RESOLVED: Our war that began on Sept 11 is with . . .

Great Debates
1

. . . radical Islamic Fundamentalism.

It seems to me that the focus on avenging the WTC/Pentagon attacks is on stopping terrorism. Anyone else disturbed by this notion? It seems to me that by defining the war this way we’re leading ourselves into a huge, Viet Nam-sized quagmire, because:

a) There are LOTS of different definitions of ‘terrorism’, and the multinational coalition that has been built is destined to fracture at some point in the future over a squabble over what defines a terrorist.

b) In fact, our enemy as it now stands, terrorism, is not a state, or a cause, but a violent method of political coercion. And it’s hardly exclusive to the Islamic world, nor this time in history; we in the States are bent on avenging the Sept 11 attacks (and rightfully so), but we hardly have a moral leg to stand on in regards to terrorism.

c) Fighting terrorism is almost entirely a defensive war, aimed merely at thwarting further attacks–how does one strike a decisive blow against such a nebulous cause? In other words, what’s our exit strategy?

and d) Such a war is not winnable, not with tens of thousands of propagandized young Muslems ready to sacrifice their lives in a twisted jihad against the West. Take a gander at this depressing article to see what we’re up against: http://usatoday.com/hear.htm
SO: I propose that instead of fighting ‘terrorism’, per se, we instead focus our fight against those who espouse a virulently medieval, anti-Western, anti-secular perversion of Islam. This has several advantages:

  1. We know which humans are the enemy;

  2. Moderate Muslims would certainly be on our side–I have to think they are intimidated by the bomb-toting maniacs in their societies;

  3. We have a moral right to defend ourselves against these maniacs who wear their anti-Western views on their sleeves–they want us ERASED from the Earth, and no dithering about Israel or oil companies will change their views;

and most importantly,

  1. By cutting this cancer of a political force from pan-Islamic society, we in the West, as well as Muslims across all of Arabia, can begin to effect changes in even the so-called “moderate” Arab states, which have been pointed out elsewhere on these boards to be merely dictatorships who are friendly to us. I am convinced that terrorists are so prevalent not because of Israel, or of our need for oil, but because all majority-Islamic states are poor dictatorships dominated by a supperrich oligarchy/monarchy (such as Saudi Arabia), a despotic military (Pakistan, Indonesia), or an anti-democratic theocracy (Afghanistan).

Am I implying tampering with a nation’s sovereignty? Yes, I am. But I think that change can come from within; Iran is a country of young people with no memory of the US hostages, but dominated by its older, more conservative clergy. We just need to apply pressure in the right areas, and show Muslims that Islam and democracy are not incompatible.

Am I implying a sort of Marshall Plan for the Arab States, once the conflict is over? Yes, I am. There has to be economic reform to alleviate the conditions which breed terrorism, but I don’t think it will come except by military might. But I haven’t thought this entirely through.

Am I implying it’s time we turned the thumbscrews on Palestine and Israel to settle their pissing war? You betcha.

Am I implying we shouldn’t bomb the snot out of Osama and anyone who helped him? HELL, NO. I’m just saying he’d be merely phase 1 of this effort.

Somewhere, somehow, some adherents of Islam fell off the rails. I think that the world community has a right to oppose these lunatics, I do not think they are the results of any Western foreign policy (although the vast oil reserves under many of these states do not help things), and I think that going after them is pointless unless we eliminate the breeding grounds these mosquitoes thrive on.

Thoughts?

2

My only thought is, my father had and still has a book published in 1942, called “Defense Will Not Win The War”, in which the author pointed out that Hitler’s entire strategy rested on his being on the offense.
Same thing here. We have to knock them off their heels and get them to start thinking defensively. How to do that, I have no clue.

3
  1. “We know which humans are the enemy”. No we don’t! Humans will lie and hide. There will always be some group hiding somewhere waiting to bring doom and gloom.
    I do kind of agree with you in a way to try and get the extremists out by education, and exposure maybe a psychological cleansing and Freudian bombarding with some hardcore anti-psychotic medication that will change their brain synapses might help dramatically. Yes that is what I truly think will work. Change the physical mind, of the undesirable person!

This has a lot of possibilities for all violent offenders on the planet.

Thank You Airblairxxx for making me think of it. Now to get this idea to the Pentagon’s Lab. GORT!–Mr Carpenter

4

I think that fracture is going to be a point of major contention, actually. Last news piece I read indicated that India was pushing that Pakistan itself was a source of terrorism. I am unaware of the particulars (whether or not I would agree, basically) but it is most likely indicative of things to come.

I wonder about the IRA myself, being an American and by political implication possessing ties with the UK.

If by that you mean “because we, as a global society, do not currently have a satisfactory definition of terrorism” then I would whole-heartedly agree. Otherwise I am not sure what you mean.

Exit? Well, in a defensive war there is no exit as far as I can see. However, I am not certain this is necessarily a defensive struggle. It seems to me to be a police action, proactively seeking known terrorists and terrorist factions. Where it spreads-- or how it spreads-- from there I am not currently willing to speculate on.

For someone who begins by stating there isn’t a clear definition of terrorism you sure seem eager to adjust it to fit “radical muslims.” I’m not sure I agree.

I do agree, however, that such a struggle is not “winnable.” It would seem that to be able to demonstrate we have won would be to prove a negative. Practically speaking we may be able to win, but I don’t think that is likely to happen either because of the incredible smallness of terrorist factions: one is all you need. That is an enemy that cannot be permanently removed short of instituting a distopia ala 1984.

It seems that, if anything, this is the absolute worst thing we could do. Where we need the most support in the Middle East is from muslims. Taking actions that are overtly even if not explicitly anti-Islam will have reprocussions that are antithetical to our plight.

I do agree with you that we must interfere with soveriegn states for our own defense in this case. I have suggested humanitarian programs based on building infrastructure, forcing a free press, and providing for more education. The EU can quibble over letting member states in all they want, it is imperative to eliminate stark poverty and provide some semblence of education.

However, I am simply not conmfortable assigning a religious nature to the terrorism we seek to eliminate; I feel that religion is incidental to the actions these terrorists are taking. I think of many atrocities committed in the name of religion, but that is a flaw with the men that practice them. True, it may also be a flaw inherent in the absolute moral system that diety-based religions provide, but even so we have literally billions of people that peacefully practice diety-based religion all over the world today and they just don’t kill each other.

I don’t want one rotten apple to spoil the whole bunch. Globalization is getting to the point where it is no longer a viable choice to avoid; we should not strike out in its name against religion.

5

**

You just clarified my point for me. I’m referring to the US of A. We’ve used terrorism in the past, we’ve supported it, we’ve paid for people (like Osama bin Laden) to implement it against our enemies.

Sure, it’s going to be a multi-national police action. I’m saying it’s foolish to think that’s all it will be. How are we going to end this war? By ending the conditions that make this dead-end ideology so appealing.

**

My point is that if we define this as a struggle of radical Islamic fundamentalism vs. secular Westernism, we don’t need a definition of terrorism, which you agree will inevitably be a source of friction for the coalition. Besides, these people count as their enemy ANYONE who doesn’t agree with them. After the secular West has been erased from the Earth, they’ll set their sights on Buddhism, animism, Scientology (well, not if they’re smart), whomever.

Would you feel safer in a world with an anti-Western terrorist movement of 5,000,000 or 5,000? Realistically, this is possible.

I’m absolutely NOT saying “Bomb all the Towelheads.” Far from it. I’ve become a lot more educated on Islam since September 11, and I’ve seen NOTHING to indicate that Osama and the Taliban are in any way indicative of mainstream Islamic thought. They’re loony fundamentalists, which you find in any religion. (See: FALWELL, Jerry.) But they are moving towards a political signifigance far out of proportion to their numbers. My hunch is that this has GOT to be threatening to more moderate thinkers in the Islamic world.

Thank you. Where? Just Afghanistan? I say it has to be a region-wide undertaking, otherwise we’re just pissing money away. (And while we’re at it, I don’t see any reason why the oil-rich states can’t foot a SERIOUS part of the bill.)

While the people responsible for September 11 may hide in the cloak of their religion, I don’t see this as a religious war–it’s ideological. These Muslim fundamentalists are fascistic in their desire to kill non-Muslims and impose their own version of sharia on all Muslims. That they are Muslim is coincidental; had they been born Catholic in Ireland under the exact same economic and ideological conditions, they’d have turned out the same way. (In fact, wasn’t there some terrorist activity in that part of the world?) No, I don’t advocate genocide the same way they do. I just don’t see this radical fundamentalism going away unless all the world–including the Islamic world–takes steps to curb it on ideological, military, and economic levels.

6

Our war is with the terrorists who caused the attack on the WTC and Pentagon.

  1. I agree - we can’t fight all terrorists. That would be madness - we’d have too many little wars going on all over the world, and frankly, despite our great military, we don’t have the manpower to do it.

  2. It is extremely dangerous to lump all “radical islamic fundamentalists” (RIF) in with the terrorists responsible for the attacks. There are RIF who do not carry out attacks on our government. Just because someone hates us and practices anti-American activities does not mean we should bomb the shit out of them. America allows all religious freedom, not just religions that practice in moderation. We should only attack those, religious or otherwise, that practice anti-American activities that threaten lives.

  3. Cultures that hate us, religions that hate us, people that hate us have every right to exist. As long as they don’t bother us, we shouldn’t bother them. Yes, I know, there are some who do “bother” us, attack us, and they must be dealt with. Harshly. But we cannot destroy ALL who hate us simply because they hate us.

Let’s not simply attack people because they don’t agree with us, or like us. Let’s not try to force the American way on the rest of world. Let’s just go after the terrorists who have attacked, or are planning to attack, America.

7

I have to agree with leander. Saudi Arabia is by most stretches a *Radical Islamic Fundamentalist state. Certainly the brand of Islam practiced there is extreme and reactionary - In other words, fundamentalist. But most Saudi nationals are not interested in assaulting Americans.

No, I don’t think Islamic fundamentalism per se is our foe. It isn’t necessarily our friend, either. But most Islamist groups aren’t interested in exporting terror, they’re interested in their own internal domestic situation. And trying to define Islamic fundamentalism by groups like bin Laden’s is not accurate, IMHO. The Islamist movement is rather more diverse that that.

  • Tamerlane
8

First, I would love to see one of these fundamentalist groups set their sights on Scientology. Talk about the ignorant fighting the ignorant! But anyway, defining this struggle as radical Islamic fundamentalism vs secular Westernism (and I’m not sure what that is or is supposed to be) could be very dangerous. Here’s a few problems I see with the suggestion:

a) Most of the West is secular in concept, but thoroughly Christian in terms of value and population. For example: Bush blundered by mentioning the word “crusade”, possibly the worst thing he could have said; both Bush and Blair have, in recent talks, referred to “us Christians” in spite of their respective countries’ multicultural make-ups; Silvio Berlusconi, that egregious political idiot and the shame of all Italians, launched a blistering and blithering call for Christian values to subjugate others. Certainly the West will not, at least in the near future, be perceived as Secular, but as Christian–especially by Moslems.

b) Islam has little to do with this horrible matter. Terrorist acts are committed by fanatics, and fanatics have excessive and misguided enthusiasm for their cause. If their cause is Islam, or anti-globalization, that does not necessarily mean all fundamentalists or anti-globalization activists engage in violent crimes. My personal point of view is that any kind of fundamentalism has no right to exist on this planet, but we’re still a few centuries and a couple of intellectual evolutions away from that.

c) Targetting Islam at all (fundamentalist or not) is a very bad idea, especially keeping in mind point (a). Islam is a brotherhood that (in concept at least) transcends all borders and races. When one Moslem is attacked by a non-Moslem, especially if by a much stronger enemy, many Moslems will feel the obligation to defend those of the same faith who are oppressed, even if they themselves have no desire or political motivation for violence. It doesn’t necessarily make sense, but Islam has to be understood in that context of transnational brotherhood.

d) How would you feel as a Westerner if a “secular” country like Egypt or Turkey, where Islam is the dominant religion, decided to target Christian Fundamentalism in the USA or in Northern Ireland? (Mind you, sometimes I think that Egypt and Turkey are more secular than the US!) I think you would feel that they have no place doing such a thing, even though such Christian fundamentalists are certainly not innocent of crimes. Moreover, the attack would probably be misconstrued, even by “enlightened” Western sources, as an attack on Christianity, not an attack on Christian Fundamentalism.

So I think that targetting Islam at all is a very dangerous idea. A terrorist is a terrorist, whether he is Christian or Moslem or atheist. The beliefs of terrorists should be studied for the value they may bring to an investigation, but they ought to be emphasized less by the idiotic, sensationalist, and reductionist media.

The solution, as has been discussed, is education, although I agree that all known terrorists need to be eradicated as soon as possible if a feasible way is found. It will be no great loss to humanity, and the risk of such scum feeling emboldened will be cut down remarkably.

(it took me a while to get this message out, and in the meanwhile Leander made some of the same points I have been working on at work here–apologies)

9

This is one of the reasons why Americans are hated. This claim is so arrogant. This is not a US problem; it’s a global problem. If you see this from an American point of view only, there will never be a solution. In a historically unprecedented event, almost the entire world is behind the US. Support will be quickly lost if we ignore our friends. If we are going to have this short sighted “me, myself and I” attitude, we will not win this war.

Let me paint you a picture:

Let’s say the US successfully bomb Afghanistan, get rid of the Taliban and kill Bin Laden and his band of murderers. Then go home. Well, meanwhile it’s a pressure cooker ready to explode in Indonesia (the worlds most populous Muslim nation).
Let’s say there is an Islamic revolution. Holy leaders who impose strict Islamic law replace the government in Jakarta. Perhaps they claim not to tolerate terrorism, but how can you find and destroy a terrorist group when they’re hidden on one of Indonesia’s thousands of islands. And then the whole cycle starts again but this time they take out the Empire State Building and the Sears Tower.
That was a bit of fiction, the truth is Indonesia is a pressure cooker ready to explode. There have been terrorist/guerilla fights on several islands. Someone who received training in Afghanistan for sure leads at least one group. Similar groups are terrorizing the southern Philippines. Until recently these were Indonesian and Filipino problems. Do you see what I’m getting at? This is not a US only problem. Yes we suffered from the worst terrorist act in history, but that does not make this a US only problem. It has to be a global effort or it will never end.

10

Just so it’s clear, I am not advocating sending US troups into every conflict. There are other ways of supporting anti-terrorist activities, such as cutting off ammo supplies and tracking down the finances.

Jack