London

[Minionman]

Did you ever try to solve a murder, when the crime was armed robbery?

Occhi
[right][snapback]82715[/snapback][/right]

No, I mean who exactly has this "problem", and what is the confusion over. Are they confusing military vs. cultural problems, long term vs short term, that kind of stuff.

[Occhidiangela]

No, I mean who exactly has this "problem", and what is the confusion over.  Are they confusing military vs. cultural problems, long term vs short term, that kind of stuff.
[right][snapback]82740[/snapback][/right]

In the fall of 2002, I posted here more than once that I was unconvinced that one could impose democracy with a bayonet, that the country was most likely to become an Islamic Republic post Saddam or three different countries, and "why now in 2003?" I also was unsure if the "third way" beyond UN or invasion had been attempted, or even formulated. Glad to see Saddam go, my concern that by breaking the egg the baby chick dies seems to be unresolved.

See what is happening in Basra.

Note the militias are NOT being disbanded.

Note that with the power vacuum we created, someone chose to jump in and make a play. A lot of someone's.

What was the aim? As far as I can tell, the aim was to change the security baseline of the Middle East. It was a big gamble. The baseline has changed.

Is everything better? My 8 ball says "still unclear, check later." See what happened with Qadhafi and Syria/Lebanon. Were those directly related events to Saddam's ouster or not?

Arafat's death was an event that actually gives hope to the Israeli's and Palestinians getting back to working, slowly and painfully, one step at a time with each other.

And we unintentionally have provided an excellent training ground for terrorists in Iraq's Iron Triangle. For the past 2 years.

So, what is the nature of the war: to solve the Mid East peace roadblock with a stick, since Clinton's carrot did not work?

Is it the extension of the old Carter Doctrine of increasing our presence in the entire Central Asian and Mid East oil bowl, rather than simply opposing Arabs since they don't like Israel, our client for the duration of the Cold War?

Occhi

[t0a5t]

Doc, I think many underestimate the amount of sympathy and moral support in the "Muslim world" the hard edged players accrue.  Think of all the "romantic" based support the IRA got for all those years, in Irish pubs all over the US, particularly on the East Coast.  "We are passing the hat, for the band."  Right.

If I may interject, my mom's side of the family was driven out of Ireland due to the IRA, and living in Boston, I've had to face the rather conflicted situation that families of close friends of mine had been funding the IRA the whole time. I finally had to accept that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Once you arrive at that conclusion, it becomes a lot easier to see where these bombers are coming from.

Same holds for those who are involved in "the struggle."  The Great Satan is not the United States per se, it is our open, licentious, and free culture and its impact on older, more conservative cultures that is the core cause of anger and resentment.  Well, there is more than that, but ignoring that factor is a huge mistake.  It makes "Us vs Them" so easy a symbol to draw.

The root causes are the West's support of the existence of Isreal; the lines on the map from Balfour; the level of CRUSADER interference and influence in The Holy Land, where Mecca and Medina are, and The Holy Land, known to some as Israel and Jordan, some as Palestine, and go from there.

The "Muslims you know?"  Right, westernized Muslims living in a free society? 

I'm not usually an isolationist. I sometimes lapse into a Frank Herbatesque ideology about war and strife. It just seems to me that property ownership (probably along with the whole life and liberty thing) is perhaps the most civilizing influence that could happen to these people. I think that's the basis of all westernized and enlightened culture as well.

Now it's easy enough to blame the British for this. Ireland, India/Pakistan/Banladesh, Israel/Palestine could be said to be continuing the divide and conquer practice of British Empire. Yet it offers no solution other than chickens coming home to roost. It also illustrates the inherant revulsion the populations have developed to their property redistributionist empire as well. There is no easier way to make a terrorist than to drive a person out of their home. I have flashbacks to the Kelo v. New London decision when I say that - we mourne the 'pussification' of the American public, while at the same time we act horrified that someone, somewhere else, has the balls to retaliate and do something about it. So I don't see how we can only blame a religion for their actions when everything else has been taken from them leaving them their religion as the only thing for them to live or die for. It does get worse when the religion exacerbates the us vs. them division and glorifies a sense of revenge (as some religions tend to do).

I do think we're in this mess for the long haul. I agree with you that the bayonet is insufficient to impose a democracy, especially one with respect to property rights when it is our bayonet doing so. The urge for democracy must come from within the population, unless enough of them die in the fight for it and their sacrifices burned into the memory of families for generations, it will not be valued or respected. I think the most we can do is dangle the carrot in front of them - more in the form of exposing them to western culture rather than anything else; giving them access to electricity, televisions, cable/satellite service and turning them complacent with some modicum of comfort would probably garner more converts than waking them up to tanks and bombs in the midst of their cities.

[Ninjadruid]

I refrained from reading this post till now, now that I have there are a couple points I would like to address.

The first is that the battle is against a culture, not a religion. The Muslim religion is as facticuous as Christianity. The people who are fighting against western civilization are afraid of losing the power they command in their respective communities.

The terrorist is a fearful man. He is not afraid of death, but he is afraid of westernization stealing the love of his wife, the cattle he owns, and everything he knows. And westernization will still these things from him if he can not adapt, so he has a right to be fearful.

The dangerous terrorist is the rich, fearful man. He who controls the newspapers and the television empires, and thereby controls what the average man sees.

Fighting the average man will get you nowhere. You must as, toast and others have said, convince them that westernization will give them more than it will take away.

I'm not smart enough to know how to do that, I just know that cracking heads hasn't gotten us very far in the past fifty years. Education and empathy is a place to start though. Getting this to the people is hard though. The rich man is constantly using religion as a tool - the same way the American gov't uses the threat of terrorism to garner support.

Why should they risk fatawa for a bunch of infidels?  If they speak up, they will be silenced, or targeted by formal or informal means.  The moral courage you seek does not exist in the Muslim world in the depth needed to overcome fear.

Occhi
[right][snapback]82705[/snapback][/right]

The Muslim world extends far beyond the borders of the third world countries where Christianity is inexistent. In every large city I have lived in, there are large Muslim communities. In the GVA for instance, Surrey is predominately Muslim. These people constantly speak against the acts of a backwards culture. They do this on television, radio, and in church.

This is true in the UK as well. The BBC has had many interviews over the past week or so with Muslim leaders and regular people. They publically denounce these acts. Several people in Surrey have been killed for doing so since the early seventies. But this does not diminish the courage of those left.

There are people who live in these countries where the culture breeds fear and repression who are also disgusted by what they see, but they lack the courage to stand up against it. I think America could do a lot more good were they to try and give these people courage, rather than spreading fear amongst its own citizens.

It needs to be internal and underground. The support for the rich man needs to be dug out from under him.

Or something like that.

Kudos to the Londoners for getting on with life.

[Jester]

"Until Western civilization wakes up and smells the coffee and realizes that we are under attack as a whole, this will continue."

Not that I agree with your analysis, but for the moment assuming it is correct, what exactly are you recommending?

A crusade? Nuclear annhilation? Some grand us-against-them Huntington-to-the-extreme war on all of Islam?

Or is there some other, more gentle plan that "western civilization" might adopt against this enemy? (Islam? Muslims? Some? All?)

Jester

[eppie]

The first is that the battle is against a culture, not a religion.  The Muslim religion is as facticuous as Christianity.  The people who are fighting against western civilization are afraid of losing the power they command in their respective communities.

I'm happy there are more people that think about it lik this.
As long as "we" and "them" go on calling this battle of religions, we will never find a solution.
(even Tony Blair said this (in other words) at last weeks G8 summit, it was a long time ago that I heard him say something so sensible)

In this forum I have previously also compared Bush en Bin Laden, in the sense that they are both leaders that crave power and wealth, and they will both do a lot to conserve that power, in their own way of course.

Ninjadruid, this one (in my opinion) one of the wisest posts on the Lounge since quite some time (after Doc's salsa and banana threads of course) :D

[jahcs]

The first is that the battle is against a culture, not a religion.  The Muslim religion is as facticuous as Christianity.  The people who are fighting against western civilization are afraid of losing the power they command in their respective communities.
[right][snapback]83425[/snapback][/right]

Definitely a key point. It is a culture that uses a religion as means and excuse for it's actions and as a control and motivator of it's citizens.

As long as "we" and "them" go on calling this battle of religions, we will never find a solution.
[right][snapback]83425[/snapback][/right]

Indeed, it becomes a primary motivation for "them" to escalate and continue the struggle.

Not that I agree with your analysis, but for the moment assuming it is correct, what exactly are you recommending?

A crusade? Nuclear annhilation? Some grand us-against-them Huntington-to-the-extreme war on all of Islam?

Or is there some other, more gentle plan that "western civilization" might adopt against this enemy? (Islam? Muslims? Some? All?)
[right][snapback]83425[/snapback][/right]

Since you raise the questions, and valid ones at that, I ask for your recommendations.

Most westerners probably hope a live and let live policy with integration and modernization will solve the problem. Unfortunately this appears to be one thing the leaders of their culture are vehemently opposed to.

Reeducating people over the course of generations is a possibility. Who has the patience for that when bombs keep going off? How do we get the leaders to change their curriculum?

I have some other fragmented thoughts rattling around in my braincase but I have been unsuccesful in articulating them so far... :blush:

[kandrathe]

Extremists come from all sorts of places. In this case, devotees to the twisted logic of Sayyid Qutb. Some other misguided radicals bomb abortion clinics, others here in the US organize as "militias" and the extreme among them bombed the Oklahoma City building. I think it is a little insulting and simplistic to characterize the problem as (my paraphrase) "rich ignorant Arabs afraid of westernization".

In our day we must be vigilent to address and denounce the misguided ideologies propogated by intellectuals like Sayyid Qutb or William Pierce, who just as with Hitler's interpretations of Nietchze, Adolf Lanz von Liebenfels, or Guido von List can lead masses of disillusioned or disaffected people toward radicalism, and violence. Our past experience shows us the dangers of ignoring these "broken" ideas hoping they go away, rather than risk giving them credibility by acknowledging and defeating them. You are correct in that this is a war of ideas, and we must start by understanding that the Osama Bin Laden's of the world know what the "West" is offering and have rejected it.

What is at issue is an alternative world view in which most of the fundamental concepts of "Westernization" are derided as anti-islamic, coupled with recruiting and indoctrinating youth in the modern age to carry on the 12th century jihad against the Crusaders who are keeping the nuevo Jahili pagans in power. The extremists control the lingo and propaganda, and the press feeds from and into thier hands. Is it martyrdom operations, or indiscriminate mass murder of innocent non-combatants? Even the term "suicide bombing" diminishes the act to a sacrifice, rather than to focus on the reality of a twisted smoldering bus and the horror of mangled bodies of men, women and children.

The Islamic extremists message is cohesive, researched, and well formed. It justifies mass-murder as a political mechanism to forward their jihad, and gives it the blessing of the Prophet. That is the danger. I do not think that "-isms" just go away, and once in awhile they resurface and become organized, radical, and lethal once again.