This morning, I forgot it was Sunday and turned on my radio. It was tuned to a talk station, and the show on was one of those typical Sunday early morning shows — a priest, a minister, and a rabbi walk into a bar discuss matters theological and temporal, but from a religious perspective. As a good agnostic, I started to turn it off, but something one of them said triggered a thought.
She was discussing the elevation of a woman to the head of the Episcopal Church, and compared it to Islam. Islam, she pointed out, has no hierarchical structure. There is no Muslim Pope or Archbishop or other formal leader. In fact, there is very little formal organization in Islam, with no recognized authorities or councils.
It’s similar to the structure of terrorist groups, especially in Iraq. There is no single enemy, no leader, no overarching governing body to confront. And in a situation like the ongoing fighting in Iraq, it is a decided strength for them — it deprives us of a clearly-defined victory point, when that leader or leadership dies or surrenders. It also prevents a negotiated settlement, as there is no single individual or body who can make a peace and guarantee it will be kept.
It also has its weaknesses. It is a strategy aimed not at winning, but not losing. Its very strengths that let it prevail tend to leave it incapable of properly enjoying and implementing victory. Suppose the United States does pull out of Iraq — what next? Who will rush in and fill the power vacuum our departure would create? And how long would it survive?
Nearly the whole Middle East suffers from this attitude. Almost without exception, the countries are made up of thugocracies. Some veil it in religion, some in monarchy, some take on some of the trappings of democracy, but they are all variations on the same tune — the “strong man” school of government. Nowhere else in the world is Mao’s observation that “all political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” more true than in the Middle East.
The big question is HOW do we change that. How can we possibly change such an ingrained attitude and belief?
But before we consider that one, there is one even more important that must be addressed: SHOULD we try to change it?
I think we have no choice. For good or ill, the Middle East is essential to the world’s survival. It is the center of three major faiths, the crossroads of three continents, and holds the lion’s share of the lifeblood of modern civilization, readily-accessible oil. We simply can not afford to ignore that region.
But that leaves us the question of how. And so far, we’ve made great progress in that, in the sense of finding numerous ways that don’t work. (Thomas Edison, after inventing the light bulb, said he had not had 999 failures — he had discovered 999 ways to NOT make a light bulb.) We’ve tried accomodation, we’ve tried backing our own strongmen, we’ve tried quiet pressure. Right now we’re trying the select application of force in Iraq, and despite what others might say, it is still unclear if it will work or not.
But I have to give President Bush for trying, and trying something new.
How inspiring your last comments are Yo. And how typical. As I said earlier, you all treat this as a game. I not trying to score points. This is real and you are the ones who are invading our countries and threatening to invade more. You are the ones who should be doing what you call “homework.”
There’s chaos in Iraq now. Every month you’ve stayed has created more chaos. Every month more will create more. But it’s not just chaos we’re talking about. It’s real lives and real people who are dying because of you.
All we want is for Americans to stop interfering, stop bullying, stop bombing. Go home. But *you* already are home.
Great comment DaveD.
Dave — suggesting we could have pursued OBL as aggressively pre 9/11 as we could (should) have pursued him post-9/11 is disingenuous. Post-9/11 the White House had a mandate and the full support of the nation and the free world to take OBL down. That mandate didn’t exist pre-9/11.
Bush proceeded to piss away the opportunity to bring OBL to justice, and to send a message to terrorists everywhere, choosing instead to further the conservative right-wing agenda by dragging things out through the ’04 and ’06 elections..
Justice would have to wait. Political gain and the re-election of corrupt Congressmen was of far more importance to Republicans. The Republican use if imagery of OBL and al-Zawahiri in the recent election campaign ads shows precisely how important a free OBL was to the Republican election efforts. T hey were counting on OBL to continue to terrorize Americans into supporting Republicans in power.
American voters being terrorized by the US political party in power. It’s a shameful chapter in American history.
Cat,
feel free to cry me a river.
As for the interference, how ’bout you guys stay out of Israel’s hair, for a bit?
How ’bout ya’ stop playing with the price of oil when it suits your needs?
How ’bout abiding by international law and accords?
How ’bout playing fair?
How ’bout some human rights, for everyone?
How a-bout, the cessation of anti-American/Western teachings in your schools, or why not over-thrown these repressive governments which aren’t doing anyone any favors?
How ’bout working against terrorists rather than turning a blind eye?
You’ve inferred that we reap what we sow, but so do you. Don’t come around playing the victim card when we’ve buried 3,000+ of our own because some nutjob perverters of islam want to control the world and use America as an excuse for all of the world’s ills, and some of you (not all, but some) are either too stupid or too lazy to see them for what they are?
how ’bout some of that?
Everything I’ve heard and read coming from the left is “cut and run”. And we know full well what it means, which is, leave a power vacuum and let the chips fall where they may.
That is fully understood and there is no spin from that.
The question remains then, “how do Democrat’s interpret their gains?”
Will factions within the Democratic Party force their hand and decide “cut is run” is what this election was really about? We are getting our first little taste of what’s coming with the Carville-Kos thing. More to come, bets are on.
It was the ignorant that were fed the lie that “stay the course” meant staying the course of losing.
Maybe you should tell the Generals they are free to change tactics to counter terrorist’s tactics now that you have power. But opps….they already had that free hand.
If the left wants us out, and that is the plan, it needs to happen NOW. Not one soldier should be sitting there with Democrats knowing they are pulling the plug.
If they care about the troops like they claim, then that’s the right thing to do. Shit or get off the pot.
Lee, I’m going to ask your patience with me here. I am not going to use this post to defend Bush and his policies in general. But the one thing I ask you to consider is the concept which has arisen because of the Bush administration is that of pre-emption. 9/11 was the culmination of a series of terrorist activities against the United States of increasing severity. I am not sure how severe a terrorist event has to be before someone (Clinton or Bush) decides he has the “mandate” to eliminate a publically espoused enemy of the United States. For me, the first WTC bombing would have been a good one, but, whatever. Perhaps the events as they have now transpired will certainly turn people away from the policy of “pre-emption”. But many folks seem to look at terrorist activity as the so-called “law enforcement” problem. Well, law enforcement many times leaves a few dead bodies lying around locally before the “crime” is solved. I am probably not articulating this very well, but if the US is threatened, the elected executive as Commander-in-Chief always has the mandate to protect the security of American citizens. I believe it has nothing to do with a predetermined threshold of property damage or loss of life. Bush’s interpretation to the dismay of many including the Realpolitik folks was “pre-emption” and in the minds of many it was poorly executed. Also, I do not think that the capture/murder of OBL was as easy after 9/11 as before as many folks want to believe. Perhaps I am being naive, but I doubt that Bush has any specific executive order out there stating that OBL should remain free. I will accept that the recent Kelo decision allowing the local government to seize private property for other private development which will enhance tax revenue is kind of an act of terrorism insulting to our type of government.
That would be refreshing, but I believe that the only thing the Generals will be asked is how fast can we leave Iraq. Given their 08 aspirations and their own words, Democrats can only cut and run. Once that becomes obvious to the Iraqis they must decide to swim or sink. We can only hope they are able to swim.
Well your entire plan depends on doing something different in Iraq besides cut and running and on improving conditions in the middle east. If the Muslims were playing it smart, they would bide their time, but that doesn’t seem likely. If the Democrats force a retreat in Iraq and there’s an attack on the U.S. then reality will snap the electorate back to the right.
Cat: Your insults to our intelligence is tiresome. While you’re busy telling us we don’t know anything about other cultures or people, your ignorance of the one you claim to be such an expert on, Americans, is astounding. Speaking in generic terms about the ignorance of others and repeating in paragraph after paragraph the same thing – Americans are stupid. Mind your own business. – is just so mind-boggingly ridiculous I cannot begin to describe it.
It’s easy to hide behind a cloud of mystery to shield yourself from reprisal and shout insults. In fact, it’s much the same manner that terrorists use hiding in the shadow of a civilian while he lobs grenades into the crowd. How’s THAT for a simile?
I have not traveled far and wide myself because I never had the means or ability, but I am well read and if traveleing and living elsewhere were the only criteria for formulating an opinion then most of the world would have to sit down and shut up so you could lord it over everyone without ever having to prove your own credentials.
I’m tired of you, cat. I won’t spend another minute boxing shadows with you.
The Jewish man comes to see the rabbi. He is really frantic, he wails, “Rabbi! Rabbi! I don’t know what my son is going to become. He doesn’t seem to be interested in anything!”
The rabbi listens to the man’s tale of woe. Finally, he says, “When you go home tonight, put a Torah, a hundred dollar bill, and a bottle of whiskey on the table. Observe what your son does. If your son picks up the Torah, he will become a noted rabbi. If your son picks up the hundred dollar bill, he will become a successful financier. If he picks up the bottle of whiskey, your son will become a drunken bum.”
The Jewish man is very happy, because he now has a way to determine what his son will do with his life.
However, a week later, he returns to see the rabbi again. This time, he is even more frantic than before. He wails, “Rabbi! Rabbi! I don’t know what I am going to do, I still don’t know what my son will become. He came home. He picked up the Torah, he picked up the hundred dollar bill, and he picked up the bottle of whiskey. What does that mean?”
The rabbi gets a very sad look and his face, and sadly tells the Jewish man, “I am deeply sorry, but your son will become a television evangelist.”
This whole comment thread is a fine example of why you don’t feed the trolls. What people like cat in particular are trying to do is not to engage you in a reasoned debate, but to tie you up in accusation and insinuation charge and counter-charge, to prevent the debate Jay was trying to start, which is “what now”?
Given that we have tried many things, and they have failed, what do we do if our current policies fail? I don’t happen to think that they have failed yet, though they are on the verge of doing so, not through any inherent fault (in fact, they seem to be doing almost exactly what they were intended to do), but because they have not been well explained, and are not well understood. The people want a conventional up or down war, despite what the President was saying after 9/11, that this wouldn’t be a war like we’re used to fighting, but long and largely silent even in victory.
Like it or not, the vast majority of people need bumper-sticker explanations of the vast majority of topics that they do not have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. We already know that ignoring the problem won’t solve it: 9/11 taught us that, because it was our strategy up until that point. So what now?
I suspect that the answer is that the next group of people who get a serious try, after a few years of dithering and another big attack on the scale of 9/11 or greater, will be the “nuke ’em all” crowd. And because Iran will by then be a nuclear power (unless Israel destroys Iran first), and because we will have by then presumably discarded our current strategy, they will have a very good case. The chance for democratization to work is now or never. The chance for total occupation and subjugation to work is now to the point that Iran gets a nuclear weapon. After that the only options are nuke ’em all or surrender, because history and culture tells us that the odds of the enemy just giving up are about zero.
Maybe I missed a play on words but dont you mean Hercules?
Call me a purist or a snob, rm, but I prefer to use the Greek names over the Roman ones — who basically plagiarized the entire Greek mythology. “Heracles” was the original Greek name for Hercules.
J.
cat:
Show me where you 70% comes from.
I’ve seen numerous polls of the Iraqi people that say that the invasion was worth it, they support the new government, and while they want the Armeicans to leave — eventually — they don’t want it immediately.
You make an interesting observation but we msut remeber that although most beleive Islam is more of a political power in the modern Middle east than it is a religion, it is a weapon that many leaders use in the Middle East to control the people, this takes away from the true religious aspect of the religion.
Raymond B
http://www.voteswagon.com
Just FYI, if any Americans are wondering why people from other countries tend to think you are stupid, there are two simple reasons:
* Those people are ignorant, and simply find Americans a convenient target for hate.
* The media, especially YOUR media, as well as Hollywood, portray Americans as being stupid.
Here’s a little story: my father was watching a documentary about World War 2 on TV. And out of nowhere he said to me, “those Americans are so stupid”. I didn’t say anything, I just thought, “if they’re so stupid, how come their side won?”
If you ask me, success is an indicator of true intelligence, and since the USA as a country is quite successful, and its citizens tend to be successful too, they must be doing SOMETHING right. To call such people stupid is simply an insult to your own intelligence, IMO.
Kevino,
You have some good points there. I would counter by saying the reason I believe we will win is that I have unqualified faith in our ability to persevere in the long run over enemies who have nothing to offer their people but a rigid and extremist ideology that seeks to deny basic human desires and motivations. If their ideology is so great then why do many of their people want to escape it and come to America to live?
What the people in the Muslim world are going to choose if we continue to persist in supporting democracy is groups like Hamas, Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shiite fundamentalist parties who have taken control of the government in Iraq. The very last thing we want is to facilitate the takeover of Islamic countries by radical Islam under the guise of democracy.
Don’t be fooled by what’s happened in Iraq. Elections don’t equal democracy. Plenty of countries have elections and have no democracy (Cuba, Russia, etc.). A properly functioning democracy is based on a whole set of institutions such as an independent judiciary, a free media (e.g. Wizbang, Kos, CNN), checks and balances between competing groups, special interest groups that exist outside of government (e.g. labor unions, business organizations), a strong constitution and legal framework, and protection of minority rights. None of these exist in Iraq.
I don’t claim to have the answer of how to defeat radical Islam. I do believe that occupying Muslim lands is a colossal mistake that only works to the benefit of our enemies.
I do think it might be instructive to look at the example of how the threat of world-wide communism was finally defeated during the Reagan Administration. His approach was to strengthen the homeland (both economically and militarily) while explaining the inherently evil nature of the Communist system. In the end, Communism collapsed of its own weight without Reagan having fired a single shot (excluding Grenada).
Me thinks old “cat”(shit) is a moose-lum–you know the people that treat their women like cattle and just use them as breeding stock. You know the people are the ROP. You know the people that still live in the dark ages. You know the people that still have one foot in the jungle. Now I could be wrong but you know that I was not wrong on old “pucker puss (lee lee) as being one that had shit for brains.
Larkin:
RE: “I would counter by saying the reason I believe we will win …”
You are countering logic and history with optimism.
RE: “Unqualified faith in our ability to persevere in the long run over enemies who have nothing to offer their people but a rigid and extremist ideology that seeks to deny basic human desires and motivations.”
We are not persevering at all: we are running. Consider something very simple: the cartoon wars. You would think that Western countries would defend the fundamental concept of free speech. They didn’t. I remember an interview with the chief editor of the Chicago Times. He wouldn’t print the cartoons. When asked why, he tap danced, but anyone who saw it could see the fear in his eyes: he didn’t want extremists showing up at his house. The Cartoon Wars are over: we lost.
You also are approaching the “rigid and extremist ideology” from a parochial, West point-of-view. They do have something to offer: salvation. Within their religion, these extremist are offering an alternative to the decay of the West. Consider the words of radical Muslims in western countries. They experience all of the good things that the West has to offer, and many of them reject it – totally. (Google search the words of those in Canada and England who reject Western ideas.)
RE: “If their ideology is so great then why do many of their people want to escape it and come to America to live?”
(See above.) Additionally, many are coming to the West not to escape but to expand Islam. That is part of their global strategy (esp. Muslim Brotherhood).
RE: Support for democracy.
You act as though people will be free to choose. They will not.
I remember the pro-democracy demonstrations in Lebanon, back in the days when the Middle East started too have hope and to move toward positive change. I remember people telling the journalists: “Tell America not to forget us.” That hope is gone. US diplomatic support for democracy is no match for Hezbollah’s guns.
RE: Iraqi (and Afghan) elections
The elections were an important step because they were open: people could choose. And if people didn’t want democracy or couldn’t see past the US troops standing behind the process, they would have simply stayed home. Many Sunnis did – the first time. Even they joined in.
I really don’t care if it is democracy in the Western sense. It is a positive step, and any system that ackownledges the rights of people will be better than the alternative. Surely you believe that the system is better than what Saddam offered or what Hezbollah is offering.
When people are being oppressed or murdered on the massive scale, we just let it happen? We just let the status quo continue, no matter how many people are killed or enslaved? We just let it go on and on? And in the chaos – in the climate of hate – where people don’t see a future for themselves or their children, then become suicide bombers or worse. Oh, I get it, in the words of Senator Kerry we “go straight to the UN”.
RE: The defeat of communism
Communism did not collapse on its own. As has been stated here many times, it was defeated three ways: (1) containment, (2) confrontation, and (3) presenting a positive alternative. Radical Islamic fundamentalism is a philosophy that does not have a leader or a country. It cannot be “contained” in the classic sense because a Western belief that religion should be allowed the freedom to express itself allows it to infiltrate all countries. Confrontation is also difficult for the same reason, but it is possible to confront the violent nature of radical Islam be insisting on universal justice or international law (e.g. laws against supporting terrorism, piracy, and genocide). The other method is provoke radical elements to fight us in the Middle East. But the best is to provide a positive alternative. The neocon agenda was to make Iraq a bit like the West Germany of the Cold War. What brought communism down was the fact that people living in communist countries could look at Western countries and say, “We want that”. Radical Islamic leaders can reject western democracies, but a successful Iraq was putting the seeds of an idea in people’s heads, “Why can’t we do that? Why can’t we have that?” We had despots in Lybia, Syria, and Iran afraid of us, and we had reforms taking place in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. All of those reforms are stalled, now.
I think that both parties may be misjudging why people are turning against the war. It’s not that they object to bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East. It’s that more Americans are starting to realize that Islam itself is incompatible with those ideas. After 9/11, a large majority of Americans were willing to accept the idea that it was the fanatic Muslims of Al Qaeda and the Taliban that was the problem. Which is why we didn’t see any real backlash against American Muslims.
But the MSM’s constant efforts to undermine the war effort so that they can hurt the President and the GOP is also encouraging more Americans to accept that Islam is the problem, not terrorism or oil. Every day the MSM shows the futility of helping the Muslims. Obviously, the soldiers in Iraq see a different story, so they are more optimistic. But the average American just sees a pointless war to bring “civilization” to those who don’t want it. Strangely enough, the MSM’s relentless campaign against the war may speed up the day the US retaliates against future Islamic attacks with the utter destruction of Islamic societies — that means unfettered bombing, both nukes and more conventional WMD’s.
From the post of Brian, who noted that 75% polled want a US pullout:
The poll was taken in BAGHDAD, and I cant help but notice that this is not a national figure of any sorts.
I wonder if any of the militant terrorists were polled, and laughed with their response.
Just wondering.