and they may well be shaking them up in exactly the wrong way. But let’s not pretend that he’s somehow made some sort of breakthrough thru any sort of cold stalemate. He’s added a couple more blows in a region full of fist fights. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/29 "2004-04-18T17:13:29Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > The fact is, things like 9/11 could have been prevented by fairly minor policy changes, Ah, yes. The glories of hindsight. One or two minor tweaks in US policy and the anti-western, anti-modernism strain of Islam that has been growing in power and influence for 80 years would have vanished. The centuries of cultural decay leading to a region rightfully proud of their history now lagging embarassingly far behind in every field of human endeavor would have been reversed. 9/11 was the symptom. The cancer has been spreading for years. > [@](#): > > In fact, the situation in the Middle East was ALWAYS been characterized by chaos, not frigid stability. As indicated in recent decades by the frequent changes of government and philosophy in places like Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait … > [@](#): > > This noob seems more concerned with how exciting the debates on cable news networks are than on the real world. Yes, Tom Freidman is a “noob.” :rolleyes: Would you also care to call him a “neo-con” or a “Bushista?” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/30 "2004-04-18T21:20:22Z")
**sevastopol** : Thanks for the clarification. That was indeed what I was trying to get at. **furt** : > [@](#): > > _Or that they have more-or-less explicitly declared war on **Fundamentalist** Islam._ I did not write “Fundamentalist Islam.” I wrote “Islamic civilization.” After all, how do you draw a line between “Fundamentalist” and “non-Fundamentalist” Islam? Can such a line be drawn at all? Is Sistani a “Fundamentalist?” Thus far he’s encouraged his followers to avoid bloodshed and tried to cooperate with the CPA. But he has also warned that he will not allow US forces to enter Najaf. If they do so against his wishes, and he issues a fatwah to fight the Americans, will he then become a member of “Fundamentalist Islam?” You’ve got to ask yourself: if the Bush administration has declared war on “Fundamentalist Islam,” why did it attack Iraq, a secular Arab state with no serious ties to fundamentalist Islam at all? Saddam Hussein kept people like Muqtada al-Sadr under tight control; Iraq was “fundamentalist” Iran’s most troublesome regional rival; given that, one would expect us to view Hussein more as an ally than an enemy in the battle against “Fundamentalist Islam.” The whole point behind the “drain the swamp” rhetoric is precisely this: _Islam_ breeds _Fundamentalist Islam_; _Fundamentalist Islam_ breeds _terrorists_. Hence, in order to address the terrorist problem, we must address the problem of “Fundamentalist Islam;” but to address the problem of “Fundamentalist Islam,” we must address the problem of Islam. For those who have followed the debate between **Scylla** , **Spavined Gelding** , and myself, you will recognize this as merely the implementation of the “Big Dawg” policy in the Middle East. There is a kind of inexorable logic to it. War is brewing in the Mid-East. Not a traditional war between nation-states; something else. There are approximately 130 million Shiites world wide. At the risk of sounding alarmist, if the US military attacks Najaf the way it bombed Fallujah it might be facing an awful lot of very pissed-off Muslims, spread out across a dozen states from the Middle East to Indonesia. A policy designed to provoke a confrontation of that sort just hasn’t struck me as plausible, until recently. “Of course the Bush administration doesn’t want to risk war, if it can be avoided; of course they are trying to find a way to make peace with all these competing factions in Iraq. They’ve just been going about it in a very clumsy, counterproductive manner,” I kept thinking. But I’m not so sure anymore. There was an article in the Atlantic Monthly a couple of years ago about the “win-win” neo-con strategy. From that strategy perspective, it was argued, a major war in the Middle East would promote the neo-con’s agenda as much as an uneasy peace; in fact, war would be the preferred outcome. As **Apos** pointed out so eloquently above, the right rhetorically disconnects policies from results; hence, any act of terrorism merely provides a legitimizing context for more militarization, and more expansion – even if it is precisely that militarization and expansion that provoked the terrorist act in the first place. Despite the support you garner from that august journal of news and public opinion, I do not think anyone can say whether or not the “status quo” was worse. We have yet to see the outcome of Bush’s chessboard kicking. A year ago I would have found it hard to believe that Iraq could be in worse shape after the invasion than it was under Hussein; now, I find it entirely possible. Five years of bloody civil war and chaos, with high casualties on both sides, might change everyone’s perspective: we might wind up longing for the halcyon days of the Hussein regime. Nor am I certain that Bush wants to create a “better long-term situation,” except in the sense of a more favorable long term situation regarding US strategic and economic interests. “Better” is always a matter of perspective. But enough. I could be wrong. It all hangs on Najaf. If they manage to negotiate a solution, then my thesis will be falsified; but if they go on the offensive, then it will still be in the running as a plausible explanation for US actions. So let us hope they find a way to solve the problem without too many body bags. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/31 "2004-04-18T22:49:08Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **furt** :I did not write “Fundamentalist Islam.” I wrote “Islamic civilization.” Ummm, yes. Which is why I italicized it to show the difference. > [@](#): > > After all, how do you draw a line between “Fundamentalist” and “non-Fundamentalist” Islam? Can such a line be drawn at all? I sure as hell hope so, otherwise we _are_ going to have a clash of civilizations. But we seem to do alright in seperating “Christians” from “hyperfundamentalist abortion clinic bombers.” I think it’s roughly the same, in principle. There is a grey area, and people move back and forth, but the distinction isn’t impossible. > [@](#): > > Is Sistani a “Fundamentalist?” For now, he looks like someone that is operating in his self-interest and whom we can work with. > [@](#): > > You’ve got to ask yourself: if the Bush administration has declared war on “Fundamentalist Islam,” why did it attack Iraq, a secular Arab state with no serious ties to fundamentalist Islam at all? See the thread I linked to a couple posts up. Or scroll down to VI on [this](http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml). > [@](#): > > Hence, in order to address the terrorist problem, we must address the problem of “Fundamentalist Islam;” but to address the problem of “Fundamentalist Islam,” we must address the problem of Islam. Possibly; I don’t think so, though. > [@](#): > > There are approximately 130 million Shiites world wide. Okay, so a dispersed, impovershed and unorganized population less than half the size of the US. I don’t want them pissed off any more than need be, but I don’t think we need to make it worry #1. > [@](#): > > There was an article in the Atlantic Monthly a couple of years ago about the “win-win” neo-con strategy. Kenya find it? They’re online. I prolly read it but don’t recall. > [@](#): > > From that strategy perspective, it was argued, a major war in the Middle East would promote the neo-con’s agenda as much as an uneasy peace; in fact, war would be the preferred outcome. Well, if you’re into conspiracy theories. The stated neo-con agenda, for decades, is not America uber alles, but America as Wilsonian promoter and guarantor of human rights/democracy for the benefit of all. Inciting perpetual global war is this inconsistient with their stated agenda. > [@](#): > > …I do not think anyone can say whether or not the “status quo” was worse. We have yet to see the outcome of Bush’s chessboard kicking. The status quo in the whole middle east, not just Iraq, is/was very bad. Yes it could theoretically eventually be worse for the people there, but I think the long-term odds are in their favor. > [@](#): > > Nor am I certain that Bush wants to create a “better long-term situation,” except in the sense of a more favorable long term situation regarding US strategic and economic interests. Neither am I; but the whole point of neocon thought is that freedom for them _is_ what’s good for us. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2004, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/32 "2004-04-19T05:04:43Z")
**furt:** \*The stated neo-con agenda, for decades, is not America uber alles, but America as Wilsonian promoter and guarantor of human rights/democracy for the benefit of all. \* But they seem to take “America uber alles” as a necessary prerequisite for America as democracy promoter. Consider such remarks as these from the Project for a New American Century’s manifesto [Rebuilding America’s Defenses (pdf)]([www.newamericancentury.org/](http://www.newamericancentury.org/) RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf): > [@](#): > > At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. […] > > Since today’s peace is the unique product of American preeminence, a failure to preserve that preeminence allows others an opportunity to shape the world in ways antithetical to American interests and principles. In other words, yeah, America will help the whole world be prosperous and free, but first we have to ensure that we have unchallenged global economic and military supremacy. This isn’t the inference of some loony “conspiracy theory”, it’s what influential neocons such as PNAC frankly assert. _[…] the whole point of neocon thought is that freedom for them is what’s good for us._ Seems to me that its chief point is actually the converse of that: the neocons think that whatever’s good for us will necessarily ensure freedom for them. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2004, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/33 "2004-04-20T01:04:19Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Ah, yes. The glories of hindsight. Don’t change the subject deceptively like that again. The point was not whether we could have known how to change things: the point was that very minor policy differences would have been enough to frustrate and break Al Qaeda, without some radical transformation of our policies. There was no Marxian necessity to it. > [@](#): > > One or two minor tweaks in US policy and the anti-western, anti-modernism strain of Islam that has been growing in power and influence for 80 years would have vanished. Frankly, if it’s gained power recently, it’s only been because of a backlash to US actions and emboldened by the success of 9/11. It’s still not very widespread: it’s one thing to hate the US, it’s another to have any power whatsoever to strike us, let alone on the mainland. The people even willing to do that are very few: they’ve just now gotten a platform from which to be very loud. There was no neccessity that this particular strain should have gained such attention. Many countries in the Middle East have been moving towards civilization and modernization, and there was no reason this particular detour had to be the defining factor of that transition. > [@](#): > > The centuries of cultural decay leading to a region rightfully proud of their history now lagging embarassingly far behind in every field of human endeavor would have been reversed. Not saying they don’t have problems, but terror attacks on the US are hardly the only or neccessary result. > [@](#): > > As indicated in recent decades by the frequent changes of government and philosophy in places like Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait This is a pretty nonsensical response. You know exactly what conflicts I’ve been talkig about, so stop playing innocent. > [@](#): > > Yes, Tom Freidman is a “noob.” :rolleyes: Would you also care to call him a “neo-con” or a “Bushista?” No, he’s just one of those self-important pundits that likes to say grand sweeping things that sound great until you think about them for more than a minute or so. Yes, Bush has taken a bold move never before attempted in the Middle East: war and some policy proposals for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2004, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/34 "2004-04-20T01:26:20Z")
[QUOTE=furt] Ah, yes. The glories of hindsight. One or two minor tweaks in US policy and the anti-western, anti-modernism strain of Islam that has been growing in power and influence for 80 years would have vanished. [\quote] More fervent support for Arab independence after WWI woulda been a great place to start. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2004, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368/35 "2004-04-20T01:50:42Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > More fervent support for Arab independence after WWI woulda been a great place to start. I’m not sure how we could have been more fervent than Wilson’s 14 points. There were many even here that supported that plan. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-new-israel-policy-finally-i-think-i-get-it-bush-overall-foreign/240368.md?page=1)