Requiem in pace.

He was assigned to traveling up and down the highways to locate roadside bombs. It was a dangerous mission and the equipment was inadequate. Instead of an armored vehicle, he was assigned a heavy gravel truck insulated with boxes of sand. Not only was he in constant danger of running over bombs but he was a ready target for snipers along the road.

The arguments you make better be sure it's worth it. The honor and sacrifice of our fellow americans deserve no less.

Common Soldier

Well, let do a Devil's Advocate, specifically criteria A ("the Islamist danger is serious and a threat"):

The messenic vision to rebuild the Middle East in the name of Liberty, despite is nobleness, is not necessary: Terrorism is not an existential threat to the United States.

Israel - which is surrounded by states that support, tolerate or badly attempt to stop terrorism - continues to exist, albeit precariously. The United States, surrounded by two vast oceans, can easily protect itself using stricter and better enforced immigration, border and transport controls.

Indeed, there is always the risk of the confluence of terrorism-states-wmd coming together to target a seaport in the American coast. But, there are measures, difficult yet possible measures, to deter this, as in beefing up the coastguard, better intelligence, and so on and so forth.

There is also the opportunity to change American foreign policy to be more palable for the so-called "Arab Street", much like the French. Enhancing our intelligence overseas - both in our own capabilities and in our relationship with other foreign agencies.

Why must we rebuild the Middle East? Folks at Oxblog have linked the issue of the level of security to the level of democracy, but is this true? Must we go on the "offfensive" and aggressively create democracy? Or is it better just to take on an "aggressive defense" approach?

Follow WofC folks, attack this Devil's Advocate's Argument.

JC... They do, of course.

As part of category c), under "realistic expectations"... incidents very much like this are 100% expected when one goes to war. It doesn't surprise me, and it shouldn't surprise anyone else either.

In war, one is frequently forced to "make do" - because the job has to get done (or others die), because logistics flows aren't perfect, and sometimes because the Army is a big bureaucracy just like any other large organization. We need to realize up front that some situations will suck, and hopefully make changes as a result of stuff like this and kick some butts if appropriate. Or, others may still remain higher on the priority chain, and nothing changes afterward. Legitimate command call.

C'est la guerre, for every war in recorded human history. When you go to war, expect this.

Hell, expect much worse... Pat Tillman's friendly fire death in Afghanistan, for example.
--

I'll add that the people in New York 3 years ago also died in a pretty sucky manner, without adequate protection or preparation. As did the people in New York 13 years ago. As did Klinghoffer and Stethem, the people in the African embassy bombings, the Cole casualties, etc., etc.

Which is one more reason why casualty stories, even casualties from poor situations, don't change my mind about the war's propriety. Though they do remind me of sacrifice asked and freely given, and the debts of protection citizens owe to each other, and the importance of making the sacrifice mean something (for me, that = winning at the end).

Daniel, I appreciate the devil's adovcate argument.

Here at Winds, A.L. et. al. will respond in whatever order/pattern they feel best (cardinal rule of war as well as debate: be the one dictating the terms of the battle, it's better).

I might recommend leaving comments in the linked post instead, because Marc will see them directly and so is more likely to incorporate them somehow into his arguments.

Re: using the framework to analyze an argument, however, I will say that Daniel's Devil's Advocate position in #2 would lead me to focus a 1-on-1 response to/at these parts of the frmaeowrk (and leave the others aside unless, as it always does, the situation changes once you're engaged with an opponent):

SERIOUSNESS

• Why is this threat "suddenly" so serious?
• What is the nature of our enemy?
• What are the goals of our enemy?

THEN ON TO SITUATION

• What drives the phenomenon of modern Islamic terrorism?

• The role and dynamics of state sponsorship and/or sanction for terror in the Mideast, and in the chain of carefully organized hate that underlies it.

I'd have points that address the next issue waiting in reserve, in case the "Arab Street" myth hadn't been disposed of by addressing the previous 2 Situation items:

• The role of pretext in war and diplomacy. Having an understanding of classical history, as folks like Victor Davis Hanson do, helps immensely. I find it very weird that people who find their fellow Americans impossible to believe and think we invaded Afghanistan to lay an oil pipeline there will swallow the assertions and problem definitions of an Edward Said, or of dictatorial rulers of Islamic countries, without batting an eye. Gotta bust that and come back to root causes. Fortunately, it isn't hard.

IF WE COULD GET PAST THOSE WITH SOME LEVEL OF BASIC AGREEMENT, THEN AND ONLY THEN WOULD I ENGAGE AT THE LEVEL MOST FOLKS WOULD START AT, AND ADDRESS THESE SELECTIONS FROM "STRATEGY":

• The inherent flaws of a defence-only approach. ("Why we have to try this way, and go on offence")

• The massive and consistent failure to date of the "international order" in 3 key areas: addressing terrorism, containing WMD, and nation-building. ("Why we can't expect a lot of useful help")

The discusion about the real risk of jihadist terrorism appears somewhat rethorical to me. I would like to point to the latest trend in Islamic terrorism. The murder of Theo vanGogh in Holland hasn't received much coverage in the US, aside of some dumb ohs! and ahs! about how come that Holland, such a tolerant and multicultural society... and so on.

Yet, it inaugurates a new phase in the post-modern jihadists war on the blasphemous (democratic) West. Selective terrorism, the "Baskeization" of Europe that has already scores of Dutch politicians, artists, journalists and religious leaders with a 24 hour escort protection. Remember Alamut and the Old Man of the Mountain?

This sort of cultural assassination Check this post by Stygius, who coined the term
,if it yields, results is bound to become common place...

Europe, Little Satan, is in for a very rough ride. That's because Great Satan USA is tougher to pounce upon.

Not rhetorical, Juan, just organizational. For instance, the point you've just made fits under the headings "nature/ goals of our enemy."

Useful, but unless we also deal with "why is the threat suddenly so serious?" we can't establish seriousness overall yet. Not unless the person you're speaking to has a life that revolves around art, and now sees themselves directly threatened by this trend ("they're targeting you and your kind specifically" can be very persuasive if the threat is seen as credible).

Failing that, based on the devil's advocate post we'd still have to go to subjects like the lesson of 9/11 re: unlimited lethal intent, declarations by several Islamist groups that they aim to procure and use chemical/nuclear/bioweapons, the technology curve and Islamofascism's progress, Dan's points re: al-Qaeda's capacity for death and disruption worldwide, certain kinds of hate as a WMD and predictor based on historical precedent, al-Qaeda's goals of an Islamic Khalifa and what that means in various regions (expansionism, colonialism, cultural imperialism, mass murder, who's next after that and how), etc.

There's a somewhat similar discussion going on over at the new heavy blogsite, The Becker-Posner Blog:

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/index.html

Becker is a Nobel prize winning economist and Posner is a federal court judge.

My two cents - were in serious "deep shit" in the War On Terror AKA War On Islamofascism. See my comments I posted on their site that I copied to the OP-ED Section in our forums site (Sorry still cleaning up the formating):

Congrats on your new blog site.

Amen!!!

For too long many in this Country have seen the "War On Terror" as nothing more than a police action. Unfortunately the MSM has not communicated this well to the American people. The MSM no longer can be trusted to objectively report the news of the day.

[...]

Trouble is we are faced with an embedded, asymetrical, cunning enemy whose religious mission is to kill or convert everyone of us. These are not normal times. This enemy has been at war with us for the last 30 years it was only on 9/11 that we began to notice.

Here's two pieces on our website that address this threat we face that some have termed WWIV. This is truly a war of ideology, a war of "Good vs. Evil."

[...]

FREEDOM - Thx to The Greatest Generation for Preserving It

Islamofascisim is a great danger facing the world. It is time our generations, suck it up and realize what is at stake here. It’s time to put aside our café lattés and cafe mochas, and realize America is at war. This is not another Vietnam. We must win this war. Loosing is not an option. Our Country was deliberately attacked without provocation by Islamofascisim terrorists. The great oceans no longer provide us safe haven from the “crazies” of the world. The “over there,” is now “here” in our homeland. Many innocent lives were lost, for who we are, for what we believe, and for what we stand, whether under God or not – FREEDOM! We must be resolute and decisive. As President Bush so correctly said, we are a tolerant people but once aroused, we are a fierce adversary.

[...]

GEO-POLITICAL STRATEGIC ANALYSIS ON WAR ON TERROR

Again we will not win the War On Terror while there is a continuing supply of recruits to replace those we eliminate. We can’t fight a war of attrition unless we use overwhelming force to knock out the enemy all at once. This is a war of ideals and we must change our strategy accordingly. We must shut down the terrorist production factories. These are the fundamental schools the Saudis and others have tolerated to remain in power. In the Saudis’ case this is now coming back to haunt them. These schools, program children at a very early age to hate our culture and to adopt without question the ideology of radical Islamic extremism.

HSPIG Link

Ron Wright, Moderator
HSPIG Forums Site
www.hspig.org

Joe, still it is so simple and obvious to me, that I don't understand the burden of argument. This is how I see it.

a) the Islamist danger is serious and a threat;
There many good people in the middeast, who want to live peaceful lives and raise their children unmolested. Unfortunately the much smaller number of really bad people have the controls, and they seriously intend us harm. They have openly declared this.

b) the means to address it need to include war;
The Bush/Blair doctrine is about taking the controls away from the bad people and giving them to the good people. When there are time constraints, such as the acquisition of WMDS by the really bad people, war is the quickest, most cost-viable way to do it.

c) the current startegy is reasonable.
Look at the scores of Iraqis being slaughtered as national guardsmen or policemen. And more volunteer to take their place every day. They are more than willing to risk their own lives to take back the controls. That single data point convinces me that the strategy is reasonable, and has a good chance of success.

For a completely opposed but nonetheless rather well-considered and rational point-of-view you might consider Dave Neiwert's recent post. I don't agree with him and have posted a brief response here.

But I do think that such opinions need to be taken into consideration.

Hey Jinnderella!

We're back to disagreeing! (Whew.)

Two things.

1. Islamic terrorists - at this point, somewhat beside the point, but still for adequate historical reasons - SADDAM HUSSEIN/IRAQ WAS NOT PART OF ISLAMIC TERRORIST THREAT.

You could say he "contributed" to a generalized terror threat, but at least we should be precise.

As someone who supported the Afghanistan conflict, its important to notice the difference.

a. Much more global support, both in people and resources.
b. A much clearer direct connection to the 911 attack.

2. It doesn't get said much here, but it is vitally important to keep in mind that one of the reasons that "they hate us" is because, as a rule, we really don't care about democracy promotion, when it comes right down to it. You remember that Democracy project, launched with such fanfare, for the Middle East? It's dropped below the radar, and Bush had a chance recently to focus attention on it, but he didn't.

Bottom line, between supporting Egyptian and Saudi Arabian dictators that we are assured keep the oil flowing, or undermining that support, the United States chooses keeping the oil flowing every time.

I understand that choice. There are very good arguments that this is the best possible choices of two bad ones. But again, for clarity, it needs to be kept in mind that there is very little reason anyone living in the Middle East believes that we REALLY want democracy in the Middle east, as a high priority. Only in Afghanistan are we starting to see the success of a democracy project - but again, there really isn't oil involved.

Jinnderella's recap is a good reminder of something I said in my framework - the answers can be very short and still effective.

If someone comes back to you and still isn't in sync, however, the framework offers a way to figure out where the root diconnects are and address them. They often aren't the face arguments, which are often more like symptoms of the real disagreement or disconnect (a.k.a. "higher up on the ladder of inference").

And, again, this doesn't take away from the fact that the home-grown insurgency that is in Iraq now, is utterly committed to amoral marauding and killing. This is basically civil war now, and not a fight that the United States can win, but something that the Kurds and Shiites will either do:

1. By engaging in a massive, bloody pacification campaign after the election - and that will need to be done with little or no US troops.

2. Or, a split into 3 or more entities.

I'm sure the US can help the Shiites, Kurds, and will influence things by bombing runs, by logistical support, by providing arms, but US troops are not going to pacify the insurgency there, period.

It's time that people realize this. Although I still want to be wrong...

Hi JC!
Whew! The Manichean balance of the universe has been restored!

1. Islamic terrorists - at this point, somewhat beside the point, but still for adequate historical reasons - SADDAM HUSSEIN/IRAQ WAS NOT PART OF ISLAMIC TERRORIST THREAT.
That's irrelevent to my argument. Do you deny that Saddam was a really bad guy harboring serious intent to hurt us? Sorry, in this new preemptive world we really couldn't wait for Saddam to deliver Al Qaeda a suitcase filled with weaponized anthrax to establish an irrefutable connection. (BTW, Dan has done excellent analysis connecting the dots, if you care to check it.)
It doesn't get said much here, but it is vitally important to keep in mind that one of the reasons that "they hate us" is because, as a rule, we really don't care about democracy promotion
Oh, I'll agree with you there JC! But one change-- we didn't care. Certainly Clinton couldn't have cared less.
I think we do care passionately now.

Thing about risk assesment, is that it is extremely conservative, and one must always cost out inaction vs action. I don't ever see the liberals playing the "what if" game, they are mostly interested in armchair quarterbacking the percieved strategy errors. I was never able to successfully decipher what Kerry's "plan" for Iraq was. A reasoned alternative strategy that addressed the cost/risk tradeoffs would still be very welcome.

a. Much more global support, both in people and resources
lol, JC, how can you say that with a straight face? Please google Oil for Food. :)

Unless this dialogue is all one way, in which we must beg for understanding with hat in hand, I would like to be reassured about a few things from the other side.

Say it isn't so:

1. The left is so obsessed with their domestic vendettas that they are incapable of any serious thought about the WoT.
2. They will remain incapacitated so long as George Bush - or any other Republican - is President of the United States. In the meantime, we might as well address our arguments to the nearest brick wall.
3. Under their influence, the Democratic Party has not had a principled foreign policy since the failed Carter administration, and no interest in developing one. (They're not even isolationists, exactly - that would be too much like having a coherent position.)
4. Their contribution to debate since 9/11 has been nothing but displays of ill temper and bad faith: engaging in pacifist posturing, knee-jerk contrarianism, and kow-towing to every enemy of the US.
5. Not surprising, since - according to them - the entire debate is racist anyway.
6. The American left is only in this to rouse their own rabble. They are using the WoT as a pretext to agitate their own ranks in preparation for their next political debacle.
7. Their attitude towards Iraq, before and after Saddam, speaks volumes about the lack of principle and compassion in their current worldview. They have no ideas about the rest of the world to share with us. They have no interest in foreign peoples, except the ones who can be exploited to attack US and Israeli interests.

Addendum to #14 - Pascal Bruckner wrote this in the Spring 2003 issue of Dissent:

We can blame America for everything except our own apathy. Here is the paradox: the more we curse the United States, the more we depend on it. We are like a child who rebels against his parents so that he will never leave them. "Anti-imperialist" recriminations are specious insofar as they require the preservation of their target. They are mere rhetorical flourishes designed to conceal an actual renunciation. Our criticisms of American policies are often justified, but they would carry more weight if our continent, already undermined by its internal divisions, did not demonstrate tragic fecklessness. It is hard to tell what is most hateful in present-day anti-Americanism; the stupidity and bitterness it manifests or the willing servitude that it presupposes toward a superiority it denounces - in order not to change it.

Bruckner is writing about reflexive European anti-Americanism, but it applies well to the American left as well. They are only in the fight for the fighting, and the negative energies it allows them to tap into. They don't want to win a War on Terror, or even the debate about the War on Terror. All that interests them is winning domestic power - without assuming any of the responsibilities that would go with it.

Glen,

I have a serious subject I want to raise with you, but I want to raise it in a tongue-in-cheek manner.

Would that be fine with you?

I really, really, would like you to teach you a word, if I may. It's not a real word, you won't find it in the dictionary, but it's a really really useful word for you, that would help you to make the points that your clear intelligence is trying to make.

You with me so far? Great!

You ready for it?

The work is "sumbunall". Again, say it with me - "sumbunall".

You insert it into your phrase like so:

"Sombunall of the left is so obsessed with their domestic vendettas that they are incapable of any serious thought about the WoT"

What does it mean? "Some but not all".

See how easily this can be applied? Another example -

"Sombunall of them don't want to win a War on Terror, or even the debate about the War on Terror."

See, it's a little easier to have the one word, than the phrase.

And I've got to tell you - you need the word, or the phrase - one of the two.

There are distinctions which matter - Democratic senator Bob Graham, is not Bill Clinton, is not Jimmy Carter, is not Michael Moore, is not Noam Chomsky.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but your rubric "the left" seems to apply to all of the above - and that is simply silly. You've got too much intelligence and words to contribute to be portraying yourself as silly - unless of course you are trying out for Monty Python!

Now considering how much fun it is to engage in such vast generalizations, I understand. I do it mysel sometimes. But using the boogieman "the left" to scare people - well, it's simply silly.

Bullshit. You're dressing up your position in PC clothing. The 800-lb gorilla in this thread is:

a) Islam is a fundamentally-flawed religion. Not just Islamicism, or Islamists, or Islamofascists. Islam.

i. Which will remain politically and culturally irreconcilable with modernism and the West. (this is actually a relativist argument similar to Said, Kuhn, or Huntington's paradigmatic views)
ii. Which will inevitably lead to conflict in the future unless its course or our course is drastically averted (i.e. they become Kemalists or we become Dhimmis).

JC -

Far from entertaining vast generalizations, I actually insist on a distinction between liberals and leftists - a distinction which seems to be becoming outmoded, for reasons which are no fault of mine.

Also, inflamed rhetoric aside, when I say "Australians like to steal sheep" it should be obvious that I mean some of them, not all of them. It's tiresome to include all the obvious qualifiers. But I won't use your word "sumbanall", which is ugly and sounds like some kind of soporific pain-killer.

That said, I realize that I have been short-tempered in dealing with this Kevin Drum situation, so I have resorted to cat blogging to cool out.

SAO,

Not sure if the views you’re putting forward are your own or views which you attribute to the other commenters in this thread. No matter, my remarks work either way.

a) Islam is a fundamentally-flawed religion. Not just Islamicism, or Islamists, or Islamofascists. Islam.

[But isn’t this a fancy way of saying Islam is “fundamentally-flawed” – ed.] No, it’s demonstrably different. Read on.

It’s been observed that the canon text and authentic traditions of at least some other major religions can be seen as justifying all manner of atrocity. Arguments citing chapter and verse as to which faith follows the more toxic text are of no interest or real relevance here. The salient difference here is that with other faiths, (virtually) nobody attempts these justifications anymore, because the adherents of those faiths have honestly and openly confronted the problems posed by those texts and traditions.

When we speak of a desired “Reformation” in Islam, it is precisely this confrontation we would like to see, and not some Islamic theological evolution congruent to Protestantism. Instead, we hear this protest with each new atrocity: This is not the true Islam, Islam is a religion of peace, which at best don’t capture the heart of the matter, and at worst is dissimulation. Until Islamic culture openly and honestly confronts the problematic aspects of their faith, those who would exploit those problematic aspects will keep killing.

So in a nutshell, no, Islam is not flawed, but the Islamic cultures relationship with the problematic aspects of authentically Islamic tradition and canon is unhealthy for all concerned. Specifically, aggressive and murderous activity on the part of the Islamists will not be adequately confronted within Islamic society. When this confrontation occurs (and I believe there are signs it is occurring, and I believe it will take a while) an Islamic society will evolve past the false choice of Kemalism for them or Dhimmitude for us.

I’ve said all this before, and will say it again, but it brings up a novel corollary question for Joe’s framework: when has the United States ever successfully and fundamentally by force of arms catalyzed this kind of “reformation” within a religion whose political expression was at odds with us? I can think of two cases where the US has done precisely this.

lewy14: "When has the United States ever successfully and fundamentally by force of arms catalyzed this kind of “reformation” within a religion whose political expression was at odds with us? I can think of two cases where the US has done precisely this."

[Waving hand in air] I know, I know, pick me!

General MacArthur "reformed" the Cult of Bushido Emperor-Worship right out of existence. The multiculturalists will be beside themselves with rage if they ever find out about that.

The other instance I can think of was less pleasant: the destruction of the Sioux "Ghost Dance" religion, which Sitting Bull claimed was revealed to him by none other than Jesus Christ himself.

Glen's examples are exterminations, not reformations. Speaking of reformations, the Christian one began in 1517. It created so much turmoil that 130 years later we settled everything (sort of, just about) after a 30 years war. Some example.

Glenn Wishard:

To take your examples one step farther has anyone anywhere “catalyzed this kind of 'reformation' within a religion whose political expression was at odds with us” without credibly threatening the adherents of the religion with annihilation or actually annihilating them?

Take the example of Japan. Although arguments could be made about Hiroshima I think there's little doubt that the use of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki

• Exacted revenge against the Japanese for the attack on Pearl Harbor and the fierce Japanese resistance in the Pacific campaign during which so many Americans had been killed and
• Sent the message that America had the ability and the will to destroy the Japanese utterly.

The problem I've had since the beginning of the War on Terror is that I doubt our ability to secure the objective without making a credible threat of annihilation against our enemies. And the American people aren't there (yet). What's worse not only has the Administration done little to build the level of domestic support to prosecute the war effectively they've actually worked to undermine support.

And that's also why domestic opposition to the War on Terror—not just opposition to the Iraq War but opposition to the War on Terror itself—distresses me. Our lack of ability to speak with one voice and send an unambiguous message will, in my opinion, maximize the likelihood that we'll have to kill enormous numbers of people in order to send the message that we inevitably will have to send.

And to forestall angry retorts from either side please re-read what I've just written. I don't think you'll find anything that indicates that I'm trying to stifle dissent or that I either recommend or relish what I believe to be inevitable.

I see that Richard Heddleson has made a point closely related to my own. I have a quibble with you, Richard. Merriam-Webster defines “exterminate”: “to get rid of completely usually by killing off”. When last I checked the population of Japan was about 127 million people. Extermination obviously does not apply. “Threaten to exterminate” fits the bill more precisely and, referring to Japan again, it is clearly possible to threaten to exterminate without actually exterminating.

There is absolutely no chance whatever that we will countenance mass terror attacks on our soil particularly with nuclear weapons. Dismiss that completely from your mind. Given that incontrovertible reality how will we dissuade the forces that threatening us without threatening them and their entire culture with annihilation? Or, failing that, make a credible threat without actually having to follow through with it?

Israel - which is surrounded by states that support, tolerate or badly attempt to stop terrorism - continues to exist, albeit precariously.

Why does this remind me of the guy falling off a building, calling in the window as he passes each floor, "Doing OK so far!"?

Josh Marshall weighs in.

His points are similar to what has been talked about here, and bear repeating. Read, then come back. A number of people on this site conflate the following:

1. Distinction between existential threat and physical threat.
2. Distinction between democrats opposed to any use of military force, versus those who supported use of force in the Balkans, and use of force in Afghanistan, but deeply opposed the use of force in Iraq.
3. The basic distinction BETWEEN Islamic threat, terrorism in general, and Iraq.

Okay, JC, I've read Josh Marshall's essay and I think it's a good one. But I think that I disagree with him about what constitutes an existential threat. Consider what would happen if 1 million people in New York or Los Angeles or Washington, DC died as the result of a single terrorist attack. 350 times the size of 9/11. 350 times the legal, political, social, and economic ramifications. Would the people in Fargo, ND still be alive? Sure. But our country and way of life would be as different as ours is from pre-Civil War America. To me that's an existential threat.

lewy, you ought to read this. It might change your mind about a few things, notably, the Islamic grounding for terrorism.

Dave Schuler, bingo.

That a Bin Laden "could not by force take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in the trial of a thousand years" is irrelevant. This is not what we mean by existential threat. To believe that Bin Laden could in fact cause “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” to perish from the earth is not unreasonable or paranoid. A sustained WMD attack could so damage the institutions of democracy in this country that we never truly recover.

Praktike, my mind is not the one that has to be changed. I'll read this when I get home, but I'm not the one who needs to read it. I'm not saying that justifications of terrorism based authentically in islam are irrefutable, I'm saying they are refutable (or at least I'm hoping they are), and that the failure of Islamic society as a whole to do so is evident.

Glenn Wishard,

Yes, the emperor worship aspect of Shinto is one of the examples I had in mind. Note that Shinto is not dead, nor is Bushido, these still exist. However, the Emperor is no longer a god, but a man.

The sad and bizarre story of Yukio Mishima is evidence of how profound this was for some people. Talk about "ghost dance"...

The other example which I was thinking of is perhaps more instructive and I know less about it; I need to do some research. Email if your interested.

On Josh Marshall's essay, I think I made this exact same point in the previous thread: "Admittedly, the lack of Islamist power, in this sense, will be cold comfort for many of us if al Qaida brings us cargo ship with a nuclear weapon into New York harbor tomorrow."

So that's all good, but like Drum, Marshall rummages around in history looking for stuff to compare the WoT to. This is like a Method Acting approach to foreign policy (What's my motivation? Imagine it's WWII ...).

Also, Marshall talks about purging or rooting out liberals who question the WoT, which is silly scare talk. I'll bet a lot of people stopped reading at that point.

praktike, from the monograph you linked:

The monograph encourages moderate Muslims to mount a major ideological campaign to counter those who have hijacked Islam with their destructive interpretation of Islamic scripture. Comprehending this endeavor will be vital to any strategy that seeks to dissuade young Muslims from the nihilism of Islamic militancy.

Nobody objects to giving this idea a jolly good go, and I'm sure moderate Muslims will get cracking on it first thing in the morning.

In the meantime, though, it proves nothing to quote this or that hadith or fatwa. In militant Islam, the guys with the guns wear the pants, and they don't have to listen to court injunctions from some "liberal" Imam at al-Azhar University, who will be lucky not to get killed for opening his mouth.

If Osama and the rest of that crew are bad Muslims, then it's apparently up to Allah to punish them, because the rest of the Muslim world is obviously not leading the fight to wipe out the heretics. Instead, when we fight them, we get accused of attacking the entire Islamic religion. If they do not represent the Islamic religion - if they are in fact the very antithesis of good Islam - then how can that be?

Riddle me this, Glen: when was the last time an Imam al-Azhar University was killed by militant Islamists for opening his mouth?

Meanwhile, on the topic of Muslims reassessing and reinterpreting their faith, lookie here ...

(This is an edited version of a couple of earlier posts: my post on No Oil For Pacifists and my comment on the prior thread.)

I like Kevin's framework, but not his trend. This comment addresses only his third point. Kevin calls it expansionism, but I'd rephrase it as follows: Has something changed to make conflict between "the West" and Islam either inevitable or desirable?

• The word of God: Start with what the terrorists themselves say, i.e., with the Koran:
  1. 2.193 "And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors."
  2. 8:39 exhorts the faithful to "fight them [unbelievers] until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah."
  3. 9.5 "slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush."
  Why shouldn't we take Islam at its word?--and prepare accordingly.
• History: The West didn't "do" anything to warrant Islamic terror. Muslims still nursing a grudge about the "Reconquista," ejecting Islam from Spain in 1492, forget that the Moors invaded and conquered Spain in 711. Complaints about medieval crusades ignore that Muslims themselves seized the Holy Land by force (late 7th Century), destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, blocking Christian pilgrims (1009), and controlled most of the Mid-East until the late 19th Century.

To understand the connection between Islam and violence, one must understand certain facets of the Muslim worldview. One of the most important is the fact that, according to the historic Muslim understanding, there is no separation between religion and government—what in Christianity would be called the separation of church and state. We are not speaking here of the secularist idea that the state should marginalize religion and discourage people from voting their consciences as Christians. We are talking about the idea that church and state are not the same thing and that they have different spheres of activity. [This] means that Islam is not only a religion. It is also a political ideology. If the government of the Muslim community simply is God's government, then no other governments can be legitimate. They are all at war with God. As a result, Muslims have typically divided the world into two spheres, known as the Dar al-Islam--the "house of Islam" or "house of submission" to God--and the Dar al-Harb, or "house of war"--those who are at war with God.

Islam spread in North Africa with remarkable speed, and by the year 732 C.E., which marked the first centennial of Muhammed's death, his followers were the masters of an empire greater than that of Rome at its Zenith, an empire extending from the Bay of Biscay to the Indus and the confines of China and from the Aral Sea to the lower contracts of the Nile.

In sum, we don't have to decide whether radical Islam is expansionist. Radical Islam already said so. And opposition, without action, won't stop 'um.

praktike,

On one side of the discussion sit mostly secular intellectuals horrified by the gore joined by those ordinary Muslims dismayed by the ever more bloody image of Islam around the world. They are determined to find a way to wrestle the faith back from extremists. Basically the liberals seek to dilute what they criticize as the clerical monopoly on disseminating interpretations of the sacred texts.

Arrayed against them are powerful religious institutions like Al Azhar University, prominent clerics and a whole different class of scholars who argue that Islam is under assault by the West. Fighting back with any means possible is the sole defense available to a weaker victim, they say. [emphasis mine]

The authors have found that proper use of Islamic scripture actually discredits the tactics of al-Qaeda and other jihadist organizations. This monograph provides a basis for encouraging our Muslim allies to challenge the theology supported by Islamic militants.

In the end I think the question as to whether Bin Laden is “theologically correct” or not is likely to be more complex that you or I or Bin Laden or the authors of the War College monograph would like. I don’t see how it matters – radical Islamist theology/ideology (same thing, to them) represents an existential threat. It’s important to study not for what is “objectively true” about Islamic theology, but for what the terrorists believe to be true. Further, the fact that detailed theological refutations of terrorism from authentic and influential scholars and clerics in the Islamic world are all but non-existent is a significant element of this threat as it demonstrates the depth of societal change required. The timescale to change society is tau, the timescale for terrorists to acquire WMD is epsilon , and epsilon is much much smaller than tau.

To add to this statement above about "why" the Islamic world is in such conflict with us ... it's not about the Jews or Israel or anything else but the relative and absolute success of the West, particularly the leading nation of the West, America; and the relative and absolute decline of the Islamic World, Kemalist Turkey excepted.

As both Lewis and Albert Hourani (History of the Arab Peoples) make clear, for most people in the Arab world, contact with the West was limited, largely because the Arab world thought themselves the inheritor of the greatest civilization ever, with the West being inferior barbarians with nothing of interest to offer but slaves, fur, and timber. This was reasonably accurate in the 1100's ... and seriously out of date by the Renaissance, when the West started changing it's societies radically, a process still going on today.

A Cairene from 1000 AD magically brought forward in time would find the language, culture, religion, much of the laws, style if not title of the leader, customs of the people, etc. very familiar. Only the imported technology of the West would be strange. A Londoner from 1000 AD similiarly brought forward would have no understanding of the society or culture around him. The people would be far stranger than the technology.

Kemal Ataturk understood this very well when he saw the Sultan's forces destroyed at Megiddo by the combined forces of British Airplanes, infantry, motorized vehicles, and artillery. He and he alone of his Muslim compatriots understood the need for his entire society to change; to make a fundamental accomadation with modernity; including the role of women, technical education, and a belief in material progress. He understood why previous efforts to just import "a bit" of the infidel, such as government set-up factories, or military training had failed. The Brits won because their societies were able to support a modern, mechanized army, and the Sultan's society was not.

It's a remarkable achievement, and one no other Muslim leader has ever been able to make (not Nasser, nor Saddam, nor Kings Hussein or Abdullah, nor certainly bin Laden). Moving out of the box that orthodoxy imposed "Our society is superior to the lowly infidel. He merely has technology which we can copy."

Muslims hate us (Americans) because the presence of Coca-Cola, Toyota (all infidels are the same), America Movies and TV, Pop Music, Blue Jeans, etc. are a direct affront to the word and world of God. US support of Israel might make things marginally worse, but the real issue is the failure of Muslim societies in nearly every way in obvious comparison with the West, which because of trade and modern communications has a much larger presence in the Middle East and constantly reminds Muslims of their failure. Thus, their "rage" of which they speak constantly.

The Islamic world has largely failed, failed to provide it's people with decent lives, and failed to provide success relative to the West (which is the signal driver of "Muslim Rage"). In this way, bin Laden doesn't look too dissimiliar to the various sorts of Freikorp maniacs running around Weimar Germany, feeding off of Nationalist discontent.

I wanted to post this separately from my thoughts on the relative failure of the Islamic world sans-Kemalists to address modernity.

Is the threat real? Or merely an overblown "one off" as some on the Left, such as Michael Moore, or the Guardian, or the usual folks at Kos/Atrios/etc say?

One way of judging the threat is to look at how it's accelerated. The first terror actions were hijackings of airplanes, usually played out in front of the media to generate publicity and gain concessions (usually prisoner releases) in the late 1960's. Media driven hostage taking. Then we saw much more violent actions, including airport massacres and the Maalot school terror where Palestinian gunmen cold-bloodly executed children and teachers. Following that we had Embassy takeovers (with threats of death), and various bombing campaigns which increased in lethality.

Culminating in 9/11 which remains the single most devastating terrorist attack in history.

What is notable are two things: a. Terrorists used increasing imagination, creativity, and lethality to kill more and more people in un-anticipated ways; and b. the degree to which thriller novelists and pulp writers have anticipated their tactics. Eric Ambler had a thriller about terror attacks using missles long before they became reality from Gaza or Lebanon. Tom Clancy and comic book writer Frank Miller had terrorists flying planes into buildings before 9/11. Heck Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a short story shortly after the Titanic disaster in 1912 predicting German submarine warfare using torpedoes to achieve victory over the Royal Navy. He was not as you'd imagine a popular man when this became reality in WWI. The Kroll Group, other Security Think-Tanks have predicted massive terror attacks in the US for years before 9/11. All of this was discounted before 9/11; and it seems to have stuck around to some degree ... the willful denial of the threat to make it go away.

Al Queda and groups like it are NOT capable of sustained, continued suicide bombing campaigns such as Israel has experienced, people blowing themselves up on buses or at Pizza places.

There doesn't seem to be any reason why they would not be able to plan and carry out a nuclear attack on a major American city. I write this understand with dread. AQ Khan (with Pakistan's ISI's approval) sold bomb plans like hotcakes; Libya was well on it's way to nuclear weapons till Khadaffi decided to come clean and strike a bargain. Iran will surely have several nukes soon and NK probably already has them. Customs officials can always be bribed, particularly in ports abroad (that's how a lot of things/people get smuggled into this country). Right now we completely depend on the goodwill and/or caution of North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and likely soon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia for the continued survival of our cities.

Deterrence in this case won't work; since the bomb will likely have no discernable return address and the users will likely sincerely think that US society will collapse (unlike the Soviets who measured American military strength, Islamic terrorists discount nuclear ballistic missle submarines and ICBMS, etc).

"he fact that detailed theological refutations of terrorism from authentic and influential scholars and clerics in the Islamic world are all but non-existent"

Well that's the question, isn't it?

The bottom line is that neither you nor I can tell just how prevalent they are.

praktike: ...neither you nor I can tell just how prevalent they are.

Our intelligence grows greater every day. And we know a lot already - we know what kind of stuff is being printed in the Egyptian and Saudi media, we know what al-Jazeera is broadcasting every day, and we know what is being preached in the mosques. This is what the ordinary Muslim in the Middle East read and hears.

Let's assume that a lot of moderate opinion is being overlooked. As I said in the Juan Cole discussion: if that's the case, then somebody needs to get off their butt and show it to us. If you think MEMRI is not doing a good job, start some more media projects and studies. Honest efforts of that kind will be as welcome as can be.

But all of it has to be put into this obvious context: Al-Qaeda obviously pays no heed to liberal Muslim opinion, and neither does Zarquawi. And no one seems to have the moral authority to make them listen, or to rally the Muslim world against them.

Getting back to Kevin Drum: I actually have had very high hopes for reaching out to those on the left (sumbanall!) and trying to transcend our tired left-right dichotomies for the greater good. Recent experience has been disappointing - the tolerance for outright nonsense is disappointing, the petty political ankle-biting has been disappointing. And that makes me a little bitter at the moment.

But so far as I'm concerned the door is still open. The good of the country, of civilization in general, and of the Iraqi people - these things are more important than hitting each other with bricks, as much fun as that is. I hope it doesn't take another disaster to make us realize it.

"Al-Qaeda obviously pays no heed to liberal Muslim opinion, and neither does Zarquawi"

Er, that's not the point ... the point is not to convince hardcore terrorists but to people who might become terrorists. Or are you suggesting we just give up and kill a billion people?

Dave Schuler, Lewy,

The nuclear threat. Do you REALLY believe that this administration has done all it could regarding "nuclear suitcases", and the like? That's just false.

This administration HASN'T treated this threat seriously, that's what is so frustrating. This is what got Senator Bob Graham so riled up, part of the reason that both Richard Clarke and Rand Beers got so disgusted with the ACTUAL way we went about dealing with the threat.

Aging Russian nukes and sites? Unemployed russian nuclear scientists? Necessary US port security? Hello?

This has been discussed more than enough here. I'm sorry, you can't raise the boogieman of WMD, without noticing that this administration has not done what should have been done, by at least the beginning of 2003. (Say a year and three months to start the necessary security measures.)

"Or are you suggesting we just give up and kill a billion people?"

I'm not grokking you here, praktike. On the one hand you suggest that there is a great fund of moderate Islam, and on the other you suggest that radical Islam is so compelling that we would have to kill every Muslim on earth to stop it.

We only have to worry about the Muslims who take up arms against us, or who recruit for and fund terrorist groups. This will always be a relatively small number. But we can't police the Islamic religion to ensure that no such people are created in the future.

What we can do is reject the notion that if such people are created it's our fault, and that therefore we deserve whatever we get from them. We can make it clear that we will not be physically or morally intimidated in defending ourselves, no matter what kind of fuss is raised by the sympathizers and apologists of terror.

The nuclear threat. Do you REALLY believe that this administration has done all it could regarding "nuclear suitcases", and the like?

I can't speak for lewy14 but I don't see what you've seen in anything I've written (here or anywhere else) that might make you think that I'm defending the Bush Administration in this regard or that I'm a cheerleader for them.

Also, you may not have noticed, but Bob Graham was thoroughly rejected by Democratic primary voters. He couldn't get any traction at all.

And, once again not speaking for lewy14, but I see no way—repeat—no way that any degree of target hardening short of closing our borders to all trade and immigration (which I'm not advocating and which we're not going to do) that could be made effective enough.

No, as I see it our only workable alternative is a forward strategy.

Whoops, sorry Dave. I'll track this back later, when I have a moment.

Dave, right on. JC, what I REALLY believe about the seriousness of the WMD threat has little to dow with the ACTUAL nature of the threat. Different discussion. I don't believe all your criticism is fair (some might be) but you know what, skip it, it's off topic.

Well, I stand corrected. After reReading The Fine Post, I notice that "c)the current strategy is reasonable" is part of Joe's framework. So let me ammend my comment above to state that while the current strategy may be necessary, it may not be sufficient, and other (defensive) steps may be called for. That said, pure defense will never be sufficient on it's own.

"On the one hand you suggest that there is a great fund of moderate Islam, and on the other you suggest that radical Islam is so compelling that we would have to kill every Muslim on earth to stop it."

Let me clarify: the radical Islamists are wrong about what their religion requires, and people who think that Islam sanctifies their actions are aiding and abetting the bad guys. I don't know how many moderates vs. radicals there are within the Islamic world, and neither do you. You can't say based on the evidence you have that there isn't a lot of discussion going on in the Arab and Muslim world about terrorism; however, I think there is more than you think there is. Finally, we ought to think about ways to enable those coversations to take place rather than throwing up our hands and saying that Al Jazeera is the mouthpiece of terrorism or whatever.

Let me clarify: the radical Islamists are wrong about what their religion requires, and people who think that Islam sanctifies their actions are aiding and abetting the bad guys.

So let me get this straight praktike: assuming you conclude that "a) the Islamist danger is serious and a threat", you would maintain that we can't talk about how terrorism is grounded within genuinely Islamic traditions, because that would be collaboration, and we can't critique the dialog within Islamic society about terrorism as being inadequate, because we don't know enough.

I'm pretty sure we disagree here, I'm just trying to nail down what it is we disagree about. Because I feel like you just called me a collaborator, and I'm really trying hard to stay on topic here.

praktike,
the gross percentage of moderates vs fundamentalists is sort of immaterial-- what matters is who has the control. There are many historical precedents of minorities controlling majorities in history. You cite al Jazeerha-- but do you know the nature of the true media in Islam? It is the holy Qu'ran. Remeber, traditionally, the Qu'ran was the only media.
Now, eventually Islam will succumb to the osmotic pressure of western civilization, but can we wait that long?

praktike:

What do you want me to say?

Hooray for modern Muslims, three cheers for the Islamic Reformation, and up with Arab pluralist republics!

But our policy can't wait for all of this to happen.

"we can't talk about how terrorism is grounded within genuinely Islamic traditions, because that would be collaboration, and we can't critique the dialog within Islamic society about terrorism as being inadequate, because we don't know enough."

You can talk about whatever you want. I'm saying that suicide bombing, cutting people's heads off, and killing innocents aren't Islamic. Are you saying that they are?

You can talk about whatever you want. I'm saying that suicide bombing, cutting people's heads off, and killing innocents aren't Islamic. Are you saying that they are?.

No.

I'm saying that there are problematic aspects of Islamic canon and tradition (and that this condition is not unique to Islam), that these problematic aspects are nonetheless authentic, and that the actions of the terrorists find grounding in those problematic aspects.

I'm saying that the problematic aspects of other faiths have been overcome (mostly) by a process of reform within those faiths, and that the process of reform within Islam has been demonstratively inadequate to date.

I'm saying this all must be squarely addressed in any discussion of the Islamist danger being a serious threat.

I agree completely with Glenn and jinnderella .

lewy14's argument is utterly off-track. The issue is not whether terrorists are good or bad Muslims. It's irrelevent whether terrorists are mistaken about the requirement of the Islamic cannon: their victims remain murdered. Moreover, whether or not Islam eventually experiences an enlightnment sometime in the future also makes no difference: the President has to defend America today.

The West's appropriate security/defense policy can't turn on whether any particular terrorist has a direct pipe-line to Allah, or whether there there will be a Martin al-Luther in the 22nd century. This fourm's focused on quantifying the threat today. Let's stay on topic.

Off track? Moi? Er, NO4P, FWIW, I'd previously observed that ε << τ. But whatever.

I believe that understanding the relationship between jihad ideology and Islam, and Islam and Islamic society, is essential in formulating a strategy in the wider war. I expect I'd get more agreement on that general sentiment than I'd get for my particular position.

Okay, we can agree on that, lewy14. I suppose it all depends on how one defines grounding. I do want to stress, though, that I think that terrorism (and latent support thereof) is driven by expediency far more than it is by any kind of theology. (The Viet Cong, for instance, used a lot of the same techniques that we're seeing in Iraq because, unfortunately, they do the trick.) There's a lot of support for "fighting the infidel invaders" in Islam, but the traditional guidance on tactics seems to run strongly against the kinds of tactics (beheadings, suicide bombings, hostage-taking) we're seeing today. So I think that there's a rationalization process that happens, which suggests that it's about politics and "what works" more than it is about religion per se.

Mais non, Lewy is never off track! :)
I think, expecting a lutheran or calvinist style reformation is not very reasonable within Islam. If you model Isalm as a culturally stable strategy (CSS), the organic unity of the liturgy is pretty well armored. An easier strategy to invade might be "women as a slave class". Free the slaves, and you've dealt the slave-holder society a killing blow.

praktike, all great religious tomes have flexible interpretation. So while you and lewy are both sort of right, a truer statement is that beheading, suicide bombing, etc are guy behaviors. Didn't the Tamil tigers pioneer suicide bombing? Are they muslim?

Yes, lewy14, I do agree with your formula , particularly your choice of epsilon, as it connotes a small number.

However, your definition of tau is too narrow. WMDs are part, but only part, of the danger. (And the term has become almost too controversial to define.) Both the bombings at U.S. embassies in Africa and the July 4th shooting at LAX were terrorism.

Tau should include any terrorist murder of American civilians or diplomats.

praktike, I could say more but I'll refrain for now. Somehow I think the topic will come up again. In the meantime, you might be interested in this comment I left with the Father of Aardvarks. Oh, and I sent the War College monograph to Robert Spencer. Perhaps he'll do a post on it.

jinnderella (Hi jinn!) I do like the idea of "liberating the slave class" - but I don't see that as necessarily a man vs woman thing. Men collectively are too lazy and too clueless to keep women enslaved in any society - women (or at least some women) are complicit in the disenfranchisement of their own gender. I think this is true in any society where women are disenfranchised, including our own society circa not too many years ago. Note, I am not "blaming the victim" here - what I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure there are both male and female perpetrators of the disenfrachisement of women, and further that generational divisions are likely at work.

NO4P, reading over my post I implicitly conflated WMD and "existential threat". On reflection - I still think it fits. I think the only chance that terrorists have to truly end this Republic (in essence if not in name) is with WMD. Not all terrorism represents an existential threat to the country. Despite the lack thereof in Iraq, the WMD threat remains real enough for my "reality based" friends on the left - so much so that I've had some success arguing with them that the "War on Terror" is a real war and must sometimes be fought with, like, you know, guns and stuff.

Bon matin, Le Roi Soleil,
I didn't mean to make this into a war between the sexes. Like John pointed out the other day, muslim women don't percieve themselves as slaves.
But from the external perspective, they fit the definition.
Look, historically tribal traditions are enforced to both both possess and guard the breeders. Women were a tribal resource.
In modern society the environment is less hostile, so women no longer need the strict control and protection. The reason I think that emancipation of women may work best to change Islam, is that we can leverage off existing strategies, since until fairly recently Western culture also supressed women's rights. The evolution of women's rights is still ongoing even in the West. I'm just looking for the best insertion point for a change vector.

Attacking the organic unity of Islam with reformation and dialogue is much harder, because supression of dissent is a fairly evolved strategy within Islam.

The reason I think that emancipation of women may work best to change Islam, is that we can leverage off existing strategies, since until fairly recently Western culture also supressed women's rights. The evolution of women's rights is still ongoing even in the West. Yes, I think it's important to recognize that we not become too self congratulatory, as the evolution of womens right here in the West still has a ways to go. But the fact that there really has been a sea change in our society is undenyable. What are the "existing strategies" that we can leverage?