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).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.
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.” 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.
AHunter3:
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 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:
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.
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.
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.
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 summarized the entire philosophy today:
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.
And I yet again invite you to come by here and come up with a better idea. Anybody can carp. I’ve not heard one serious, comprehensive alternative plan.
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.
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.
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.
As indicated in recent decades by the frequent changes of government and philosophy in places like Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait …
Yes, Tom Freidman is a “noob.” :rolleyes: Would you also care to call him a “neo-con” or a “Bushista?”
sevastopol:
Thanks for the clarification. That was indeed what I was trying to get at.
furt:
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.
Ummm, yes. Which is why I italicized it to show the difference.
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.
For now, he looks like someone that is operating in his self-interest and whom we can work with.
See the thread I linked to a couple posts up. Or scroll down to VI on this.
Possibly; I don’t think so, though.
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.
Kenya find it? They’re online. I prolly read it but don’t recall.
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.
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.
Neither am I; but the whole point of neocon thought is that freedom for them is what’s good for us.
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/ RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf):
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.
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.
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.
Not saying they don’t have problems, but terror attacks on the US are hardly the only or neccessary result.
This is a pretty nonsensical response. You know exactly what conflicts I’ve been talkig about, so stop playing innocent.
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:
[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.
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.