One thought is that an invasion will lead to riots in the streets in other Islamic countries. Their hated of the US and Israel will grow. Terrorist organizations will gain more converts and become more active.
The opposite thought is that their fear and respect for the US will grow. Terrorism will be reduced. The oposition will be emboldened in places like Iran, with totalitarian, anti-American leadership.
So, which is it? Will an attack increase Arab militancy or decrease Arab militancy?
Both. I think you could see greater anti-US radicalization in countries like Syria. On the other hand, I think a liberated Iraq will cause even more dissatisfaction with the government of Iran, and would eventually, ultimately lead to the end of the Mullahs and a more moderate government.
Could you imagine peaceful, moderate Iraq living next door to peaceful, moderate Iran? How good would that be for the world?
Honestly, I can’t. But then, I grew up in the 1970s.
I cannot see how incresed fear for of the United States can be a sustainable route for peace.
The immediate problem that springs to mind is the assumption that invasion or retaliation against states discourages terrorism. While that might be partially true in a minority of countries, I am not at all convinced that in general terrorist groups will be deterred by threats against states. Not every state can be held completely accountable for every individual seeking misguided martyrdom. Why would a terrorist cell in (say) Pakistan respect the US more for invading Iraq? Why would fear drive them to give up rather than fight harder?
I am not dismissing the idea that force might work, but I remain hugely sceptical.
Wonderful. Conservo-Porn. See it now on the National Review Channel, hard-core masturbatory fantasies of the end of history and the victory of all that which is American Neo-Con. Whank away.
Or perhaps some reality TV instead:
December’s screed:
A first note, the Islamic versus us angle is distorting.
(a) The issue will be Arab first. Xtian Arabs are no more enthusiastic (indeed sometimes less) about American Middle East policy than Muslim Arabs. Iraq is one of the core “Arab” countries in Arab Nationalist mythology, and a good decade of solidarity agitprop has firmly ensconced Iraqi popular “martyrdom” in the public mind. Right up there with the Palestinians. Secular, religious, the take is largely the same (ex the tendency for the secular to cut Sadaam a bit more slack, he’s a hard drinking ba’athist who’s got no cred with the Islamists. Quite the contrary, he’s hated as a secular malik to use their phrasing.
(b) The Pan-Islamic angle may be important in some places, Pakistan, Indonesia come to mind, as well as Iran (co-religionists). Resonance will not be so great, however the angle will play into the radical fringe and may give them a hook in recruitment, in conjunction with the unresolved Israel-Palestine issue and the drooling idiocy and bumbling incompetence that is Bush’s foreign policy in the region.
Now further to this:
However entertaining December’s cribbed neo-Con op-ed illogic is, the above syllogism does not follow.
(a) The Neo-Con comic books like to push the line that the Sand Nigs only respect force and the only way to get them in line like good little creatures is for them to fear the U.S. Wonderful neo-colonial thinking, with all the sophistication and comprehension that implies. It has, like many stereotypes, a grain of truth, around which is wrapped deep misunderstanding if not willful ignorance. To a degree Arab society does like the image of strength. But fear does not equal respect – one has but to look to the ‘success’ of the various quasi-secular dictators (some that the US supports, e.g. Mubarak the Shrimp Eater, some not, as Qadhdhafi, Assad II) – fear breeds also hatred and resentment if it is not attached to the idea of justice. ‘Adl. Very important concept in Islamic thought. Without resolution of the I-P conflict or some semblance of movement such that the US has some shred of an appearance of “‘adl” the hatred and resentment part of the equation will grow.
(b) Reduction of Terror: does not follow from fear of the US contra the assumption. The Arab world already is infected with an almost hysterical idea of the actual capacity for the US to resolve issues, crushing Iraq does not do much to add to this, indeed it does nothing. No one truly believes the Iraqis can withstand a US military assault on conventional terms. The attraction, however, in the absence of the idea of the US justly dealing with their world, to the unconventional – guerrilla action, “terrorism” if you will – will rise.
© Embolding the opposition is the most droolingly idiotic part of the entire equation. Rather like that queer belief bandied about in your neo-Con comic books that Bush ibn Bush’s idiotic speeches in re Iran (Axis of Evil, dealing directly with the Iranian people) would “help” the moderates in Iran. Each time we have seen nationalist blow back. It perhaps comes as a surprise to the folks who write such drooling idiocy that other peoples have a modicum of national feeling, that to be perceived to be the lapdog, the serviteur of a foreign power – and this is especially true in places with a colonial history – is to be perceived as betraying one’s nation. But more on this below.
Arab or Islamic old boy? Get your line of argument right. In any case, increase clearly in the short-term. Arab (Xtian or Muslim) and Islamic (non-Arab). Further to that, a unilateral attack without getting important actors on board, e.g. the Gulf States, Europe –besides butt-boy Blair – there will be serious damage to US prestige and image outside the Arab and Islamic world.
Sam Stone then gives us more of National Review Conservo-Porn:
The stunning illogic of this comes of little surprise, given the underlying sources’ of un-knowledge about this.
Anti-US radicalization, given likely scenarios, will certainly increase across the region, not just in places like Syria but more so in places like Egypt, the Gulf, etc. A good decade of agitprop – ineffectually countered at best by US counter agit-prop which has largely seem to be cribbed from the self-defeatingly myopic and self-regarding understanding regurgitated for us here – has moved Iraqi victimization right up there with Palestinians in the Arab world’s popular mind.
As noted the initial reaction will be negative. Whether it boils over is a close call and depends on what precisely happens. Iran will see a nationalistic reaction – however much Iranian youth are attracted to American culture at some level, that does not in the final analysis trump their national feeling (as evidenced, e.g. by the spontaneous mass demos contra the Axis of Evil characterization) and the occupation of a fellow Islamic country (with a substantial shi’a population) plays directly into the insecurities and obsessions in re the colonial past. Something which has substantial weight. The immediate result is a weakening of the reformists as reaction against Western ‘Crusader’ troops in the Islamic heartland (Baghdad, seat of the great empires….) takes hold. Crusaders on the borders as it were.
A “liberated” Iraq will have to go very, very well indeed. And of course as the touchy situation in Afghanistan indicates, rebuilding a country, including its civic institutions is a difficult task. One not easily undertaken, above all when the cultures are so very different. And bloody expensive.
The cartoonish quality of thinking on ‘converting’ Iraq to a moderate democracy is painful to behold. Despite the magical thinking here, such an operation will require (a) long term and sustained involvement in Iraq and its politics – including one would hope some modicum of understanding of the region and Iraq specific political culture and the understanding that one does not just add water and get Western democracy (b) large scale investment that will not be easily fundable, despite the wonderful attraction of oil revenues.
Rather more likely is a quick invasion, some grinding months of low key guerrilla warfare here and there, slow accretion of Islamists to the area to carry Jihad to the ‘crusaders’, gradual tiring of American public and opinion for the whole matter, establishment of an unstable pseudo-democracy a la Egypt… and all the success that has entailed.
Sure, I can imagine it. I can also imagine the fucking tooth fairy.
None of this would matter if there was some semblance of a compelling case to invade Iraq right now, but there is not despite all the hand-waving about weapons of mass destruction and that scary old Saddam might use them etc. Even once a compelling case for an invasion in the near term is made, some proper diplomatic ground work is needed, not transparent and irrationally clumsy backpeddling. No bloody surprise Scrowcroft et al have been forced to speak up on the stunning idiocy of the manner in which this issue has been pursued to date.
Nice to see you back, Collounsbury. I was you would contribute to this thread.
You are, of course, correct, that the OP did not distinguish between Arabs and Muislims. However, the question is could be important when applied to either group. I appreciate your responding on that basis.
You may be giving Scowcroft too much credit, since he shares your POV. Keep in mind that Scowcroft also spoke out against the attack against Afghanistan. His advice has since been proved wrong in that case. Of, that doesn’t mean he’s wrong this time.
You wrote,
I have seen suggestions that Iran’s mass demonstrations were government-organized. How certain are you that they were truly spontaneous?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
Nice to see you back, Collounsbury. I was you would contribute to this thread.
[\quote]
Temporary. Last post.
Clarity always helps, clarity.
Scrowcroft has hardly been alone on this issue, noting the irony of your critique.
(a) Reporting in sources such as the Economist characterized Axis reaction demos as partly spontaneous (not all to be sure, gov’t and related entities clearly had a role, note next point)
(b) Attendance and fervor at gov. sponsored demos had been noticably lacking. Again per same sources, reaction and attendance was large and fervant, noticably and clearly different from the Conservatives usual canned efforts.
Based on my readings, I am very certain the Axis speech and the Bush ‘dealing directly with the people’ speech had negative effects on balance. Clumsy, poorly concieved self-indulgent play-to-the-know-nothing-domestic-red-meat crowd speechifying.
I’ve said more than once here, achieving results in the region requires knowing the idiom and playing to that idiom. September to December this was done well. Not perfectly, but pretty good – as I recall I noted quite frequently during that time period. Since then, self-indulgent and ultimately myopically premature triumphalism has taken hold.
Collunsbury
All very true, with one exception. I don’t think the Axis of Evil address even played well to the “…domestic-red-meat crowd.” “Axis” should not have survived one speech revision. There is no known agreement between Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Immediately the whole world, including the bovine carnivores here, issued a collective “whutthefuc is he talkin’ 'bout?”
I have only heard the Axis of Evil, LLP speech mentioned in a derisive fashion ever since. Even people who mostly support the President seem to be mystified where that came from. Of course, it is the neo-con. extremists that have Bush’s ear. Too bad Colin Powell has to schedule an appointment.
Collounsbury, I thought you were taking your lithium. It looks like your back to ad-hominem attacks again.
My position is not neo-con, nor is it unreasonable. I’ve actually been posting a lot of skeptical material about an Iraq invasion around here, if you hadn’t noticed. And I DID say that such an invasion would further radicalize Arabs in many countries.
I singled out Iran as a country that may be different, and I did so for good reason. The very young population there is quite pro-American. They are not afraid of the U.S. They are afraid of the Mullahs that run the place. And they are afraid of having a nutjob like Saddam next door. One who, if you’ll remember, used weapons of mass destruction against their soldiers.
As you say, a lot depends on how the post-Saddam situation turns out. If the U.S. goes in, it had better be willing to be there for the long haul, because it will take a long, long time to bring stability back to the region. Not just internally in Iraq, but once the balance of power changes in the region other countries could become unstable as well. That’s why the U.S. had better get cooperation from at least its major allies like Britain before doing this, and Bush had damned well better get the cooperation of the Congress and the approval of the people before attacking, because if you think there is infighting in government now, wait until you see the Congress going at it in two years if the U.S. is embroiled in trying to maintain an unstable peace in Iraq that they never agreed to. It’ll be the mother of all political footballs.
Lemme get this straight-we bomb them, and they are happy and grateful?
Of course! :smack: It’s so simple-why didn’t I think of that?
Uh, we’re not bombing Iran. It’s Iraq. You know, led by the guy with the funny mustache, likes to shoot guns in the air? That country.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
Collounsbury, I thought you were taking your lithium. It looks like your back to ad-hominem attacks again.
[/quote]
Whinging, a hobby Sam?
Walks like, quacks like. As for “unreasonable” - I could care less what you think your position is, that hardly matters.
Good for you, I’ve only noted the errant nonesense you posted recently, as assertions that al-Qaeda is not fringe (a piece of confusion rather like asserting the White Power folks are not fringe because at a certain point they expressed some ‘white male resentment’) or your characterizations of the Arab media in re “muslims and infidels” (as if I recall you do not speak Arabic.)
Pin a little gold star on and do a dance.
Wonderful Sam, you continue to lap up the comic book nonesense like nobody’s business.
Let me offer you a clue.
As noted above, there is a fine line between Iranian youth’s attraction to the US as a means of expressing opposition to the conservatives in the goverment, the hyper-conservative mullahs and Iranian nationalist feeling. The reaction (you do recall your nonsensical assertions to post Axis of Evil idiocy speech, look them up) was negative – blowback based on national feeling. This angle of the analysis still seems to escape you.
I’m quite familiar with this sort of thing, one gets the same bloody effect in the Arab world. Youth are often pro-US in terms of expressing support for democracy and other vaguely understood concepts. An outlet of frustration against the sclerotic nature of the political systems, in general. That does not translate into support of US politics in the region. Quite the contrary, there is generalized discontent over US policy in re the I-P conflict, above the ham-handed idiocy of recent public diplomacy, a growing sense of double standards
Your simple minded assertions that the Iranian youth are not afraid of the US (whatever that means) and that they are “quite pro-American” rests on the simplistic misunderstandings of the dynamics of the region, the particularities of the way ME pop culture (obv. dependent on country, but generalizable as follows - US admired for domestic society, freedoms, used as stick/example to beat on domestic politic drums) ties into feelings on international relations. Two different domains.
To misunderstand the manner in which Iranian (and in fact much Arab youth) are “pro-American” is to fundamentally and dangerously miscontrue the actual political dynamic. Our dear Bush ibn Bush has already done this twice, I do not believe a third time is needed.
(As for “nutjobs” and Saddam, I myself would hesitate to characterize Iranian national feeling in this manner, and I rather do consider myself terribly well-informed on the region. But perhaps actually knowing regional languages and having regional experience gets in the way of reaching the desired conclusions.)
A side note, Guin, you might wish to develop the habit of reflecting before posting however satisfying sharing your reflections may be.
(bolding mine) After parsing this one and correcting for the “could care less” I still have no idea if there is internal logic to this or not. Houston, we have a problem.
I think it means that what Sam thinks he thinks is irrelevant to what he thinks. If so, I disagree.
This part was pure gold. I love irony and paradox, they make the world go round. Also, I think it is true. Liking Britney Spears and free elections does not necessarily translate into liking U.S. foreign policy. Nationalist or patriotic backlash to meddling does not seem to factor into the Bush diplomatic calculus.
As for the wonderfully colorful cascade of vitriol directed at Sam, as a stylistic consideration I try to avoid it. It burns the skin, splashes everywhere, and obscures your point.
I’m used to it. You step into a middle-east debate, and you know Collounsbury is going to show up and start slapping everyone because HE is the only one here with a right to an opinion, because he apparenty speaks Arabic and has experience in the region. That gives him the right to be rude and obnoxious wherever he goes.
What we should do is all gather around at uncle Collounsbury’s feet and say, “Please, tell us how the world works! You are our oracle of wisdom!”
Anything less will be met with a blast of hatred. I’m used to it.
And the substance is? Or are we just whinging?
BTW Samy old man, if you want me to translate Arabic in real time to relieve any doubts you might have, you need only ask. I shall be happy, schedule permitting.
As for the rest, if there was less rampant ignorance and stupidity on the subject then I would be less inclined to point out the same. However, there is.
If you claim Guin has been sharing her reflections, doesn’t that indicate that she’s been reflecting? Can’t you get off the damn ad hominem attacks! Guins posts are clear and direct to the point. They’re definitely not oxymoronic like the drivel I just quoted you on.
And what’s with this sand nigger bullshit. the only time I come across this disgusting term is in your posts. Nice try attempting to label posters here neo-conservative and attributing this racist slur to them. Tell me, does it apply to Arabs or Muslims, You weren’t clear on that. :rolleyes:
And December, I would assume that the Arab street will react much the same as they did during the Gulf War. Why not?
Greeny old man, you’re boring and uninteresting.
actually greeny inadvertantly, rather as the acidental production of shakespeare on typewriters, a moderately important item after his boring whinging:
A decade. That’s why not, if one understood, a strong and ultimately unsupportable assumption, my prior comments.
In '91 there was a clear attack on Kuwait, a fellow -if widely detested- arab nation. And initial reports supported Iraqi atrocities (certainly beastly behaviour occured in re guest workers, who suffered more than the rich Kuwaitis) mitigating popular anger in re American intervention. In 91 there was not multiple declarations by the Arab league and other Arab and Islamic bodies condeming an attack on Iraq.
Now, ten years later there is
(a) no causus belli which folks other than Bush ibn Bush’s sycophants accept
(b) ten years of Iraqi suffering and connected propaganda
© Intefada II
(d) a better organized Islamist underground with ready made agit prop to connect up with this
(e) weaker Arab governments
Now, for those who are not irredemiablely dim, we may discern the risk of a rather more strenously negative reaction (stressing the importance of execution and context) are vastly greater.
Clear enough?
I’m going to talk essentially out of my ass, here, so don’t pay to much attention :
I don’t have the feeling they (at least the rare ones I could speak with) are quite pro-american. Interested in things american, maybe, in some western concepts, maybe. But pro-american? Quite the contrary, IMO…
Don’t know. Affraid in what sense and in relation to what? Anyway that doesn’t make these young people “pro-american”.
**
[/QUOTE]
They are afraid of the Mullahs that run the place. **
[/QUOTE]
Affraid? I don’t have this feeling, either. More like irritated, or pissed off, perhaps…
No clue on this one. But an interesting question…
And by the way, Iranians seem ardently nationalists to me…