Specifically discussing female genital mutilation, most Muslim countries have outlawed it, and the majority of Muslim women have not had this done to them. The practice is most heavily concentrated in Africa, especially in the northeast, such as Egypt (outlawed in 2008, and denounced by the Grand Mufti there), in Eritrea (banned in 2007), Somalia (banned by the 2012 constitution), and Sudan (banned in some states since 1946, although there is no national law). Enforcement of these laws varies widely from country to country, but where are the countries that have this particular barbaric practice codified into statute?
In some parts of the Christian world, female genital mutilation is certainly considered acceptable, even desirable, and there are African countries where Christian women are substantially more likely to have been mutilated than Muslim women. (See, e.g., Niger; Christian women there are about 25 times more likely to have been circumcised than Muslim women [per UNICEF], because even in remote villages it’s not considered particularly Islamic.) Certainly most Christians outside northern/central Africa regard the practice with horror, but so do many Muslims. You’re treating Islam as a monolithic bloc, and this is incorrect.
It’s good that he didn’t keep troops there – that would have further greatly weakened America and gotten more Americans killed. And I’m fine if he found a political explanation as an excuse. Very, very glad he got us out of there – staying would have weakened us and killed more Americans.
I wish we were less involved – I want no boots on the ground at all. I don’t think even small ground involvement like this helps (though I may be okay with occasional targeted raids like the OBL raid or the recent prisoner rescue), and just puts American lives at risk. Obama’s wrong here (though far, far less wrong than most or all of the Republicans who criticize him).
Thanks for your clarification. But I am aware that not all Muslims practice it. I though I pointed that out more than once. But thanks for shedding light none the less.
Abso-fucking-lutely. It was my buddies who would have died over there for nothing. If we had stayed, we would have had many more American deaths (plus billions of dollars wasted), plus the emergence of ISIS or the equivalent whenever we left, even if that was in 10 years (with 10 more years of American casualties – meaning my buddies dying). ISIS (and other extremists) will never be able to kill as many Americans outside of the Middle East as they could inside the Middle East if we were still occupying the region.
Getting out was a no-brainer. ISIS was inevitable once Saddam was ousted. Never should have gone in in the first place, but even after we did, the only good move was getting out ASAP.
Thank fucking God we got out of Iraq. Staying in would mean thousands more dead Americans, and tens of billions of dollars wasted. Perpetual occupation just means wasted lives, wasted money, and wasted reputation. America would be much, much weaker if we hadn’t gotten out of Iraq.
I don’t think so. I also don’t think it would be around if Obama didn’t pull the troops. I’m very entertained with the degree to which you must place the blame on ISIS for BUSH. Well, if Bush’s great great grandfather was never born, there’s be no ISIS. Same for Obama’s great, great grandfather. Or, hell, if Osama bin Laden had not orchestrated 9/11, or his great, great grandfather was never born. Funny stuff.
Until which time that we could have left Iraq and not left the vacuum we did. You can’t put these things on a calendar and follow it blindly. Iraq needed more time. Many experts were of this opinion. Obama had a different position. He was wrong. He owns ISIS. The same way that GWB owns the Iraq war.
I don’t know. With the benefit of hindsight and understanding the stakes, we should have stayed as long as necessary, as indicated by my previous answer.
Stay forever? No. I do think over time Iraq would have gone on and we could have withdrawn very, very slowly.
Because of our values. Because we’re civilized.
It may or may not be. What leadership entails is doing the right thing regardless of what one might have previously said years before. He made that promise on the campaign trail; troops weren’t withdrawn until October, 2011. So “immediate” is not part of the discussion, and besides, it’s a moot point. A leader does the right thing. Like apologizing when they caught in a lie. Which is another reasons Obama is a poor excuse for a leader.
Ha! I can’t wait to see your answers about Obama’s lying. But I don’t think changing a position as conditions change is lying. It’s reality. And dealing in it, regardless of one’s previous position might have been is what leaders do. Unlike Obama in this instance.
We guaranteed the emergence of ISIS the moment we toppled Saddam Hussein. It was completely inevitable – the only thing we could have done was delay it, at enormous cost.
Staying in Iraq might have been good for Syria, and good for the Iraqis who don’t support ISIS or other extremists (temporarily, at least, since ISIS or equivalent would have emerged when we left), but it would have been enormously damaging to America. I value America and American lives far, far more than the interests of those countries, so I’m very, very glad we got out of Iraq.
How many American lives would you sacrifice, magellan01, and for how long, to prevent ISIS from forming? We would have had to stay for generations, and wait for the entire region to change, with probably tens or hundreds of thousands of dead Americans, to avoid having ISIS or an equivalent form in the vacuum. Much, much better to just get the hell out and let the region deal with its own mess.
ISIS could never hurt us nearly as much as the cost of an occupation would. And occupations just breed more terrorists.
Okay, I’m curious. What wold YOU have done to stop the formation and growth of ISIS in Iraq? And how would you combat the terrorism that it is now growing outside of Iraq to, for instance, France and the U.S.?
offer logistical support to countries in the region that are willing to fight ISIS and encourage them to do so
offer to support and be involved in a major international effort that must be led by countries in the region (and definitely not the US or any western country) to defeat ISIS militarily, with any post-conflict occupation to be manned entirely by regional troops. No US troops occupying the region. If the other countries in the region won’t cooperate, then no US involvement.
If 2 and 3 don’t occur (and they probably won’t), then just wait, with heightened monitoring and security of travelers to and from the region. ISIS will inevitably collapse at some point, since it lacks the support of anything close to a majority of the people living in their territory. There’s no way they can last very long on their own among a hostile population. They’ll spread some chaos and death, but far, far less in terms of American lives than they possibly ever could if we were there presenting ourselves in their backyards.
Yes, my strategy is somewhat different from (and superior to :)) Obama’s strategy.
I’m a veteran but by no means a foreign policy expert. This is what my experience and common sense tells me.
Heightened monitoring of travelers in and out of the region; positive reinforcement and outreach to Muslim communities who are mostly friendly to us (but will be less so if we espouse anti-Muslim rhetoric) so they are on our sides and police their own; big focus on cyberterrorism and following/infiltrating online extremist communities; monitoring gun sales for anyone even close to tied to extremists (which would require legislation mandating background checks for all gun purchases, including at gun shows).
That last point might have stopped or lessened the San Bernadino shooting – if I understand it correctly, our intelligence knew that Farouk and/or his wife had been in contact with foreign violent Muslim extremists, as well as purchasing guns (handguns – the rifles were straw purchases) – if those had been linked together (like a red flag goes off if any of these people try to buy a gun) then we might have had people following them or watching their house or something.
Again, not an expert, just what my common sense tells me.
I do not believe that is correct. The Sultan of Brunei just banned Christmas, for instance, and non-Muslims are definitely third-class citizens (Brunei women being second-class). Suppression of women’s rights is rife in parts of Pakistan. There’s anti-Christian violence in Malaysia. And so on.
Don’t hear it in Europe either. It’s a silly concept. Judaism has had negligible influence on Western civilization beyond what is already covered through Christianity. Greco/Roman-Christian world or Germanic-Christian world would be much more reasonable designations.
In any case, a conflict between the West and Islamism would be inevitable. And what has Clinton and Al Gore to do with it? This was already in full swing much earlier than either of those two came on the scene. We had a bunch of Islamic terror attacks in Europe in the 80s and 90s. The first in Denmark was 1984 or 1986 I think. There was a vicious civil war going on in Algeria in the early 90s where one side was Islamists, right on Europe’s door step, with lots of trouble spilling into France. There has been the never ending trouble in Israel. Hamas was founded in the 80s. Iran had an Islamic revolution in the 70s, and Afghanistan had the Taliban, and SA were funding Wahhabist ideology all over the world from an even earlier point. This was going to happen no matter what, and it already had happened before Al Gore/Clinton.
What does OP start with Clinton and Gore? Militant Islam predates America’s existence as a nation. There have been numerous Islamic extremist wars and Mahdi-inspired revolutions throughout history that had absolutely nothing to do with America or American policies. The current “brand” of Islamic extremism predates even Israel’s existence. Making arguments based on 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden is to myopically focus on only the most proximal causes.
We are in our current state of conflict because the Arab world has lost the competition of civilizations. The Middle East has failed to keep pace with economic, social, political and technological innovation. The West has exceeded them in every respect. This isn’t a 9/11 era problem… If you believe folks like Jared Diamond and Robert Kaplan, this was an inevitability based on geography alone. The Arab world realizes that the rest of the world has left it behind, they are humiliated because it contradicts their beliefs regarding their own supremacy, and they choose to react with violence rather than acceptance.
The “violence” part was NOT inevitable. Many Asian countries were similarly backwards, (most especially Japan, but also places like China and South Korea) but they were able to decide, as a group, to reform their societies so that they could remain competitive in the modern world. As a result, even resource-poor Japan has one of the world’s most powerful countries.
Unfortunately, Asian countries had all the advantages that the Middle East does not. Even before the modern era, they were highly centralized, bureaucratic, meritocracies that valued loyalty and conformity. The Middle East is the exact opposite… Highly decentralized, ideologically fanatic, with weak and corrupt governments that don’t have the ability to force social change. Again, if you check out Kaplan, the argument is that geography alone makes it impossible for places like the Levant to have a homogeneous population with a powerful central government. So the odds of the Arab world collectively getting its act together were always against it.
I would argue that the current conflict might have proximal causes, but the broader issue of Arab inferiority was largely inevitable.
No, because mine doesn’t include airstrikes unless there are strong commitments from all/most of the regional actors. Basically, we’ll join in a big effort led by other middle-eastern nations, but if there is no such big effort led by others, then we won’t be involved at all.
Killing leaders of extremist groups often does not dissolve them (indeed they may become more violent after a round of sorting-algorithm-of-ruthlessness).
As for not having reason to hate Western countries, even if we take Bin Laden’s motives at his word, he liststhings like US support of Israel, US bases in Saudi Arabia, peacekeepers being deployed in Somalia etc.
I don’t see how any of these would be different under Gore (note that peacekeeping in Somalia was backed by a unanimous UN security resolution, and as much as Gore may support alterrnative energy, the US really had to keep good relations with the Saudis back in the 90s).
So I still see AQ happening, and all their supposed greivances still happen. No difference there.
I’m not really sure why you’re focusing on Iran. It’s actually one of the more stable countries now in the region though admittedly it does play a hand in some of the chaos in neighbouring countries.
Since you started out talking about radical islam it should be noted that Iran wants to eradicate ISIS as badly as the West does, and was an enemy of the Taliban.
As for no hotspots I don’t get the reasoning for that; there has been plenty of conflict in the middle east for a long time, and groups like, as I say, the Taliban have no link at all to what happened in Iran, and would not be obviously affected by a more western-leaning, democratic Iran.
I was in Tikrit in 2009-2010. At the time, violence was at an all time low. The infantry company I was with spent the better part of a year without ever firing a shot in anger. The Army was at the point where they were telling us to stop targeting militants because it wasn’t worth our effort… The Iraqi Army and Police were doing an increasingly credible job. We had even stopped taking enemy prisoners because the Iraqi justice system was doing so well. Every indicator was that Iraq was doing better and would continue to improve. This was NOT a case of us fleeing Iraq like it was the freaking Titanic. There were plans in place to stay until the Iraqi government (which, at the time, was also credible) decided they didn’t need us anymore and couldn’t meet our terms for a SOFA. The withdrawal timetable was set by the Bush Administration, and it had NOTHING to do with Obama wanting to cut and run. Obama executed a timeline Bush created.
I’m utterly baffled at how many people keep blaming Bush but so few people blame Assad. The collapse of the Assad government was a huge win for AQI because it allowed the survivors of the Iraq War (who were getting their asses kicked at the time) a place to flee and re-group. The Syrian civil war had absolutely nothing to do with America or the West. Also, the Maliki government didn’t start reneging on its relationship with Sunni leadership until after the American forces were already gone. Hell, even if Saddam was still in power the Syrian Civil War would have still created space for AQI to set up shop.
So please don’t put 100% of the blame on Bush. Assad played a role by treating his own people with heinous brutality, Maliki played a role by alienating previously cooperative Sunnis, and Iran played a role by encouraging sectarian violence. And as I mentioned in my other post, not one single person FORCED these people to be jihadists… They made that decision all on their own.
