One of the Winds of Change commenters, I think it was liberalhawk, once made the point that they prefer reading my stuff to that of other WoC contributors because I seem more preoccupied with the War on Terrorism than with the War on the Left. Whether or not that's true or not I have no way of judging, though I've certainly tried to be as up-front with my ideological leanings from the beginning and am reasonably sure that most of my views on domestic and in particular social policies would be more than enough to get me blacklisted at most Manhattan dinner parties.
A recent Guardian column by Nick Cohen got me thinking. Having read liberalhawk's comments makes me somewhat less hesitant to post this; ultimately, I decided that the advantages of airing such thoughts far outweighed the disadvantages. I'll start by grounding myself and where I'm coming from, then move on into the repulsive "Power of Nightmares" meme, whose doublethink tenets state that here is no terrorist threat and that even if there is it's all Bush or Blair's fault.
Whether or not I've mentioned it before, I don't spend as much time railing against "the Left" (as variously defined) because I tend to think that many of the dumber opinions put forth in such circles are far better refuted by explaining my own arguments from a terrorism or foreign policy-based perspective, rather than pointing out the obvious idiocies with what is said within the framework of domestic politics.
The general exception of this rule is Juan Cole whom, as I've noted in the past, I do not regard as representative of "the Left" per se but rather of certain strain of thought within liberal American academia that I regard as being far more poisonous than say, Ward Churchill, because the stuff Cole writes is far more likely to be believed. Especially outside the US.
As I've also noted before, I generally don't take issue with Cole's day-by-day analysis. It's not because I don't disagree with it, but rather that I think it's his nuttier forays into conspiracydom (Israel connected to Abu Ghraib, US went after Sadr because he was too loud about condemning the Israeli assassination of Yassin, war in Iraq launched for Israel, neocons want regime change in Iran so Israel can reclaim southern Lebanon, etc.) placed alongside his alternate view of the situation in Iraq, that exemplify his poisonous nature.
It is to a similar, if more egregious view that I now turn, brilliantly encapsulated by this Nick Cohen column in the Guardian which captures the kind of idiotic mentality with certain quarters of the international Left. I say "certain quarters" because it is an absolute disgrace to place the political views of such individuals as Joe Lieberman or Tom Lantos or liberalhawk or praktike alongside this kind of blanket idiocy.
After dealing with initial apologia for the actions of 9/11, Cohen notes:
All kinds of hypocrisy remained unchallenged. In my world of liberal London, social success at the dinner table belonged to the man who could simultaneously maintain that we've got it coming but that nothing was going to come; that indiscriminate murder would be Tony Blair's fault but there wouldn't be indiscriminate murder because 'the threat' was a phantom menace invented by Blair to scare the cowed electorate into supporting him.
I'd say the 'power of nightmares' side of that oxymoronic argument is too bloodied to be worth discussing this weekend and it's better to stick with the wider delusion.
These twin tenets (that there is no terrorist threat and that even if there is it's all Bush or Blair's fault), held together as a truly Orwellian doublethink, have permeated far too many minds since the events of September 11. I haven't heard so much as a peep out of Adam Curtis since 7/7 occurred, but it'll sure be interesting to see what all of the fashionable and sophisticated Europeans who viewed his film "The Power of Nightmares" as the summit of all truth and thought themselves oh-so-intelligent in contrast to us dumb American sheep. One wonders what they have to say now given that, according to British government documents obtained by The Times of London, the "nightmares" that Curtis and his fellower travels pooh-poohed were all too real.
As the Times documents indicate, the UK now has to deal with the issue of 16,000 potential terrorists out of a Muslim population of 1,600,000. According to Lord Stevens, British intelligence believes that as many as 3,000 British nationals or residents passed through al-Qaeda training camps, some of whom returned home to act at the behest of bin Laden and his lieutenants.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the extent of the nightmare that is now facing the UK and one that must be thwarted if the UK is to avert further 7/7s.
Of course if there really is a terrorist threat in the UK, as Cohen notes, the standard response in these quarters is to claim that it's all Bush or Blair's fault. The New York Times quotes German political scientist Ernst-Otto Czempiel:
"What we are witnessing in London is the terrorist answer to an imperialist politics," Ernst-Otto Czempiel, a political scientist at Frankfurt University and founder of the Frankfurt Peace Research Institute, said in an interview, giving voice to a widespread European opinion.
"To use military force against terrorism and to see it as a prolongation of the Soviet Union or of Hitlerian aggression is not only wrong politically but wrong practically," Mr. Czempiel said. "Bush has produced the opposite of what he intended to do."
Except, as Cohen notes, it isn't quite that simple:
After the Bali bombings, the conventional wisdom was that the Australians had been blown to pieces as a punishment for their government's support for Bush. No one thought for a moment about the Australian forces which stopped Indonesian militias rampaging through East Timor, a small country Indonesia had invaded in 1975 with the backing of the US. Yet when bin Laden spoke, he said it was Australia's anti-imperialist intervention to free a largely Catholic population from a largely Muslim occupying power which had bugged him.
East Timor was a great cause of the left until the Australians made it an embarrassment. So, too, was the suffering of the victims of Saddam, until the tyrant made the mistake of invading Kuwait and becoming America's enemy. In the past two years in Iraq, UN and Red Cross workers have been massacred, trade unionists assassinated, school children and aid workers kidnapped and decapitated and countless people who happened to be on the wrong bus or on the wrong street at the wrong time paid for their mistake with their lives.
What can the survivors do? Not a lot according to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He told bin Laden that the northern Kurds may be Sunni but 'Islam's voice has died out among them' and they'd been infiltrated by Jews. The southern Shia were 'a sect of treachery' while any Arab, Kurd, Shia or Sunni who believed in a democratic Iraq was a heretic.
Our options are as limited. When Abu Bakr Bashir was arrested for the Bali bombings, he was asked how the families of the dead could avoid the fate of their relatives. 'Please convert to Islam,' he replied. But as the past 40 years have shown, Islamism is mainly concerned with killing and oppressing Muslims.
The <Washington Post also points out that throughout the 1990s London has been such a major hub for al-Qaeda and its allies, and that the major bone of contention between terrorism experts Michael Scheuer and Steve Simon is whether or not bin Laden regarded the city as too of a valuable a staging ground to attack before 2001.
Rohan Gunaratna is even more emphatic in his section of the UK in Inside Al-Qaeda, stating up-front that "... British attempts to neutralize the infrastructure of Al Qaeda and related groups have been gravely inadequate. Without a doubt, London was Al Qaeda's spiritual hub in the Western world."
So while the British chattering classes are pondering whether or not their part in the invasion of Iraq has led to an increase in the terrorist threat, they might also want to ponder why their insane immigration and asylum policies made hitting the UK such an easy target for bin Laden's acolytes to hit to begin with.
Another thing I think needs to be discussed is the mere fact that al-Qaeda is now targeting London doesn't really change anything from a counterterrorism perspective as far as the nature of the threat is concerned. This is something, you'll recall, that I went after Kevin Drum for last December because my assessment based on what he wrote on his blog was that Drum, like many Americans and their European counterparts, didn't have so much as a damned clue as far as the scope of the threat was concerned.
The problem is that the vast majority of people don't view what happens in Kashmir, Algeria, Chechnya, Mindanao, or South Thailand as being an extension of the battle our troops are now fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is as much media perception (as opposed to bias) as anything else.
Indeed, one of the my major problems with the domestic American discussion of Iraq is that everybody talks about how many Americans have been killed without even so much as a passing shrug at the literally thousands of Iraqis who've died at the altar of Zarqawi's bloodlust. But al-Qaeda bombs London and my God, at least some among the chattering classes have realized that there's actually people out there who want to kill them, something most of us here have realized for quite awhile now.
I certainly don't want to downplay the shock and horror of what happened, but I don't want readers to get the impression that this is a new war. It is rather, the old war begun anew.
How it will end is uncertain, though I see we have one possible outcome from Mike Scheuer:
Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for nine years, sees a different way out -- through U.S. foreign policy. He said he resigned last November to expose the U.S. leadership's "willful blindness" to what needs to be done: withdraw the U.S. military from the Mideast, end "unqualified support" for Israel, sever close ties to Arab oil-state "tyrannies."
He acknowledged such actions aren't likely soon, but said his longtime subject bin Laden will "make us bleed enough to get our attention." Ultimately, he said, "his goal is to destroy the Arab monarchies."
Anybody care to explain to me the difference between Scheuer's idea of a "solution" and bin Laden's definition of victory?
I tend to prefer those offered by Gunaratna at the conclusion of his book, which are as follows:
- Military and non-military responses to al-Qaeda on a region and issue-specific basis, with military responses providing the necessary security and political conditions to facilitate far reaching socio-economic, welfare, and political programs that will have a lasting impact.
- The destruction of al-Qaeda and allied infrastructure, denying them rear bases, killing their leaders, exhausting their supplies, and disrupting their recruitment.
- Ending Pakistani covert and overt military, political, and diplomatic support to the Kashmiri jihadis while mediating to provide diplomatic solution to the Kashmir issue.
- Strangling terrorist financing, tightening control over the manufacturing and supply of weapons, exchanging personnel and expertise with allies, and building common terrorist databases in the Third World.
- Developing new vaccines, medicines, and diagnostic tests, enhancing medical communication and disease surveillance capabilities, and improving controls on the storage and transfer of pathogens and their equipment so as to address the threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack.
- Enhancing the protection of nuclear facilities while monitoring rogue suspected scientists and technicians.
- Killing Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Mohammed Omar in order to diffuse the momentum of the terrorist campaign [to which we can probably add Zarqawi].
- Relying on black ops operations to assassinate terrorist leaders and ideologues.
- Recruiting intelligence agents and agent-handlers within Muslim immigrant communities and sharing existing intelligence with the wider decision and policy-making community.
- Engaging al-Qaeda as an organization militarily while working non-militarily to erode its active and potential supporters by discrediting its ideology through broader action in areas where international neglect has legitimized the use of violence among many Muslims.
- Replacing unilateralism with multilateralism wherever possible and developing far-reaching policies designed to grapple with protracted conflicts and contentious issues currently fueling anti-Western sentiments by answering the real and perceived grievances of many Muslims and frustrating the current wave of open and clandestine support for al-Qaeda.
- The Islamic world as a whole must answer whether al-Qaeda and its actions are Koranic or heretical and credible Muslim communities and religious leaders must stand up and denounce bin Laden and his acolytes as power-hungry murderers rather than men of God.
- Muslim rulers and regimes must compete with Islamism and Wahhabi NGOs, building schools and community centers that both impart a modern education and instill humane, non-sectarian values.
- The international community should prioritize reform Islamic education, fostering an independent media, and establishing criminal justice and prison systems that truly reflect the rule of law rather than the whims of the current ruler.
- Terrorism as a tactic must be rejected and a societal norm built against its deployment similar to that which now exist to varying degrees against slavery, colonialism, fascism, Nazism, sexism, and racism irrespective of the legitimacy of the struggle.
Now that's a pretty tall order and certainly a lot more difficult to implement than Scheuer's "Surrender Now!" approach, but it is about the only way that I see us as being able to get through this in one piece.
As we have seen in London, the "nightmares" that Curtis and his fellow travelers so derided have proven to be far too real.
Dan -- excellent post. I'd agree except I'd identify the struggle as one being with Islam generally, escalating steadily, and in a terminal phase (one way or another).
Bernard Lewis and Albert Hourani (History of the Arab Peoples) both point to Islam's cultural isolation from other peoples from the beginning; and consequently their inability to apprehend their comparative and absolute decline vs. the West as the latter modernized and Islam remained a culture trapped in Amber. For example, in the 1800's it was routine for the Sultan's officials to refer to Westerners as "the Franks." This when the Sultan had many European subjects in the Balkans.
After the shock of brief colonialism; 1920-1950; the Arab and Muslim world tried: Nasserite Islamic Nationalism; Baathism; traditional autocracy; traditional tribal monarchy; and various Islamic revolutions. None of them worked and the Muslim world fell deeper behind the West save perhaps Turkey and Malaysia but did not understand WHY.
This to me accounts for "Muslim Rage" and the anger that the kaffir prospers while the faithful live in poverty (suggesting that the whole thing may be a sham). Easier to blame others and search for scapegoats and well, war in one form or another. Easier still when Islam is a warrior religion in all aspects.
Leading to the turn to terrorism starting in the late sixties as some "magic sword" that would nullify the West's advantages through jihad and asymmetric warfare aka terrorism.
In the meantime things are escalating. We've gone from hijackings where few people are killed and sympathetic publicity is the intent to mass murder as the intent (the 1993 WTC bombers wanted to kill up to 20,000 Americans by toppling one tower into another); with different groups competing to maximize bloodshed. At the same time the Left and Democratic Party domestically blames the US in a bad example of fighting the last war (Vietnam) not understanding that the War is fought at airport security checkpoints as much as Iraq or Afghanistan. Inevitably the conflict will escalate to a nuclear first use by terrorists, and a truly massive and horrific retaliation by our strategic nuclear arsenal (the pressure would be irresistible once the genie is out of the bottle).
To me this is why we need a massive mobilization ala WWII, to simply remove forcibly the regimes of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran. This would so intimidate potential host regimes that they'd crack down on jihadists for us; eliminate the two greatest sources for ready-made nuclear devices; and show in unmistakable terms the failure of the "magic sword" in that jihad just provokes the much stronger West to forcibly come in, remove regimes, and change societies.
Much as I hate it, all evidence suggests we are in a cycle of escalation. Better to short circuit that development than to let the killing grow ala WWI battlefields. Nobody wants the modern equivalent of Verdun or the Somme. Particularly as it will be civilians on both sides dying, not soldiers and will come up suddenly.
My "power of nightmares?" NYC, DC, and Chicago vanish in a nuclear blaze. Pakistan and Iran cease to exist shortly thereafter. Ludicrous? Who would have thought in 1999 that some obscure Saudi would kill 3,000, by flying planes into the WTC and Pentagon?
A very good post, Dan. But I think both of you miss one important point: the public opinion of those muslim countries. In today's world, no power can be involved in another country's politics without the acceptance of the majority of its population.
And things get much worse when you add that they control the prime energy source of Civilization.
So the problem is not only to hunt terrorists, but to offer those countries' population an alternative to Islamic Extremism and Jihad. And the way of doing so is not, of course, invading their holy sites.
Therefore the answer must have as many faces as it has the problem. Clearly, the intention of the Bush administration in Iraq when it ordered the invasion wasn't just to remove Saddam from power, but to build a prosperous country in the center of the Middle East. Iraqis were called the germans among the arabs, because their discipline. The British left an educated, lay population and institutions where Pakistani professors taught advanced disciplines. The Kurds in the north (non-arabs) were good allies to count on, despite Turkish hurt pride, and oil can help to pay the huge cost.
Moreover, this same process of Democracy building is taking place in the West Bank and Gaza, now against Syrian wishes. The Western countries are offering those arab populations a prosperous future. This should be an example to other muslim peoples, which may be much better than to invade countries one after another, especially when we are considered by them as infidels, thus Jihad can be called against us at any moment.
Engaging al-Qaeda as an organization militarily while working non-militarily to erode its active and potential supporters by discrediting its ideology through broader action in areas where international neglect has legitimized the use of violence among many Muslims.
Discrediting its ideology is discrediting Islam, Dan. The term Jihad is written in the Koran. It was first used by the Prophet to attack Mecca's caravans.
This article gives some background on how and why Jihadi Islam is so influential and so unchecked in the UK.
I haven't read Gunaratna's book so perhaps I should give it a fair chance but if the prescription is as you've represented, Dan, it appears to give something of a pass to the state sponsors of terrorism. There's no lack of them. Can anyone seriously doubt that if Iran, Syria, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia weren't two-faced (to say the least) about terrorism the problem of foreign jihadis in Iraq would be greatly reduced? Also, at the current state of technology, serious production of WMD's appears to require state sponsorship, at least tacitly. Although, as Wretchard as pointed out, when a small group can get together and produce a nuclear weapon, things will become very serious, indeed.
Second, if by “protracted conflicts and contentious issues currently fueling anti-Western sentiments” is meant Israel (can the Kashmir situation reasonably be said to be “currently fueling anti-Western sentiments”?), the solution du jour there is quarantine. Is this being prescribed more generally as the solution to Islamist terrorism?
Great Dan,
I'working on several things but here's a piece I just posted over at Dean's World re cults.
Also just posted this at Jiahd Watch re two great essay's over at Victor Davis Hanson's site:
Link Here
*****
Excellent post, but Gunaratna's prescriptions seem to me to be overly optimistic. He hopes that the Muslim world will take more action against the Jihadists. Unfortunately, too many Muslims either overtly support the Jihadists or passively watch, with some small guilty thrill when bombs go off to kill infidels; for a Muslim to vocally oppose the Jihadists risks death as an apostate or, because of the overlap between anti-Islamic Fascism and pro-democracy, incarceration by their own government. Of course, the Saudis qill viciously kill them when they attack at home, but then will turn around and keep open the money and manpower spigots for the "insurgents" in Iraq. Furthermore, to expect corrupt rulers who have thrived by stealing from their own poeple to turn around and set up liberal organizations to compete with Hamas and Hizbulah is a lovely fantasy but unlikely in the extreme. And finally, the Islamic fascists have continuing evidence that terror works. Not only have they been able to peel off Spain as an enemy and reduced the Spanish to dhimmitude, but they see that the G8 just proudly announced that an additional $3 billion a year will be handed to the Kleptocrats of the PA, despite the fact that Abbas has done nothing to disarm the terrorists, who won't even agree to a Hudna.
The idea that we can give billions to the PA, demand nothing in return, and expect al Q to not see that terror works, is ludicrous.
The 'percieved grievances'?
Just as a general point, a palestinian state as a means of deterring Islamic terrorism is doublespeak not unlike the 'power of nightmares' line.
Great Post!
Though somewhat OT, as I was reading it, suddenly a small light-bulb went off in my head about the Left...
What they love to do is wring their hands about bad situations in the world, throw money at it if they can, hope that somebody will actually do something about it, but pray that whatever might be done does not ever bring fallout from the bad situation closer to their home.
And so we have Darfur, the atrocities in former Yugoslavia, and countless other horrors around the world that they are content to wring their hands about. But God-forbid that anyone in the "civilized" West should undertake to intervene in these conflicts. Not only would we possibly harm bystanders (not necessarily innocents) but the bad guys might actually try to do something that could bring bad karma closer to them.
What an empty philosophy of life!
And with that, I've said enough...
DRK
Dan, as usual I like the greater part of your thinking. I am always pleased to read your reports.
But according to you it seems our to-do list includes:
* The Islamic world as a whole must answer ...
* Muslim rulers and regimes must compete with Islamism and Wahhabi ...
* The international community should prioritize reform Islamic education ...
* Terrorism as a tactic must be rejected ...
Hope is not a strategy, and these items seem to be hope at best.
In 1941 we could have written a to-do list for our response to Japanese imperialism, and put on it items like "Shinto authorities must reject imperialism and condemn generals who practice aggression and inhumane actions." But if we had, that wouldn't have been a very serious list.
Smash the enemy, bring about casualties with cultural significance on a par with Verdun and the Somme, and then you can hope that religion in the enemy camp will take account of the bitterness of "war". (War meaning meaning crushing defeat with deliberately accentuated casualties, humiliation, and lasting, large-scale structural consequences.)
Till then, actions by hostiles (such as people funding and running madrassas of hate) not acting under our violent and certain compulsion should not appear on our to-do lists. Their actions will appear on their to-do lists, which will reflect hopes and aims far different from ours.
However, I haven't read Gunaratna, so I may be misinterpreting him, and you.
Dave Schuler:
Protracted conflicts = Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Mindanao, etc. most of which are viewed as either being Western-driven or at least Western ignored by the West, which is one of the things that drives the popular acceptance of violence in said instances.
As far as state sponsors go, they're part of the infrastructure.
On the other hand, I grew upon John Bagot Glubb, quoted extensively in Yehudit's link. I'm not sure it there was anything he ever published that I didn't read and re-read many times. I did my best to soak it all in.
He certainly had a good deal more to say about the Jews than is quoted at Kesher Talk - and I don't mean good things. But it does him a disservice I think to imply that he was driven by antisemitism. His unfriendly interpretation of Israel and the Jews was a mere cool corollary to his blazing, deep love of Islamic civilisation and the Arabs in general.
To someone who believed him, and other respectably guides to the Middle East and its history, 21st Century events have been a shattering series of collisions, with brutal facts (and to be blunt, brutal and bloody Muslims) smashing sunny preconceptions over and over. The bitterest irony of this of course is that those who rejected the traditional lies when contemporary facts refuted them are called "prejudiced" (against Islam), while those who rejected the facts and stuck to their obviously falsified preconceptions (often from writers such as Noam Chomsky), just adding conspiracies by the Jews, the Americans, Haliburton and so on to cover over any discrepancies, are called "open-minded", "enlightened" and so on.
Confucius say: until false labels are brought in line with reality, confusion and distress will continue.
Ack! The above post was by me, not Dave Schuler!
[JK: Fixed. Note that as author, you can edit comments via the post's editing screen. This is the kind of situation in which that would be acceptable.]
As for Colt's point about a Palestinian state, let me give you an example. How much Western cash and aid money has been more less sent into a black hole trying to make life better for the Palestinian people? Contrast that to Lebanon or Jordan, where Palestinians essentially live as second-class citizens or the Gulf states that basically engaged in ethnic cleansing after the first Gulf War. That's a perceived grievance if I ever heard one, since the issue at hand is perception rather than reality. If you want parallel examples, try the number of Iraqi children killed by US sanctions or how Iraqis have died since the US invasion.
Really excellent, Dan, like always.
Contrast that to Lebanon or Jordan, where Palestinians essentially live as second-class citizens or the Gulf states that basically engaged in ethnic cleansing after the first Gulf War. That's a perceived grievance if I ever heard one, since the issue at hand is perception rather than reality. If you want parallel examples, try the number of Iraqi children killed by US sanctions or how Iraqis have died since the US invasion.
This is extremely important. When i have a dialogue with my muslim friends, college educated, brilliant rational people, we always have a sticking point over the jihaadis, like OBL and Zarqawi.
this comment from my blog exemplifies their feeling--
no, the means does not justify the ends, and i'm sorry, i don't where my comment depicted this mindset.
i don't know how to put it more plainly than this:
Terrorist have caused thousands of deaths in Asia, and of course in the U.S. on 9/11. Bush instigated this "War on Terror" which has caused not only Iraqi civilian deaths but the death of over a thousand American soldiers.
in either case, there are no means that could possibly justify any ends. my point is again, not justifying a group of individuals, but simply to point out that credit should be given in all directions, and pointing fingers, while not attempting to understand why things are happening the way the are, will only lead to more hatred. AND ESPECIALLY, if you're going to target out an entire group, by religion, or ethnicity, consider that hatred will spread like wildfire.
This is the position--Zarqawi and OBL are horrible BUT....
I think there are a lot of moderate muslims but that the fundamentalists have the controls, in that they are expert in exploiting the grievances that Dan delineates. How do we counter that?
And i also think, that making Islam culpable, excoriating it constantly, divides us from many that might help us. Islam is just another ESS. How would you like a bunch of hostiles that can't even read your language interpreting the nuance of the Bible for you?
Are they pacifists? Probably not. So, what gives?
Dan, I hope I'm not misrepresenting your point, but this is how I read it:
The reality is that Arab governments treat the palestinans from badly to abomniably. So, to make that obvious, and thereby shift hatred from the West to those governments, we should create a palestinian state.
There is a common perception amongst Muslims that Jews control the United States. How do we prove that wrong? Are we to start jumping through hoops so the conspiracy-obsessed 'Arab street™' doesn't support A-Q?
Once the Paleos have their own state, the next step is civil war. The most vicious and best armed will win, and most evidence suggest that an Islamist group will come out on top. Is it really a good idea to give them another Bekaa valley, Afghanistan, Iran? The Palestinians have never given any evidence that they want a limited state; they would happily accept Palestine from the Jordan to the sea, but anything less will do nothing to assuage their grievances. They still are taught and believe they will return to their homes in villages in Israel that no longer exist. Once a victim has adopted his position and seen how effective it is, giving up the benefits of victimhood becomes nearly impossible. Being a vicitm allows them to hate and kill with impunity, acting out their most base instincts; there is no requirement that they behave like civilized people, and why should they? According to so many in the West, none of it is their fault. By all means, let's give them a state; just don't expect it to have any impact in the war on Islamic fascism.
It is not about giving them a State, or a Nation, or a Country, but a future. Something they can put in balance against the words and actions of the extremists.
That does not rule out any further intervention.
The only future they want is to be fed hand-peeled grapes by the 72 virgins in the sky. To achieve this they must kill many infidels. Many, many infidels.
jinnderella: "And i also think, that making Islam culpable, excoriating it constantly, divides us from many that might help us. Islam is just another ESS. How would you like a bunch of hostiles that can't even read your language interpreting the nuance of the Bible for you?"
I recognise that according to an honest philo-Islamic viewpoint that does not fear to make the predictions that unavoidably follow from its assumptions, we simply can't be where we are. The events that have been taking place for years could not have taken place. The noble Muslims one reads about in books simply could not feel like that, think like that, or supremely important, act like that.
Recognising this is not making Islam culpable. It is Muslims who have supported jihad - from Muhammed on - who have made Islam culpable. (That is, if Islam is "culpable" and if that is of interest to you. I am not a judge, and I do not see Islam at all as a helpless defendant in the dock, so its culpability if any is of no interest to me.)
I do not think this recognition divides us from many that might help us. I think that lying to ourselves is immensely harmful, and dangerous, and I also think it is unrewarding.
It's a lot like - pardon the language, but I can't think of a clear and polite paraphrase - diplomatic masturbation. DM is when your adversary is consistently hostile and either never negotiates or never negotiates in good faith (blatantly lying about and breaking agreements and so on), and you decide to bring him to the negotiating table by making some confidence building concessions, then when that isn't enough you realise more is required - more effusive praise of the foe's peacefulness, more payments, more weakening of your negotiating positions, and so on. Rinse, repeat. You're doing all this diplomacy, having a wonderful time perhaps, "building confidence" in all sorts of ways - but on your own, which is why it's called DM. You're alleged negotiating partner just pockets all concessions, collects all rents paid to it, and keeps on being what it is.
Calling Islam a religion of peace when it is obvious that it is no such thing and that we are only saying that because it is no such thing and we are afraid does nothing to reduce the sense of superiority, the enjoyment of aggression and intimidation, and mainly the hope of ultimate victory that fuel Islamic malice.
"Islam is just another ESS." Explain?
"How would you like a bunch of hostiles that can't even read your language interpreting the nuance of the Bible for you?"
From Muhammed on, the Muslim world itself has interpreted its sacred scriptures in the universal language of aggression, intimidation, terror and violence. These things are effective precisely because they do not at all depend on nuances that disingenuous scholars can argue about. What part of the effectiveness of the Qurayza Massacre depended on nuance? What part of the effectiveness of flying planes full of jet fuel into skyscrapers depends on nuance?
Clear communication is not the problem. In passage after passage, the message of violent hatred shines forth without any ambiguity. (What's ambiguous about "make a wide slaughter" or "cut off their heads"?) And historically it has been implemented as such.
The problem is making oneself face up to things that are so awful one would much rather believe that this isn't so, that there is - must be! - some misunderstanding.
This is how we got Senator Patty Murray convinced, and trying to convince others, that Osama bin Laden was immensely popular with Muslims not because of his appalling acts of terror against us, but because of his day-care centers. No. Sorry. That's simply not true. There are no Osama bin Laden day-care centers, and there never were. Osama bin Laden's popularity with Muslims derives not from things that please people like Patty Murray but from acts that gratify pious Muslims as much as they terrorise us. And to the extent that he loses that popularity it will be because he has ceased to be the "strong horse", and because the global jihad wars will prove traumatic, not rewarding, for Islam. It seems too awful to believe, but ultimately we have to, because that's the deal.
All of which may be drifting slightly from the topic, but really - a list of things to do to solve our problem - that jihad works far too well and too often for our comfort - should not include items to be carried out un-coerced by those religiously committed to jihad. I just can't see that as serious. A list of things to be done to secure our good and solve things that are problems from our point of view should contain only actions that can and realistically will carried out by people who are in some sense us.
The recommendations are good - thanks for that.
I'm pretty sure that the quote, by itself, about Michael Scheuer is at least a little misrepresentative about his beliefs. It's a bit out of context.
I don't have the book, but I remember reading a lot of reviews about it (particularly Matthew Yglesias).
I remember Matthew finding the book incredibly bloodthirsty. Scheuer was of the opinion that one of the valid ways to deal with the issue, was to "destroy", the region.
The point about "imperialism", I believe, was simply a sociological point that no region welcomes foreign forces gladly into its midst,ESPECIALLY when those forces ostensibly have a different religious makeup.
Again, this is based on memory - but "defeatism" was not in the vocabulary.
Also, like all "leftist hating", artices at WOC, this is based on a lot of cherry-picking of people and quotes. Sure, you will find people on the left who say stupid things, but then you will also find statements like those by Ken Livingston, mayor of London and also called "Red Ken" for his socialist leaning, who come out with strong, determined statements of opposition to Islamic extremists.
The cherry-picking could go the other way.
For example, it truly lessens the war effort for the president's main advisor to leak classified information about CIA assets, such that a fake CIA company had to get shut down.
Also undermining servants of the public duty such as Joe Wilson, who brought back what turned out to be TRUE information about Niger and the connection to uranium.
Because then you mislead a nation into war on false pretenses.
Dan: I seem more preoccupied with the War on Terrorism than with the War on the Left.
It seems to me that if there is a "War on the Left" it's only because so many leftists have decided to run out into the line of fire, often for totally unfathomable reasons.
But you can't neglect this aspect of things, because the WoT is above all a war of ideas, to be measured in decades at least. The war of weapons and bombed buses and dead al-Qaeda lieutenants is almost insignificant in comparison. It doesn't belittle the losses and the achievements to recognize that we are not going to win or lose by blood alone. Terrorism is not a series of isolated criminal incidents where we can measure progress by DoJ statistics.
So where are we at? Not all of the far left is lost to the other side - there are lots of positive examples - but they are far outnumbered by the people who obviously are only interested in reaping the chaos. (Ditto a portion of the far right, who can't see past their hatred and suspicion of Israel). A significant part of the far left, I think, is confused and moribund. Either way, they are effectively out of it, for good or ill.
Much more important is the near left (homo liberalis), many of whom understand that this is not a war against Liberalism, broadly understood, but a war for it.
The problem is that a shocking number of Liberals do not understand that or refuse to accept it - enumerate whatever reasons you want, but I think a prominent one is poor priorities and the low level of seriousness they assign to the WoT.
JC:
Very, very bad example. Livingstone is mates with Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leader and guiding light of the Muslim Brotherhood. Qaradawi is a supporter of death for homosexuals, a virulent antisemite, and in favour of murdering all Americans - civilian or military - in Iraq. Harry's Place have much more on Livingstone and Qaradawi.
As a part of his 'strong' statements against Islamic extremists, he said "This is not an ideology or even a perverted faith." He seems to be denying the people responsible are even Muslims.
JC (#20):
Dan Darling's account of the policy suggestions made by Anonymous/Mike Scheuer are correct, judging by my fairly recent read of "Imperial Hubris." Your sense that he urges aggressive actions is also right. The seeming paradox, isn't. For example, Scheuer doesn't view support of Israel as in the US' interests, so his prescription for throwing them to the dogs isn't defeatist, by his lights.
And a comment along the lines of Colt's (#22) hackles being raised by your celebration of Brave Red Ken. A second Very Bad Example that you bring up is servant of the public duty Joe Wilson. The current controversy about Plame's outing shouldn't send the record of his conduct down the memory hole. Beginning with his NYT op-ed, he has told and then repeated a series of shameless lies, in the service of his Bush-hating politics. See this analysis from last July of the WaPo's coverage of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, or this summary from earlier this month. Don't rely on the opinions expressed by those "Power Line" bloggers--instead, go straight to the primary sources that those posts cite.
hmmm...you mistake me, i am not agreeing with my muslim friends, i am wondering how to change their minds.
It is truth that the [awful] plight of the Palestinians devolves in entirety from their arab brethren--but how to make them see it? I think there are two kinds of belief, emotional and intellectual, my intellectual arguments fail with my friends because their emotional beliefs trump the intellect. Bashing them over the head with the "evil qu'ran" accomplishes nothing.
David, be subtle, be subversive, be sly. that is how to win the argument.
All religions are ESSs (evolutionarily stable strategies), or CSSs (Dawkins' term, culturally stable strategies). Here is a post from my blog where you can look up the definitions.
My point is, random Islam-bashing just alienates potential allies.
Your points are all accurate, and i completely understand your P.O.V.
But it reminds me of something i learned in sailing school.
Here lies the body of John O'Day
Who died defending the right of way
He was right, dead right, as he sailed along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
;-)
Good comments by all.
David Blue:
Those are Gunaratna's recommendations, not mine.
I agree that some of his are over-optimistic insofar as things that have to happen immediately. But to use your Shinto parallel, the US certainly wouldn't have been able to win out the way we did in Japan until the highest Shinto authority (the Emperor) stood up and announced that hostilities should cease.
Similarly, the decision of whether al-Qaeda and its actions are Koranic or heretical are ultimately going to have to be decided in the Islamic world. In the long-term, that is what is going to have to happen if we want al-Qaeda and what it represents discredited the way that fascism and Nazism are today.
jinn:
Exactly my (and Rohan's) point, which I think is one of the things that have to be considered in formulating our strategy.
Colt:
The issue of a Palestinian state is a political issue that will ultimately be decided by politicians. Accepting that the other Arab governments, including those like Syria that love to wrap themselves in the plight of Palestinians when it's politically convenient treat the Palestinians like crap we need to highlight that in addition to building up infrastructure in the Territories to counter the influence of groups like Hamas or the kleptocratic PA. That probably means going in and building up infrastructure in concert with the types of military operations that Gunaratna recommended further up.
JC:
The Scheuer quote came from an AP story and you can read the link for yourself and decide whether or not I took him out of context.
Did you not notice the part where I specifically distinguished the viewpoint I was railing against from those I consider respectable left-wing positions? Those aren't who I'm addressing and neither is Cohen in his article.
Jinnderella -- there is no other way than to bring up Muslims to the total failure of Islam to adapt to modernity.
When Commodore Perry sailed the Black Fleet into Tokyo Bay, the people around the Shogun first tried to deny reality, but then finally realized that their cultural rejection of the West and it's modernity had left them weak, helpless, and defenseless. Japan existed at the mercy and whims of the United States.
This prompted great soul searching and in short order a rejection of the closed mentality in favor of adopting at least SOME measures of Western Modernity. To preserve Japan.
When Kemal Ataturk saw the destruction of the Sultan's finest Army at Megiddo, with Allenby's forces using airplanes, motorized infantry, and artillery to blast apart the Sultan's forces, he realized at Megiddo that the old Islamic ways had to go ... to preserve Turkey he'd abandon the Sultanate and Empire. Thus the complaint of Muslims ever since that the Caliphate was abandoned.
Ataturk supressed Islam as much as possible, outlawing the veil, fez, and dumping the Arabic script for a Latin one. He did this only under extreme pressure of seeing an undeniable demonstration of the superiority of Western Modernity which has nothing to do with religion except freedom from it.
Muslims have searched in vain for a way to avoid modernizing through adoption of some "magic sword" that would humble the infidel and let them essentially operate as desert tribal raiders picking off wealth and tribute from vulnerable oases. That's the mental model.
It is completely telling that NO Islamic country has committed to a program of modernization, including dumping Islam into private life and keeping public life the province of technocratic decisions about education, infrastructure, and raising incomes.
Terrorism is of course a partial magic sword, it DOES work for concessions that are not too painful. Once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle however, I'm afraid the lesson the West will teach will be too horrible to contemplate.
Islamic countries can at great expense construct a few nuclear devices and buy limited range missiles to launch them. There is no possible way they could construct ballistic missile nuclear submarines, ICBMs, strategic nuclear bombers. Their societies are simply not educated enough, wealthy enough, or politically stable enough to do this.
If for example the Allies had continued the War in 1918, and marched all the way into Berlin, there would have been no way for the Rightists and Freikorps bullies to convince people that victory had been stolen. There wasn't any doubt in 1946 that Germany had been totally defeated (or in Japan either).
My worry is that Islamicists see the success of the magic sword of jihadist terror and draw the wrong conclusion. Escalation into nuclear attacks on NYC and DC will provoke a horrible counter escalation and to avoid that almost anything is preferable.
The Left cannot see this because like Generals they are fighting the last war, Vietnam. Their magic sword is anti-war activism bringing peace and love.
Colt,
Again, the statement is very good by Livingston, even if in other ways he is an idiot. What I'm trying to suggest is that - again - there are a variety of perspectives, and this isn't a black/white world - despite the "for us/against us" undisciplined way of thinking about these things. To really think that he "approves" and is fine with a violent fundamentalist Islam is false, and I think this quote shows it:
"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful; it is not aimed at presidents or prime ministers; it was aimed at ordinary working class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christians, Hindu and Jew, young and old, indiscriminate attempt at slaughter irrespective of any considerations, of age, of class, of religion, whatever, that isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted faith, it's just indiscriminate attempt at mass murder, and we know what the objective is, they seek to divide London. They seek to turn Londoners against each other and Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack... I wish to speak through you directly, to those who came to London to claim lives, nothing you do, how many of us you kill will stop that flight to our cities where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another, whatever you do, how many you kill, you will fail."
The way I interpret "it isn't even a perverted faith" is to even more strongly than normal, say that any claim that attack is done "in the name of Allah", is pure B.S.
But I grant it could be taken in different ways.
Still, this political attitude of discredit - Scheuer, "the left", Richard Clarke, Ed Beers, Brent Scrowcroft, etc, etc - it's something I'll keep pounding on here, as long as I'm motivated to do, and am tolerated doing.
Dan's original quote, by LH, is true for me as well. I come here for the "War on Terror" analyses, and despise the broad generalization, and groupings of "leftists" and "liberals" as some type of fifth column. Hippie people exist, but haven't had any power for quite awhile, and as I've said before, the version of liberalism that had an aversion of the use of military power at any price, was thoroughly discredited by Gulf War I.
I know the disagreements with that last statement at this site, and there isn't any point to go into it - simply making my position clear.
JC:
Hopefully you read my earlier remark concerning "the left" and I'll be more than happy to agree with you that the individuals to whom I am referring are out of power - in the United States. It isn't at all clear to me or any number of other people that this is in fact the case in Europe, though my hope is that we may be seeing the beginning of that.
Scheuer, moreover, isn't a lefty by any means, but rather a Buchananite in terms of both his aversion to what he considers foreign adventures and his paranoia-like obsession with Israel.
Jim Rockford, your worldview does not allow for the information age--Islam is changing..and I don't believe that even the organic unity of Islam can withstand a global economy and the osmotic pressure of western civilization, television, movies, the web, etc.
My fear is that it won't change fast enough, and we'll wind up with the Third Conjecture. So we should be working diligently to accelerate the process.
(faster please)
One of your best ever, Dan. As one of those vilified in "Nightmares," I'm most grateful; it is one of the most disgusting, mean-spirited distortions I've ever seen. But par for the BBC course. The cowardly BBC officials, including the top dog, absolutely refused to do anything to correct it when I wrote to them.
On the question of Islam, I am sticking to my original position, which is in "The War Against the Terror Masters." Islam is to the terrorists and the leaders of the sponsoring states, as Communism was to the Soviets during the Cold War. That is, it is the language through which they express themselves. And just as we never answered the Cold War question (are we at war with Soviet Imperialism or with international Communism?), I don't think we're going to answer the current question (are we at war with Islam and thus with all Islamic states, or with some crazy Muslims?). But when we defeated the Soviet Empire, communism passed largely into history. And if we defeat the terror masters, radical islamism will suffer the same fate. Nothing so shatters a messianic movement as defeat in the real world (yes, I know there are some exceptions--notably Christianity--but for the most part the rule holds). So if we are able to defeat the terror masters and their foot soldiers: Mughniyah (the name most frequently omitted, by the way, even though he's arguably the MOST dangerous terrorist leader and Hizbollah is clearly the most dangerous terrorist organization), Zarkawi, UBL, etc., then the whole vision of jihad will be largely discredited and the war will pass into a new, mopup phase.
Our problem is that we are still pursuing a defensive strategy: hold the line in Iraq and in Iraq alone, provide the Iraqis with the wherewithal to defend themselves, and freedom will spread. I don't believe that is a winning strategy. I don't think Iraq can defend itself against a terror army sponsored by Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Michael,
Would you trust the pro-democracy movement in Iran with nuclear weapons should they come to power? They say that they won't renounce the program and if they don't, what long term security benefit is to be derived from supporting them?
Perhaps Iraq cannot withstand a "terror army" but Iraq as an ally of the US may be able to furnish means that Iran, Syria and SA will be unable to withstand. Terror has always been a double edged sword and the Iraqis are not unfamiliar with the concept of retribution.
JC,
Your continued reliance of falsehoods, such as several of your comments in #20, is most troubling. It discredits your comments.
Hi Amac,
How are you doing? Hopefully well. Best wishes to you.
Oh, re: previous conversations around "defensewatch" or some such - the point I was attempting to make, is that this type of "watch" can easily becomes a propoganda organ, incapable of criticizing the military organizations which it is covering - and picking and choosing certain stories to advance its point of view, while minimizing or ignoring the stories that put the propaganda in a bad light. Which, as I document again and again, you can do without ever "lying", just engaging in legal-ese, red herrings, and sins of omission.
I never got back around on that, so - apologies.
Back to the substantive points you bring up.
Re:
Scheuer - since I haven't read the book, and you have, I'm sure you are right - but this is complicated and "nuanced", if I might use the word in this context.
As I said above, it isn't farfetched or a discredited statement to say that "troops from a foreign land, especially if of a different religious faith, are viewed with incredible resistance by the native population". That's a defensible statement, right?
I would point out here, that I think the Arab monarchists have completely and cynically USED the outrage "fate of the Palestinians" in relation to Israel. (Take for example other Palestinian populations in other ME States, that are more oppressed than in Israel. But nary a peep about this from the "arab street".)
What I wanted to point out is a modification or clarification of what Dan is saying, to point out that Juan Cole and Mike Scheuer really are at VERY different viewpoints.
Now - Plame.
(As an aside - typical that THE story on liberal blogs everywhere, gets not even a whisper of a hearing here. I wonder if the story is prepped if Rove is indicted, and what the points will be.
But thist observation is neither here nor there.)
We are going to disagree on this. Especially if you bring in Powerline!
First off, Bush I game a commendation to Wilson for his conduct in Iraq during the Gulf War. Don't forget that.
Second - that Senate Intelligence report, is an incredibly politicized document. If you recall, the WHY of the conclusions clash with the fact that the investigation into POLITIZATION of intelligence was quietly dropped, if you remember.
And that goes hand in hand with - if Rove is guilty or not, the fact remains that the whole Niger claim, the whole "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" misleading WAS wrong, WAS incorrect, WAS untrue.
So Rove was going after Wilson, discrediting him for the column he wrote, bringing his wife into this - for what?
Are you saying it was HONORABLE of Karl Rove to do this? I want you on record AMAC, what do you think?
Dan,
Huh - I write that comment, and then it becomes clear we actually agree. Yes, that is what I wanted to point out, that Scheuer and Cole are coming from vastly different viewpoints.
JC:
I'll accept there is something of a difference between al-Qaradawi and, say, al-Zawahiri. Whether that's in terms of their aims, or in how much Qaradawi is willing to voice, is irrelevant. Supporting jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan, the destruction of Jews and Israel, the murder of homosexuals, leading the Muslim Brotherhood... I'd call those traits of an Islamist. Not sure if you read the Harry's Place stuff, but Livingstone has flat-out lied about Qaradawi's opinios - and tried to implicate Mossad in the process.
As Mayor of London, he's unlikely to announce his solidarity with the jihadis. He'd probably be lynched. About the only person/party in the country who tacked on a "we had it coming" to their condemnations was George Galloway of 'Respect'.
Livingstone may not approve of violent Islamism, but he's not exactly one of its most dogged opponents, either.
Dan:
I.e., the wholesale destruction of pali terrorists, including the PLO and Fatah? I haven't read 'Inside al-Qaeda' for a while, but it doesn't sound like something he'd go for.
JC, Wilson is an established liar. Its long past time for you to accept that. Wilson's oped was based on a lie and his own report established that. Wilson was not telling us any "truth". At this time, it doesn't look like Rove was aware of Plame's name much less had any idea she was covert. Your repeated claim that Rove was "discrediting" Wilson by bringing in his wife is the exact opposite of what was going on. Rove was doing damage control of Wilson's lies by informing his contacts of the real truth - that Wilson's trip was a putup job that his wife had helped arrange.
As a general note to the thread, I don't want to see this conversation hijacked into an argument about Rove and/or Joe Wilson. I'm sure it's a fascinating topic for discussion, but that was almost certainly not the intent of the original post.
Dr. Ledeen:
I appreciate the kind words. I still notice that we have yet to have heard from Curtis since the bombings occurred, maybe the BBC wants to run his little documentary again so they can explain to the British public that there's no real terrorist threat?
I definitely agree (though I doubt this'll be of much surprise to you) that the best to defeat an ideology like that expoused by the bin Laden and before him by the likes of Mughniyeh and Khomeini is to defeat it and demonstrate that it isn't a viable formula for success. Unfortunately, events like the Spanish election, Mogadishu, Beirut, et al. only serve to demonstrate the opposite - that the West is weak and Islamism will win out in the end. As long as that remains the case, the Bad Guys will continue to attract a following, which is why we have to counter-act through the means that you and I have discussed in the past.
Rick Ballard:
I'm not Dr. Ledeen, but consider the following: both Japan and Australia can very easily manufacture a nuclear weapon today, yet there is a reason that neither you nor I go to bed at night worrying about the threat from either country. Consider why that is and I think it'll become a lot clearer why a democratic Iran, even if it retains a nuclear capacity, will be far less threatening than one ruled by the likes of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad.
JC:
My point in bringing in Scheuer was to demonstrate one possible outcome that I doubt most of us would find that appealing to use as a springboard for relaying Rohan's recommendations. I didn't mean to conflate his views with Cole's, though I would note that Cole has endorsed Imperial Hubris, which I have long felt is exceedingly odd for a number of reasons.
Colt:
Beats me what he thinks on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you'd have to ask him. Most of the time he tends to steer clear of it except when it veers into the area of al-Qaeda, which is his preferred area of study. However, his recommendation of an assassination campaign against known terrorist leaders and backers strikes me as something Israel has implemented pretty effectively with the "helizapping" of the Hamas leadership among other things.
Dan,
I suspect that Cole endorses Imperial Hubris solely for the superficial reason that its perceived as a "gee-isn't-Bush-stupid" tome.
Sorrty, I will have to find time to get more informed here, but note particularly that DD does recommend something I really think is necessary, infiltrating existing cells. Yes, JK you think this is asking more than we can do and may well be right.
We're the direct object of a violent need for retribution. What can we do about that? Right, it's not my fault, it's not your fault. But I have children and grandchildren. I need to do something that will protect them, and what is going on right now is endangering them.
Bickering about and 'outing' covert operatives is a truly vile way to operate. Working on it.
Dan,
I don't buy the assertions of the Iranians asking us to do their heavy lifting. If they are willing to spill their blood in achieving democracy then I might reconsider. They aren't going to achieve democracy by peaceful means, they don't seem to have the will to try alternative means and I can't support the concept that people unwilling to fight to achieve democracy will be able to sustain it.
Iraqi's are writing their history in their own blood now - with our help, to be sure. The Iranians might at least summon the courage to blow up the occasional mullah.
Very good work.
One complaint about the perception of the jihadist threat. I do not view it as an outgrowth of the Israeli-Paestinian conundrum(sic?). Hamas started out as a counter weight to the PLO and had as its orgins Israeli policy. The current Jihadists got their intial funding and training from US in our successful efforts to turn Afghanistan into the USSR's Viet Nam. Unlike the Communist International we had no plan to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan. We just left. As nature abhors a vaccum the Taliban came into being. Sometimes we have to look in the mirror and realize a la Pogo whom the enemy is.
Wow.
i say (faster please) and Dr. Ledeen materializes. ;-)
hey, i thought i was the house djinn!
But I disagree. The Age of Information gives us an edge the old cold-warriors didn't have. And communism committed seppuku--Islam will not do that. The sprouts the sovs started withered and died, altho some hang on in a zombie state-- but Islamic sprouts flourish.
Islam is to the terrorists and the leaders of the sponsoring states, as Communism was to the Soviets during the Cold War. That is, it is the language through which they express themselves.
sho, and catholicism was the language the spanish inquisitors expressed themselves through. But it evolved. I believe Islam can change, is changing, and that the memetic front is important too.
I think we should be agressive in eradicating terrorists. And agressive in changing minds.
Oh, hell, blast and damn. i mispelled aggressive twice!
where is p. lucasiak when you need him?
I was quite angry at muslims for 3 days since the bombings....but now I've come to my senses and began to examine the REAL terrorists and who benefits from these attacks.
1) why muslims bomb their own muslim dominated areas in london (aldgate and edware rd) when they could have targetted their jewish enemies hotspots (golders green, hendon)
2) how did israeli's knew abt the attacks b4 anyone else. Documented in several newspapers/
3) Why were 5 israeli's arrested on 9/11 filming and celebrating the attacks on the twin towers? documented in several newspapers.
4) Why did it seem like the leaders of the G8 and tony blair were over acting like they had prepared for these acts and it was not out of the blue or shock for them.
Let me state I am no muslim and I hate Islam because I think it is a crap ideology and religion but I dont like being lied too and innocent people dying over global ambitions for evil people. When I see somethings not right im usually right about things. Just a few things to think about
No, Kevin, we are not going to "think about" such silly conspiracy theories. There is no place for these kind of baseless and despicable insinuations.
Colt,
Yes, could be - I don't have enough information.
Dan,
Re: Juan Cole's finding of Scheuer "compelling" - yes, that's quite funny, actually.
He's either riffing off that one interview that he saw, which looks like it wasn't a full explication of "Scheuerism" - and so he doesn't really know Scheuer's point of view.
Or, it is as Robin suggests - that it is simply another person that disagrees with this administration's policy, so he cites him.
Either one is unacceptable, given his position.
If it is the first, then - if he doesn't know about Anonymous, and at least a vague idea of what it's about - like me, read at least a review of the book by one or two people - he is so uninformed about the international security debate, he needs to shut up or study up on international security policies and philosophies.
If it is the second, he's simply being dishonest, and engaging in hackery.
jinnderella: "All religions are ESSs (evolutionarily stable strategies), or CSSs (Dawkins' term, culturally stable strategies)."
Ah! Forgetful me! Thanks, jinnderella, and thanks for the link. :)
Dan Darling: "Those are Gunaratna's recommendations, not mine."
OK. Thanks for clarifying that.
Dan Darling: "But to use your Shinto parallel, the US certainly wouldn't have been able to win out the way we did in Japan until the highest Shinto authority (the Emperor) stood up and announced that hostilities should cease."
I so agree. And even so, it was a nearer-run thing than we like to remember.
Dan Darling: "Similarly, the decision of whether al-Qaeda and its actions are Koranic or heretical are ultimately going to have to be decided in the Islamic world. In the long-term, that is what is going to have to happen if we want al-Qaeda and what it represents discredited the way that fascism and Nazism are today."
That makes sense.
I would feel more comfortable if I could see who the Emperor of Japan was, or who the Pope was.
When the Pope called a council (Vatican II) and with his blessing and support it concluded (among many other things), that the Jews were off the hook, that was binding on Catholics. The Pope's successors (especially John Paul II) stuck to the new party line, and Catholic education was fundamentally altered. In terms of the diabolical history of Christian antisemitism, this is a colossal and abrupt change, yet there is no sign that it is shallow or tactical or that it will prove temporary. This seems to be the real thing, as lasting as the shift of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
If I could see an authoritative elite in Islam that could and possibly would work such a transformation, I would focus on that. Who wouldn't prefer enlightened and binding leadership as a means to change people's hearts, if that was a real possibility? Love the sinner, however much you may hate the sin! Prefer the gentler way for sure - as long as it really is a way.
But when Pope John Paul II was conciliatory, when he inclined to concessions - and silence and softness on evil is a serious concession - and when he apologised, who was his negotiating partner in the Muslim world? What authority did they have to transform the interpretation of the Koran, transform Muslim education, and end the terror of jihad? None. It was all DM.
This is why I emphasise means that will in a lasting and pervasive way affect the will to fight of enormous numbers of human beings who will not be bound by the order of a Pope or an Emperor of Japan.
Bluntly, this means punishing victories in the real world, and nothing that would assist the enemy to save face and avoid confronting their defeat. I think apologies and concessions are bad, and unrelenting, consistent, implacable hostility is essential.
Until our enemies internalise that the path they were on was a painful, bloody, humiliating and lastingly consequential failure, this will not be over. And it had darned well better be over before the world's worst terrorists get the world's most destructive weapons and the means to deliver them.
Would some of these evil people be of the Hebrew variety?
To Rick Ballard and Dan: I would feel much better about a nuclear Iran if there were a democratically elected government in Tehran. There are many indications that the Iranian people are overwhelmingly pro-American, and a recent poll showed that most of them don't care about nukes. They want to live in peace and develop good relations with the West.
That's why I've been calling for support for the Iranian opposition. I am totally opposed to "doing their heavy lifting for them," and I have often expressed my disappointment at the feckless performance of the Iranian-American community, one of the richest in this country. They are not doing their part. But neither are we. If we did, it would be a lot easier to get the Iranian-Americans on the bandwagon.
Kevin, please try to keep the blood libels against the jewish people to a minimum. I daresay there is enough of that going around in the Muslim blogs.
Dan
Far be it from me to deny that there IS a genuinely defeatist left, and especially in Europe. During the cold war, Europe had not just Communists on the one hand, and anticommunist social democrats, christian democrats, and conservatives on the other hand. It had a fairly substantial block of left socialists and pacifists, who took a broadly neutralist, "plague on both your houses" approach to the cold war. These are people who have been playing moral equivalency since 1946. Historically they were found in the left wing of the UK Labour party. Im not sure where they were found on the continent - i think it varied in different countries, depending on their party systems. They are real, they view 9/11 through their historic distrust of American power and their general "anti-imperialist" focus, and they are important. I do not deny that an understanding of the current war require monitoring, understanding, and countering them.
The two problems i have with the "war on the left" is 1. the over focus on it and 2. the viewing of US politics through this paradigm
as to 1 - some commentators view every problem we have with Europe, and the EU as whole, through the lens of this wing of the Euro left. That is a mistake, IMHO. The policies of the major countries we have had difficulties with, France and Germany, are NOT dictated by ex-neutralists, but by Gaullist conservatives and right wing German social Democrats, who disagree with us on CERTAIN policies, for a range of reasons, some cynical, some not. The EU project has been supported by the entire spectrum of social democrats, and for the most part, by continental Christian Democrats as well.
as to 2 - the cold war neutralist stance in this country was largely identified with Henry Wallace and his Progressive party. Take a look at the voting returns of Wallace vs Truman in 1984 in New York City, which, if anywhere, was Wallaces base of support, to see the Dem electorats POV. The Americans for Democratic Action, a LIBERAL organization, took the lead in asserting the triumph of the anticommunist position in the Dem party - not just Harry Truman and Scoop Jackson, but ALSO Eleanor Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey.
Now there was a change with the Viet Nam war. Which is not surprising - VN WAS a disaster, and which liberal hawks were pretty deeply implicated in. However at most the dovish wing of the Dem party dabbled with neutralism, and by the late 70's had returned to a more hawkish position. Ted Kennedy in 1980 ran against Carters domestic policies, NOT his foreign policies, despite his grain embargo of the USSR, his support for Afghan guerillas, and his push for rearmament (Carters own effeminate rhetoric, and his post presidential record, have led many of us to misread his actual policies in office). Mondale, Gary Hart, Dukakis, etc all took a moderately hawkish position toward the end of the cold war. (The dems opposition too GOP policies was nuanced - grow the army to 18 divisions, but dont build star wars, support the Afghan resistance, but not the Contras, support the Christian Dems in El Salvador, but not Arena, etc) it was NOT neutralist, not by any means.
The mass of Dems has followed this line today. Some supported the war in Iraq, but continued to criticize the admin. Others opposed the war in Iraq, but clearly supported the war on terror. For the most part (with perhaps the exception of a Mckinney) the neutralist talk has been among the Greens, the Chomskites, etc.
However there is a wing of Dems, like Kennedy and Byrd, who though NOT neutralist, are A. Anti Iraq war B. so intensely partisan, that they level all their rhetoric against the admin, and not against the Chomskyites to their left, and attack the admin with rhetoric that on SOME issues is redolent of the Chomskyites (that happens on the exterme - there are decent people on the extreme right who use rhetoric redolent of the indecent right) Now there are some folks who, in anger, want to treat a Ted Kennedy as if we were Robert Fisk or Tony Benn. Which is convenient, cause then you can demand that Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton denounce a Ted Kennedy. Which they will not do. Which somehow is taken as an opening to attack the leadership of the Dem party as "soft".
As for Scheuer, Im not sure hes a leftist. Hes certainly pretty bitter about Clinton, as well as Bush. Some of his rhetoric sounds Jacksonian unilateralist, more than leftist.
that should have been Wallace vs Truman in 1948, of course
"Hopefully you read my earlier remark concerning "the left" and I'll be more than happy to agree with you that the individuals to whom I am referring are out of power - in the United States. It isn't at all clear to me or any number of other people that this is in fact the case in Europe, though my hope is that we may be seeing the beginning of that."
Name the european country where you think its not the case.
"Scheuer, moreover, isn't a lefty by any means, but rather a Buchananite in terms of both his aversion to what he considers foreign adventures and his paranoia-like obsession with Israel."
Er, yeah, should have read that before posting. I think we agree on Scheur, though seeing a quote from him in a post all about "the Left" was confusing.
LH:
Mostly agreed on the general if not particular basis, though to answer your question:
"Name the european country where you think its not the case."
The Spanish Socialist Party, the German Green Party (a major part of Schroeder's coalition), and dare I say it a sizeable chunk of the Gordon Brown backers within the UK Labour. There is also a sizeable currency for such views among the intellectual classes (though this is far from simply a left-wing problem) as well as much of the state-run European media, which is how we got "The Power of Nightmares" as part of accepted wisdom to begin with.
German Greens? the ones who support Fischer, or the party that broke away after Kosovo? Fischer certainly support the WOT, if not Iraq.
Brown himself supported the Iraq war, and the UK cabinet members who didnt were still supporters of the war in Afghanistan and the WOT in general, IIUC.
the Spanish Socialists I know less about. But I do know that their govt aggressively pursued AQ cells after 3/11.
LH:
Not the leadership per se of the first two, but rather a sizeable number of the mid-level leadership and the rank and file. And having investigative anti-terrorism judges well, do their job, isn't exactly a sign of a robust effort or a desire to participate in the war outside their own borders. It's the same kind of neutral attitude that you mentioned earlier in the context of the Cold War.
LH:
An enjoyable review of the Democratic party, but it left me wondering where are these folks today? One answer is that the Democratic party is a smaller party today with less room for hawks than it once had. Some of this weakness has left Democrats more reliance upon left-wing interest groups.
On Democrat votes for the War in Iraq, I've been left with the distinct impression (blame Kerry) that many of those votes were less than heartfelt.
But I would also suggest the media is a problem. I wonder how many calls Lieberman gets to come on TV and do a "me too." 24 hour cable news is not only marketing controversy, they are branding the parties, perhaps unwillingly.
It will be interesting to see how potential national candidates like Biden, Clinton and Obama, who are relatively hawkish move towards the 2008 elections.
Is this supposed to be a liberal site? Because all I see is a bunch of Western-centric xenophobia being passed off as noble solutions to terrorism. You don't even know the Muslim definition of jihad and you speak of it as though you were experts. You all make me sick. If you didn't vote for Bush you should have, because you have the same mentality.
Dana, I nearly spit my soda out when I saw that you think "western centric" is an epithet.
And the quibbling over the definition of "jihad" is a reliable sign that someone is about to make some wierd argument that we hate muslims. Doesn't fly here, I'm afraid.
If you have a comment about President Bush's "mentality", your challenge is to express it coherently.
LH:
The policies of the major countries we have had difficulties with, France and Germany, are NOT dictated by ex-neutralists, but by Gaullist conservatives and right wing German social Democrats
France is ruled by Socialists, no matter which party is in office. That is its tragedy. The only classic liberal there seems to be Sarkozy, today as home minister, but his family comes from Hungary. Germany's was to swallow 17 million communists, 20% of its population, which have had a clear effect on the following elections.
The Spanish Socialist won the elections thanks to a Terrorist attack and the PRISA media group, and are in a de facto coalition with terrorist supporters in the National government and the Regional government of Catalonia. Moreover, they are on talks with ETA. Italian left wing parties are hoping to do the same with Berlusconi.
PD,
Heres what Hilary said the other day. I cant help it some folks will deny its heartfelt - some folks will deny WHATEVER she says is heartfelt. I dont know whats in any pols heart, so I'll go by her words, and not search her heart
'She said the United States should remain in Iraq until peace can be maintained by the Iraqi people, saying the mission was part of the "long struggle against terrorism" by the U.S.
"The threat of terrorism is as close as our daily commute," said Clinton, adding that people around the world admired the "famous resilience" of the British in the wake of last week's terrorist attacks.'
"LH:
Not the leadership per se of the first two, but rather a sizeable number of the mid-level leadership and the rank and file. And having investigative anti-terrorism judges well, do their job, isn't exactly a sign of a robust effort or a desire to participate in the war outside their own borders. It's the same kind of neutral attitude that you mentioned earlier in the context of the Cold War."
I originally asked which european states are governed by leftists of this type. So far, the only one suggested is Spain. I did not deny that leftists of this type are more numerous than in the US, and some are pragamatic enough to support pols more centrist then themselves, seeing as how difficult it is for someone like themselves to get elected. Which is the point, I think.
As for Spain, Im not sure they have no action in WOT outside their borders - they werent in Afghanistan even before the socialist win, so when they left Iraq that left them without troops on ground in the WOT. Not sure if their navy is participating the Indian Ocean, etc.
As for their judges, there IS a POV that says the WOT is PRIMARILY an LE operation. I think thats strategically incorrect, but thats NOT the same as being against the WOT in its entirety, on grounds that 'we have it coming'.
pardon me.
Spain currently has 551 troops in Afghanistan, as part of ISAF, per the US DoD website.
"That's why I've been calling for support for the Iranian opposition. I am totally opposed to "doing their heavy lifting for them," and I have often expressed my disappointment at the feckless performance of the Iranian-American community, one of the richest in this country. They are not doing their part. But neither are we. If we did, it would be a lot easier to get the Iranian-Americans on the bandwagon."
We have to make a profer in earnest of our blood and treasure in order to get the Iranian-Americans on the bandwagon? Perhaps that is why the administration is not actively pursuing destabilization. I do not doubt that most Iranians would welcome having the tyrants boot lifted - by any agency. I don't doubt that having nuclear weapons is a very low priority for the great majority of Iranians. But the great majority will not be running the nuclear program and democracy given rather than earned can become a cheap trinket very quickly.
When the Iranianian "resistance" gives more than lip service to their struggle they will be worth listening to. I would wholly support the destruction of the Iranian nuclear program if bombing started today. I can not support a war of liberation for a country whose citizens will not even take their hands out of their pockets.
Iran's nuclear program cannot be allowed to continue. Whether it is removed by diplomatic or military means is finally immaterial to the fact that it must be removed.
dana
Jihad, as we've all come to learn, can mean EITHER holy war in particular, a struggle more broadly, including an internal moral struggle. It has apparently been used in BOTH senses for centuries. In the 19th century muslim reformers, esp in the Ottoman Empire, tried to restrict it to the meaning of "inner moral struggle" However for many (most?) muslims it still means war, and in the case of a not insignificant minority, it means a brutal, bloody war against not just the West, but against many muslims. As a shorthand many of us refer to this minority as "jihadis" which i think is not that far off the mark.
We certainly look with eagerness for muslims for whom jihad is something peaceful, and who stand up and oppose the terrorists.
LH:
I actually believe that Hillary might be the only Democratic member of Congress that believes in the Bush doctrine. I say this because I think the politics of the Bush doctrine are far from clear. And her personal background (suburban, Methodist, Republican family) are conducive to a liberal interventionalist view.
The problem as I see it is that Hillary gets no coverage for agreeing with Bush. The MSM is a shrill beast that hungers for the Ward Churchills or anyone who blames Bush or Blair or hidden cabals for actions clearly taken by psychopaths. The Democrats must tame this beast or be swallowed by it.
PD Shaw: It will be interesting to see how potential national candidates like Biden, Clinton and Obama, who are relatively hawkish move towards the 2008 elections.
Drudge linked this quote from the Orlando Sentinel today:
Somebody ought to get that done one of these days, because history doesn't wait around.
Unfortunately, Clinton and Obama face the "Why should I remain a Democrat?" threat. The truth is that the Democrats have achieved "unity" by letting the anti-war left run and play. If someone tries to correct the course, those people (who have no loyalty to anyone or anything) will run off with Nader, the Greens, and other such riff-raff.
More on Spain - followed a link the Chrenkoff post.
"MADRID, June 23 (Reuters) - Spain will send 500 more troops to Afghanistan to reinforce a NATO peacekeeping mission there ahead of September elections, the Defence Ministry said, after winning support for the deployment in parliament.
The troops will leave in July and be based in the western city of Herat, the ministry said on its Web site on Thursday. Spain already has 500 troops in Afghanistan."
maybe Im showing my age, but when i was young American political parties did NOT have "core values" National political parties were loose coalitions of state parties, which state parties were largely patronage machines, whose ideological stance was defined by what they thought could patch together a local coalition and win local and statewide elections.
Im not sure that 40 years of a more ideological politics have done us all that much good, but i guess it was inevitable.
In any case the Dems ARE divided, by IRAQ. Which is a far different thing from being divided on the rest of the WOT.
"why muslims bomb their own muslim dominated areas in london (aldgate and edware rd) when they could have targetted their jewish enemies hotspots (golders green, hendon)"
probably cause golders green is farther from central London.
"2) how did israeli's knew abt the attacks b4 anyone else. Documented in several newspapers/"
They didnt. An Israeli cabinet minister was notified AFTER news of the first bombing. AP made a mistake. It happens.
"Let me state I am no muslim and I hate Islam because I think it is a crap ideology and religion"
Wow, youre not only antisemitic, but antimuslim. That gives me two reasons to dislike you.
Dan,
There won't be a Palestinian state until some time after the Saud regime is gone (which is probably about 5-10 years out, and likely not until after the EU as it presently exists is gone (same time frame).
A Palestinian state is really a code word for the destruction of Israel. And the destruction of Israel is really a code word for the civil war within Islam going on now. If Israel did not exist, the nominal issue would instead be the existence of the United States as the root cause of all Arab problemws.
Because ALL of this is about the disfunctionality of Arab culture and its perversion of Islam, which is exacerbated but not caused by Saudi oil money.
The only way issues on such a scale have ever been resolved is through mass slaughter.
And if the slaughter of millions of Arabs at the hands of other Arabs, followed by the death of scores of millions of Arabs from exposure and disease caused by social breakdown and the loss of civil infrastructure in a most inhospitable & unforgiving environment doesn't do it (not to mention a refugee tsunami of 50-100 million Arabs to anywhere else), then the following will:
Use of American nuclear weapons to reduce large areas of southern Asia and northern Africa to subsidence level economies and population levels.
The only question about America's victory in the war on terror is how many Arabs survive the experience.
liberalhawk: In any case the Dems ARE divided, by IRAQ. Which is a far different thing from being divided on the rest of the WOT.
LH, you know it isn't so. They are divided - deeply divided - on the WoT as well. You can't paper over the gap with the careful rhetoric of Joe Biden, or the careless rhetoric of John Kerry.
I'm not just talking about Michael Moore and the domestic equivalents of Mr. McAndrews (above). Many of the reflex arguments against Iraq logically extend to the WoT as well.
When Democrats argue that Iraq is none of our business, the logic extends to the WoT. When they rail against Gitmo and the Patriot Act and George Bush (and the oil companies, the Mossad, and the rest of the hobgoblins), the logic extends to the WoT. When they talk about bringing everybody home to guard port facilities, or complain that we need to use the money we spend in Iraq to build more fire stations, they are arguing against the WoT as well.
Face it, the Democrats are down to a single objective in the WoT: Get Osama bin Laden. Game over. Nothing left to do then but apologize and "mend fences" with the people who have fought us tooth and nail every inch of the way.
Dr. Ledeen:
hmmm...comparing communism and islam? We could model them both as ESSs.
Islam has much greater reproductive fitness-- both conversion and live birth. Communism had to be imposed. Islam is much more flexible-- look at this Joe Katzman comment. Adaptive. Robust.
On one hand you deplore the pervasivness of Islamic memes of disenfranchisement across populations, on the other hand you say that offing all the radicals will cause the downfall of radical Islam. How can that be if radical Islam is accepted across whole populations?
i think we need to address the memetics.
Communism didn't convert or persuade? People born under communist rule did not presumptively become communists? People attempting to leave communism weren't killed?
The distinction that I see is that Communism was a religion of materialism, promising worldly results that it ultimately could not deliver, leading to a crisis of faith. Radical islam promisses both the material (world conquest) and the supernatural (heavenly virgins). Killing the radicals addresses the first factor -- I'm not sure the West has the ability to deal with the second factor absent the Third Conjecture.
LH
MADRID, June 23 (Reuters) - Spain will send 500 more troops to Afghanistan to reinforce a NATO peacekeeping mission there ahead of September elections
Spain had 500 troops in Afganistan because they were send there by the Popular Party government back in 2001. Now we are sending 500 more troops only to protect the electoral process, which is pretty risible, if you take into account how the elections developed in Spain last year.
In the end is just a way to try to ease the relation with the US government, severely damaged after Zapatero's desertion from battle in Najaf and Bono's arm sales to Chavez.
David Blue - "If I could see an authoritative elite in Islam that could and possibly would work such a transformation, I would focus on that. Who wouldn't prefer enlightened and binding leadership as a means to change people's hearts, if that was a real possibility?"
You are missing a key point: STRUCTURE
Stalinism mapped into a rigid hierarchy like the Cathloic church. You can decapitate it or influence the pope/dictator to order changes. Revolts can split it (ie Luther) but the structure endures until collapse.
Protestant sects tended to have elected officers that mimiced various forms of democracy. You have to influence key members of the electorate in these institutions. (Yes with the flirting with Rome, institution of bishops and devine sucession many are giving up democracy and becoming totalitarian in action and fact - I am more familar with the Luthern bishops sad decent.)
Islam is an anarchy! (the shia less so) Comparing it to other religions and cults just does not work! It is headless with a feedback loop denying afterlife position to those who chalange jihadist.
One can not even compare it to the big single congregation sects like Willow Creek. (Willow Creek is basicly a corporation with intensive market research to determine it's faith but as a corporation it is essentially a small dictatorship and so modeled on the Church of Rome.)
The closest one can get to mapping Islam in the west might be a loose association of Viking Raiding parties... but they were more organized.
Dave Blue - One other thing to point out. I do understand anarchy. After a few years in the long defunct "Centenial Education Program" at the University of Nebraska (lincoln) I got a well rounded working experience with anarchy.
(you will not be able to find out much useful about it - except maybe at the CIA/FBI - as some of the participants were very good at covering their tracks and all the Centenial records excepting grades went up in smoke...)
Hi, 3dc.
I looked up Willow Creek. Interesting in itself, it didn't give me any useful ideas for dealing with Islam. And as you said, useful information on the Centennial Education Praogram is not low hanging fruit. To pursue that would be more trouble than it is worth for me.
I have thought about the relationship between the current Arab way of war (link) and Viking raiding. That's a relationship that's obviously going to press on anyone who takes Archer Jones (link) seriously, which I do. I have a lot of respect for the potency of a persistent raiding strategy, which is what our enemies are pursuing.
3dc: Anarchy? Centennial was a loosely structured experimental program but hardly anarchy. I was part of it between 1971-1975. Yes, it is unfortunate that not much has survived of a great program. Whoddathunk - a bohemian intellectual subculture in conservative Nebraska.