 |
February 01, 2007The Perils of Crude ExceptionalismBush administration policy continues to reflect the influence of cold war ideology, which in Dulles's case revealed the influence of the world-historical thinking of the Marxist enemy as well as personal religious assumptions about the meaning of history. The neo-conservative, "neo-Wilsonian" ideological influence on Bush's thinking, that history's course is moving toward universal democracy, was reinforced by the President's encounter in 2004 with Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident. Sharansky's argument that international stability is possible only under the rule of democracy was reflected in the President's second-term inaugural announcement that America's foreign policy objective had become "ending tyranny in our world." This amounted to a naive instance of what the British-Austrian political philosopher Karl Popper called "historicism," meaning faith in large-scale "laws" of historical development. The Bush vision is of a vast struggle between democracy and an effort by "the terrorists" to establish an oppressive Muslim caliphate of global scope. (How they are to do this against the opposition of the industrial West and non-Muslim Asia has yet to be given a persuasive explanation.)Posted by Gregory at February 1, 2007 05:14 AM Comments
I red Pfaff's article, when it first came out, having been a reader and subscriber of the NYRB for more than twenty+ years now. And, also reading Pfaff's own writings (originally in the New Yorker, more lately the NYRB) for longer. Allow me to say first off, that I have always enjoyed Pfaff's oeuvre, and, his (slightly bogus) Now, one can note that while sharing much of Pfaff's criticism of the 'Democratic transformationalist' aspects of the Bush-Rice-Clinton-Albright years, one is less than entirely enamoured of Pfaff's simplistic and indeed reductionist mode of argumentation about the 'perils of intervention', which is really the point of the Finally, the argment that there but, for the American intervention in The other weakness of Pfaff's article is that he singularly fails to note, that the interventionist curse, is a peril that each and every Great Power has given in to. Id est, the best example being that the self-same coup d'etat in Persia in 1953, was in reality conceived and organized Britain's SIS, with the CIA mainly providing money for the pre-existing British networks inside Persia. And, of course both pre- and post 1945, history is full of European Great Power intervention. None of whom anyone can in their right minds argue, had any 'Wilsonian' or Messanic basis. The examples of the British in Egypt, the French in Indochina & Algeria, the Dutch in Indonesia, immediately spring to mind. So, to sum up, while wholeheartedly agreeing with Pfaff's (and Djerejian's) critique of the Bush regime, I do not agree with the 
In point of fact, there is no historical basis for believing that what occurred in Persia circa 1953 was responsible, ipso facto for what happened subsequently in 1978-1979. There is no basis for believing a government's policies contribute to people's decisons about whether to attempt to overthrow that government? Posted by: David Tomlin at February 1, 2007 06:50 AM | Permalink to this comment
The Bush vision is of a vast struggle between democracy and an effort by "the terrorists" to establish an oppressive Muslim caliphate of global scope. (How they are to do this against the opposition of the industrial West and non-Muslim Asia has yet to be given a persuasive explanation.) The first question is how they would do it against the opposition of Muslims. Historically language has been a stronger basis for political unity than religion. Pan-Arabism has gotten nowhere in almost a century of trying. I would be surprised if Pan-Islamism did as well, much less better. There have been many examples of Muslims rebelling against the rule of other Muslims. The Darfur rebels in the Sudan are Muslims. Indonesia is a mini-empire that has put down several tribal revolts. East Pakistan broke away. The Kurds are everywhere restive under non-Kurdish rule. The Caliphate would inherit all these conflicts and provoke many more. I've run some numbers from the CIA Factbook to get a rough picture of what the dreaded Caliphate might look like. Its population would be about the same as China's. It's GDP would a little more than half of China's, and about a third larger than India's. Posted by: David Tomlin at February 1, 2007 07:15 AM | Permalink to this comment
One does not have to be a supporter of this administration, or think that an Pan-Islamic, or even Pan-Arab Caliphate is conceivable, to also note that the notion of practicing non-intervention with regards to a region in which a very large percentage of the world's oil reserves are located, is a supremely silly notion. The United States is going to intervene in the Persian Gulf, even if it just means paying tribute to the despots who control it, in order to allow unmolested oil extraction, and that intervention will have consequences. Better to discuss what they might be (and no, a reconstructed caliphate does not need be a possibility to provide for very bloody outcomes indeed), than yammer about fantastic notions of nonintervention. The United States can choose to practice non-intervention in sub-saharan Africa. It simply is not possible in the Persian Gulf. Posted by: Will Allen at February 1, 2007 04:38 PM | Permalink to this comment
readers might note i didn't excerpt the portions of Pffaf's piece emitting something of a clarion call re: the merits of 'non-intervention'--of which I have significant concerns--and did not mean to advocate w/ this quick post. my point here was to highlight and spur discussion re: the naive 'historicism' (Popper's phrase) undergirding much of the Administration's world-view and "strategy", as well as highlight too how far we've come the past 17 or so odd years from grand talk of a relatively stable 'new world order' (emerging from the wreckage of the soviet union, and an ascendant U.S.) to a world becoming increasingly unstable of late b/c of policy blunders of this administration. sorry for any confusion. Posted by: greg djerejian at February 1, 2007 04:56 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, Regarding history, after 1815 the maritime hegemony of Great Britain conferred costs and benefits to the world not unlike those conferred by the hegemony of the United States after 1945. What changed in the late nineteenth century was that other great powers began to catch up to Britain, in anticipation of which the British began to believe that they needed to convert their informal empire into a more formal one. The British occupation of Egypt in 1882 led to a war with jihadism in the Sudan that went very badly at first. By the time Mahdism was defeated in the late 1890s, Germany and other great powers had emerged as serious rivals. The focus of British security concerns shifted from the periphery to the great power core. The United States is on a similar trajectory. There is nothing inevitable about how we manage this change. But the relative decline of American power is axiomatic if other great powers narrow the gap in per capita productivity and then convert this productivity into appropriate military strength. Radical Islam may abandon Mahdism for a strategy more like Leninism (or the Black Dragons in Japan). But I am inclined to think that radical Islam has a future only if (1) the trend in weapons of mass destruction empowers small states and private groups with doomsday weapons capable of throwing the world back into the Middle Ages, or (2) a collision of the other great powers leaves the world in ruins. The conundrum in American policy is an urge to prevent hypothetical disasters that neither the American people nor the rest of the world believe to be real enough to warrant the costs necessary to prevent them. A problem like this historically resolves itself only when the hypothetical danger becomes real or when the ability to do anything to prevent it slips away or is squandered.
Kudos to Mr. Billington. What makes me want to weep some days is the set-in-stone mind set of so many intelligent people that only a nation-state has, or will have in the forseeable future, the ability to inflict upon the world a massive number of violent deaths. I fear this way of thinking will be dominant until we see a major city destroyed in the blink of an eye. We behave as if the classical deterrence model which has dominated thinking for fifty plus years will always be so relevant. It won't, and I fear that this change will not be grasped before it is too late to prevent a truly historic catastrophe. Posted by: Will Allen at February 1, 2007 08:37 PM | Permalink to this comment
Oil extraction is presently being molested by insurgents in Iraq despite the presence of an American army. In the past, American intervention has itself taken the form of molesting oil extraction, in the form of sanctions on Iraq. Our next intervention is likely to be an air campaign against Iran. While retarding Iran's nuclear program will be the pretext, the bombing will not be limited to sites associated with it. Neo-cons have suggested that bombing sites associated with internal security will clear the way for a popular uprising. Supression of air defenses may provide a pretext for bombing 'dual use' infrastructure like the electric grid and telephone network. I expect they will bomb anything they want to bomb on one pretext or another. This may have some effect on oil extraction, even before the Iranians retaliate.
We behave as if the classical deterrence model which has dominated thinking for fifty plus years will always be so relevant. It won't, and I fear that this change will not be grasped before it is too late to prevent a truly historic catastrophe. What measures for preventing it do you propose? Posted by: David Tomlin at February 1, 2007 11:19 PM | Permalink to this comment
David, your first post has nothing to do with the desirabiity of the U.S. practicing non-intervention in the Persian Gulf. It simply can't be done. As to your second post, I have no answers yet. I simply know that assuming as if classical deterrence of nation states will suffice in preventing bloodshed akin to what was seen in the first half of the last century is very likely to be horribly in error. Posted by: Will Allen at February 2, 2007 01:07 AM | Permalink to this comment
David, your first post has nothing to do with the desirabiity of the U.S. practicing non-intervention in the Persian Gulf. It is perfectly relevant to your assertion that: The United States is going to intervene in the Persian Gulf . . . in order to allow unmolested oil extraction . . . Taken literally, this is obviously false. Oil extraction in the Gulf has not been unmolested since the brief interval between the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War. (I'm not sure it was even then. I wouldn't be surprised if it was being molested in ways I'm not aware of.) You assume that the U.S. has at all times both the will and the ability to 'allow unmolested oil extraction'. But clearly the U.S. is itself willing to molest oil extraction in pursuit of other goals, and at the moment lacks the ability to prevent molesting by Iraqi insurgents. Soon the U.S. may again be molesting oil extraction in Iran, and will be similarly unable to prevent the Iranians from molesting the oil extraction of other Gulf countries in retaliation. The Iranians might attack oil tankers with missiles of the kind recently used against Israeli vessels, using mobile launchers that will be hard to detect and suppress. But I guess 'unmolested' is hyperbolic. What you really mean to say is that U.S. intervention is necessary so that more oil will be exported from from the Gulf than would be in the absence of such intervention. But U.S. intervention is sometimes aimed at suppressing rather than protecting oil extraction, and generally does a better job of the former than the latter. Thus, it seems likely that the net impact of U.S. intervention on oil extraction is negative. The most costly intervention the U.S. has ever undertaken in the Middle East is now happening in Iraq, and Iraq is exporting less oil than before the intervention. Posted by: David Tomlin at February 2, 2007 11:55 AM | Permalink to this comment
Yes, David, the U.S. sometimes inhibits oil extraction. Now that we have dealt with that pedantic point, the larger issue still exists, which is that is is literally impossible for the world largest oil consumer to practice nonintervention with regards to the region of the world which holds the largest oil reserves. Posted by: Will Allen at February 2, 2007 03:31 PM | Permalink to this comment
Will, I hope your point is that we must begin a national program for energy independence. This program would be starting at least 27 years late, but better late than never.
It may be useful to consider the two questions here separately and then together: one is intervention intended to prevent mass casualty terrorism, the other is intervention to secure the flow of Persian Gulf oil. On the first, the problem relying on classic deterrence is that it can only work between governments; it cannot work against terrorist groups that operate in countries where the government lacks the ability to exercise effective jurisdiction. Some third world states are already in this category and others may join if the proliferation and privatization of WMDs continues. This problem will not be remedied by ad hoc military interventions, but I can't see deterrence having the desired effect either. WMDs are not cheap and easy to make yet, and may not be for some time. But it is difficult to see a long-term future in which they do not spread and (with advances in bio-research) become easier for private groups to develop. We can deter governments and hold them responsible, but they may not be able to control their own people. On the second question, there is little doubt that American influence past and present is the immediate motive for Iran's nuclear program. If America went home and achieved energy independence, tensions with the United States would almost certainly subside. But it is hard to imagine Iran then giving up its nuclear program, and the Arab countries have all but pledged to develop programs of their own if Iran goes nuclear. The world will have a bigger nuclear problem whether or not we remain in the Gulf. And a nuclear war in the region (with or without us) would affect the flow of oil. The deeper trouble is that both WMDs and oil are now intertwined in the Middle East. My worry is that the amplitude of US policy swings (between going to war and retreating) will increase if we cannot frame and work by steps toward a longer-term vision of a world in which America is no longer hegemonic. Posted by: David Billington at February 2, 2007 08:38 PM | Permalink to this comment
Yes, David, the U.S. sometimes inhibits oil extraction. Now that we have dealt with that pedantic point, the larger issue still exists, which is that is is literally impossible for the world largest oil consumer to practice nonintervention with regards to the region of the world which holds the largest oil reserves. I don't think that your point is any less pedantic. J Thomas' argument simply cannot be ignored any longer -- our energy habits are quickly sucking us into a zone where we have no good options. Jimmy Carter's Presidency is still ridiculed, but this was his central strategic insight, 30 years ago, and we STILL haven't begun to act on it in a serious fashion. To my mind, this is the single greatest symptom of the extreme neurosis of our political system. The "returns" from our intervention-centric approach are diminishing rapidly, and the trend is unlikely to reverse. Look, if you include Iraq (which you must, I think) the costs of "intervention" in this decade alone are going to exceed a trillion dollars (if they haven't already). Even though ours is a big economy, that's an immense opportunity cost. Further, the sad reality seems to be that our capacity to "intervene" competently is shrinking all the time, and even if it weren't, our *reputation* for competence and trustworthiness may have been squandered forever -- at least among players in the region. And given the sprawling, intricate complexity of oil facilities, it's extremely difficult to believe that a foreign occupier can be very effective at securing them. Certainly the Iraqi petroleum industry hasn't got up to speed the way Generalissimo Wolfowitz decreed. In fact, our reliance on an interventionism (another Carter legacy, sadly) has really been almost a NON-policy, a way of ducking hard questions about oil. Few Americans are directly affected when, say, the Fifth Fleet is moved up to Iranian shores. The Fifth Fleet's REAL mission is protecting politicians from advocating a policy that would impose burdens, but that genuinely merits the term "Grand Strategy" -- a petroleum tax, explicitly designed to ensure gradually escalating and predictable floor prices for the commodity.
Mr. Billington, I pretty much agree wholeheartedly. J Thomas, sglover, the only energy policy that is likely to do more good than harm would be a gigantic tax on oil, and if global warming concerns are to be factored, which I think is probably wise, coal as well. I'd be more than willing to slap a huge tax on those fuels, while getting rid of social security taxes, thus, in one fell swoop, 1)Internalizing some of the costs involved in extracting oil from the Persian Gulf and warming the atmosphere, thus spurring development in alternative energy sources in the most cost-effective way possible, and 2)Doing so in the least regressive way overall, tax-wise, along with 3) Getting rid of the fiction that the bonds placed in the Social Security Trust Fund are equivalent to the bonds sold to the Chinese or Aunt Millie. Yeah, it's radical, and no, it has no chance of being enacted. Unfortunately, even if radical measures were introduced, we are looking at a decades long project. Therefore, it is still necesary to frankly admit that we will be intervening in some way in the Persian Gulf for some time to come , thus meaning we'd better frankly discuss the pros and cons of various forms of intervention, as opposed to pretending that some magical land of sugar plums exists in which we will be practicing nonintervention. Posted by: Will Allen at February 2, 2007 10:19 PM | Permalink to this comment
maybe this is naive economic determinism (and reading the tea leaves of the markets, which are hitting new highs) but as oft noted -- by fareed zakaria and martin wolf among others -- financial markets seem not to care much about growing political instability. why? best as i can fathom, saudi arabia and iran, venezuela and russia, china and pakistan, name your wannabe bugaboo state, are all economically constrained. put simply they cannot afford (the opportunity cost of) war and are indeed beneficiaries of global economic progress. maybe i missed it, but i don't see it mentioned enough in political science discussions that these potential _sources of instability_ are all major exporters, whose net contributes significant portions to their GDP. although their rhetoric at times can be alarming, the economic dimensions under which they operate makes their bark worse than their bite, imo. regardless of ideology it seems, most of the world's population want to keep or aspire to have potable (preferably running) water, cellphones and maybe a car and a house to park it. this inertia, i believe, is too often overlooked as a stabilizing force in world geopolitical affairs. yes, what's going on in iraq has the potential to endanger this stabilizing inertia as its centripetal vortex could fling the region apart, fracturing along sectarian divisions (and encouraged by radical fundamentalists) but i do not think the states themselves (even iran - writ large - note the ahmadinejad backlash, condoned by the supreme leader?) want this outcome. that's why i think (and i know i'm going out on a limb here) iran's nuclear ambitions are mostly harmless. i see its escalation more in the mold of india-pakistan. indeed, i'd be more concerned if musharraf were assassinated than if iran got the bomb. hermit kingdoms like n.korea and burma are more troublesome and of course non-state actors, particularly religious extremists like al qaeda, are worrying; not so much states, even unfriendly or potential strategic competitors, whose prosperity is tied to global trade, whether they advertise it or not. bottom line: while the risk from rogue nations and non-state actors shouldn't be minimized, in terms of their ability to meaningfully disrupt an emerging global economic order that _promises_ to raise millions out of poverty, the markets, at least for now, are saying it's unlikely - even *with* the current and rather large flash/inflection point of uncertainty (and unfolding tragedy) that is iraq. Posted by: smerkin at February 3, 2007 02:02 AM | Permalink to this comment
DT: "I've run some numbers from the CIA Factbook to get a rough picture of what the dreaded Caliphate might look like. Its population would be about the same as China's. It's GDP would a little more than half of China's, and about a third larger than India's."
It's only ten or twenty Afghanistans, geographically. Only 100 or so times the Afghan population and economy. More than 50% of the energy the world's economies literally eat is contained here. The de-stabilizing impact politically/religiously on contiguous regions, and states worldwide with large muslim populations, will be profound.
fwiw, it's this type of background that i think is kinda missing in these discussions... (via) Posted by: smerkin at February 3, 2007 03:03 AM | Permalink to this comment
Those Iranians Sure Do Get Around: (al la LGF)
"Senior Fatah sources reported late Thursday that its National Security Force arrested seven Iranian weapons experts working in the service of Hamas in Gaza. According to Fatah, the arrests were made during a raid on the Islamic University in Gaza City. The Fatah forces apprehended some 1,400 firearms and missiles found at the site." Ynet has more details: "A Palestinian source has said that the Iranian general nabbed in Gaza by Palestinian security officers supervised the manufacturing weapons and explosives for Hamas. The source told Ynet on Friday that the expert was in charge of several labs in the university, mainly chemistry labs in which he trained Hamas activists, most of them women, manufacturing the explosives. At least five Iranian citizens were arrested during a raid at the Islamic University, a Hamas stronghold in Gaza City. One of the Iranians committed suicide during the raid. Six to nine Palestinians were killed in the raid, sources said. The raid on the Hamas-linked university in Gaza was carried out by national security forces affiliated with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Hundreds of weapons and a lathe for the production of Qassam rockets were seized in the raid."
no question, let's negotiate with these folks....
More than 50% of the energy the world's economies literally eat is contained here. Not so. Coal and uranium are widely distributed. Europe and North American have lots of both Posted by: David Tomlin at February 3, 2007 09:00 AM | Permalink to this comment
dt, you are willfully blind to the dangers of a reconstituted caliphate -- which, I forgot to mention, also include operational nukes. Posted by: neill at February 3, 2007 03:31 PM | Permalink to this comment
The international rules and organizations put in place after WW2 heavily favored America, to the extent we undermine those rules we act in a suicidal fashion. After the war and almost into the 60's America had a level of power and prosperity that was not sustainable relative to the rest of the world, it would have required Europe and Japan to remain ruined, and the rest of the world to retard development. Since 1965 at least, America has taken actions that have been deleterious to its own long term interests in the mistaken belief that our post WW2 preemincance could be maintained, and was somehow intrinsic and absolute. "Stability" is a code word for American Hegemony. Stability is bad policy and deadly. Our irrational pursuit of "stability" has hastened, and made larger, our relative decline in world power. America will continue to pursue "stability" and maintain belief in our own exceptionalism at our own peril. Neither party in America has a realistic world view. While many alternatives exist, in reality, our choice is between the insipid and the delusional. We need a new government. Posted by: Tom Perry at February 3, 2007 05:46 PM | Permalink to this comment
tp, if you please, detail these "alternatives" to "stability/American hegemony", and why they are in American short- and long-term interest. Posted by: neill at February 3, 2007 06:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
and examples of said stability. Posted by: neill at February 3, 2007 06:12 PM | Permalink to this comment
If Islamists get control of Pakistan, there will be Islamists with nukes whether they are part of a Caliphate or not. Islamists getting control of Pakistan is quite likely to happen. That is an immediate danger that is well worth worrying about. Those who fret about a Caliphate discredit themselves by harping on a remote and fanciful danger while ignoring real and immediate ones. Posted by: David Tomlin at February 4, 2007 12:04 AM | Permalink to this comment
DT: "Those who fret about a Caliphate discredit themselves by harping on a remote and fanciful danger while ignoring real and immediate ones." the caliphate is the jihadist STATED goal. their jihad is the road they walk toward the caliphate. it's all one continuum to the jihadist. we are in the western deadline-oriented time zone. they are in the allah time zone. the road to the caliphate includes defeating the Americans in Iraq, and instituting sharia there. it includes overturning all the moderate regimes in the region, including Pakistan with its nukes, and instituting sharia there. it includes consuming Europe into sharia, in Qaddafi's words, without firing a shot. each victory is celebrated, lending greater fuel to the jihad ideology. (defeats as well, actually) the caliphate concept is an expansionist enterprise, it was only reduced in past centuries by Western military and then economic superiority (combined with at least equal will-power). the jihadists' plan is not to reach a certain point and then end the jihad. jihad DOESN'T END until they have imposed peace on the entire world -- the peace of sharia. imams the world over spewing their bile and hate at friday prayers are deadly serious. you. just. don't. get. it. Posted by: neill at February 4, 2007 01:28 AM | Permalink to this comment
The stated goal of the neo-cons and the Bush administration is global democratic transformation. Both goals are fanciful. Posted by: David Tomlin at February 4, 2007 03:23 AM | Permalink to this comment
Yeah, and if I read the literature put out by our own home-grown Dominionists I'd be getting the impression that just around the corner the US will turn into something right out of The Handmaid's Tale. Why shouldn't I be just as worried about our own home-grown nuts? We've got at teast as many politicians listening to them as Iran has listening to the Caliphate crazies. Posted by: grumpy realist at February 4, 2007 03:38 AM | Permalink to this comment
America is most certainly inhibiting the extraction of oil in its own hemisphere... Since "energy independence" from oil and gas has been almost completely ineffective for about thirty years of U.S. goernment policies, thanks to the low cost of oil, this neglect of oil in the ground at home is surely the most stupid aspect of our policies over the whole period... A recent story in the Wall Street Journal quoted an OPEC expert to the effect the world now has 145 years of proven reserves in the ground at the present rates of consumption. We should pump more first, and then worry about alternatives. And if it comes to a need to grab someone's oil, we could always take over Venezuela pretty fast, with much less inconvenience than going after the Persian Gulf supplies. We could even demand that Mexico start extracting seriously, since they have plenty more than anybody has yet measured. So does Alaska and arctic Canada... If you people are going to think about nuclear catastrophies, e.g., what happens when muslim jehadists take over Pakistan, remember that we have enough military power to turn the entire Middle East into an oil slick, any time, if they really ask for it. A little out-and-out conquest by the United States in its own back yard ought to be on the menu, too. We should be dictating Pax Americana everywhere. Posted by: Exguru at February 4, 2007 04:09 AM | Permalink to this comment
Don't worry grumpy, as long as we're not dominated by the Caliphate, the land of Gideon (aka Jesusland) is literally heaven on earth. Just ask neill. You can stop polishing Charlie K's lumber any time you want neill. It won't hurt. I promise. Posted by: neill sucks chuckie k at February 4, 2007 04:17 AM | Permalink to this comment
you.just.don't.get.our.enemy. out. Posted by: neill at February 4, 2007 08:17 AM | Permalink to this comment
the caliphate concept is an expansionist enterprise, it was only reduced in past centuries by Western military and then economic superiority The Caliphate was reduced in the 8th century, when the Umayyads were overthrown by the Abbasids. The Abbasids tried to exterminate the Umayyads, but one of them escaped to Spain, which was in revolt against the new regime. The Spanish Muslims accepted the Umayyad survivor as their ruler, and he founded a rival Caliphate. This was the beginning of a slow process of disintegration for the Abbasid Caliphate. There was so much intrigue among the Arabs that the Caliphs began employing Turkish mercenaries as bodyguards. Eventually the Turkish guards seized power and made the Caliphs into figureheads. Since then the Caliphs have given the Islamic world as much unity as Popes and Holy Roman Emperors have given to Christendom. The revival of the Caliphate is about as likely as the revival of the Holy Roman Empire.
Wikipedia: "Although no one realized it at the time, the battle shaped the outcome of the entire war as well. The Ottomans fought on for another 16 years, losing control of Hungary and Transylvania in the process, before finally giving up. The end of the conflict was finalized by the Treaty of Karlowitz. The Battle of Vienna is seen by many historians as marking the beginning of the decline of the Ottoman Empire. The battle also marked the historic end of Turkish expansion into southeastern Europe." The Caliphate struggled on for 2+ centuries, but never again threatened the West. DT: "The revival of the Caliphate is about as likely as the revival of the Holy Roman Empire." How bout as likely as 9-11......
the Ottoman empire was the progressive light of Islam. following the defeat of the turks in WW1, Ataturk transformed Turkey into the early form of the secular entity it is today -- effectively ending the Caliphate. so now, after all the centuries of blood and treasure fending off Islam, you want to volunteer victory to the kentucky (sorry, k), butt-end of Islam, the wahabbis. you stupid pieces of shit. Posted by: neill at February 4, 2007 09:50 AM | Permalink to this comment
Binding Resolution: whereas, due to the freedoms its citizens claim as inherent right, America is the indisputed economic and military powerhouse of the world; whereas, the entire economic output of the entire arab world is less than that of Finland, though it is blessed by Allah with riches beyond the dreams of other nations; whereas, as Iran cannot compete with Israel on a conventional battlefield (why not?), but must resort to proxy civilian armies (geneva?) to confront Israel, which wants no battle; whereas, as Saudi Arabia is the primary supplier of the coin of the realm to America, while at the same time exporting a religious ideology, political Islam, bent on destroying America and the infidel West, and most importantly, any states that cooperate with the infidel West; Be it proclaimed that America, because it has lost a tiny fraction of its wealth and approximateley 750 of its soldiers per year over 4 years, shall surrender the primary front in battle to the forces of political Islam, and retreat from areas where future conflict may occur. Posted by: neill at February 4, 2007 10:59 AM | Permalink to this comment
Solzhenitsyn, 1978: "The Western world has lost its civil courage..." and rhetorically asked, "Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?" He lamented that "[N]o weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower."
who turned that national will-power around? Reagan. who will do it now? Posted by: neill at February 4, 2007 11:35 AM | Permalink to this comment
How bout as likely as 9-11 . . . http://www.buchanan.org/pa-00-0325-antiwarspeech.html A Republic, Not an Empire 'And how can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution? Recall: it was in retaliation for the bombing of Libya that Khadafi's agents blew up Pan Am 103. And it is said to have been in retaliation for the Vincennes' accidental shoot-down of that Iranian airliner that Teheran collaborated with terrorists to blow up the Khobar towers. From Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar - have we not suffered enough not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the asking price of empire?' When the Oklahoma City Federal Building was bombed, many people at once thought the perpetrators were probably Middle Eastern. Some incautiously jumped to that conclusion, and were embarrassed when they turned out to be home-grown white Christians. Islamists linked to al-Qaeda came close to bringing down the Twin Towers in 1993. The plan was to topple one of them into the other. If it had succeeded the toll might well have been higher than it was in 2001, as there would have been no time for evacuation. Anyone paying attention should have realized that a mass-casualty terrorist attack on U.S. soil was a significant (not high, but significant) probability.
neill, the idea of having secular Europe adopt the Scharia is completely and utterly outlandish. Whoever takes stuff like this seriously really needs to check their media sources. Is this the kind of stuff which is seriously spread on Foxnews and the other propagandistic infotainment outlets? *shakes his head in amazement* So please let me calm your troubled soul: Islam is a fringe religion in Western Europe, and the vast majority of Muslims living here do NOT adhere to islamist goals. Neither you nor me will live to see anything like this. What _does_ happen is that due to the continuous disasterous policies of "the West" in the middle east, ESPECIALLY the irresponsible policies of the US and Israel, alot of resentment is created. And the shriller and more hysterical the hawkish war propaganda gets, the more successful the islamists will be. I promise you, the day Iran is bombarded (I'm worried that this is the hidden agenda of Bush's latest decisions), the visible process of alienating western allies and radicalizing muslims will continue. And, of course, it will cause hawks to demand in even shriller voices to act against the enemy they themselves have been creating. Wonderful. Posted by: Mentar at February 4, 2007 05:43 PM | Permalink to this comment
that is their goal, their jihad. with muslim vs non-muslim birth rates at roughly 3:1 in Europe, in twenty years muslims will approach 50% of the population in some countries. you need a birth rate of 2 babies per family to maintain population levels. as the non-muslim workforce ages and shrinks, to pay for expensive social safety nets, countries need more workers to come from....guess where? there are already muslim no-go zones for police in Paris suburbs (where I'm sure al quaeda is NOT active). non-muslims are leaving the Netherlands in significant numbers, as members of the Dutch parliament who express views unpopular with Dutch muslims go into hiding and Van Gogh is murdered in broad dayllight for his film with the same. the cartoon riots have chilled media coverage regarding matters muslim in both europe and america. (course, it's OK to bash christians, no danger of your building being attacked as a result of that). prison toilets are altered so that muslim prisoners won't have to face in the direction of Mecca as they crap. the trend is not good for secular Europe, mon ami. as Quaddafi knows. Posted by: neill at February 4, 2007 07:48 PM | Permalink to this comment
neill, do you really buy this stuff which is being spread in interested conservative blogcircles? I mean, you REALLY believe this? First, do you honestly believe that you can predict the growth of population slices over 20 years? Hello? Also, do you recognize that less than 10% of muslims in western european countries are sympathizing with extremist islamists, which means that non-fundamentalists grow at a much faster rate than fundamentalists? And that - if you are actually serious about this "danger" - the primary goal should be to make sure that the extremists remain a FRINGE group in western democratic societies, and not treated as bedeviled threats, like you seem to do? From this angle, the entire Iraq operation was a total fiasco, because BEFORE the Iraq war, the percentage of fundamentalist sympathisants was much lower. Right now, the number of muslims in Germany (around 4% of the overall inhabitants) are growing slower than in the US (around 2% of the inhabitants, _quadrupled_ over the last 5 years). How much at risk are the US, in your opinion? Let me share a little anecdote with you, about "no-go zones". As you may know, one of the helpers of the 9/11 terrorists came from Hamburg. In fact, the place where he lived was a total of 500 meters away from my own house, and it was quite a surprise to me to learn that - according to national-conservative American blogs - it was located in a "no-go zone" full of Islamistic extremists, a place which the German police had abandoned already because it was too risky. This bullcrap spread through these cycles like wildfire, and it even popped up on some more mainstream media outlets. Everything was 100% reality-free fiction. Hamburg-Harburg is a typical student district with a very low crime rate (even by German standards), but if you read the right (or more correctly, wrong) propaganda outlets, you'd learn something entirely different. That non-muslims are leaving the Netherlands is hilarious - where the HELL did you get THAT from? I think you misread several things here: It's true that some SECULAR prominent muslims have been leaving the Netherlands in protest, because they feel pressured and threatened by their religious peers - they have been opposing islamistic fundamentalism openly and then left in protest when the government refused to take drastic measures. Holland has a big group of Marrocan muslims due to their colonial history, and the main problem with them is the problematic integration into western democratic structures. Unemployment is a huge source of frustration. 40% of the Marroco women are illiterate. If groups like these seal themselves off and continue to in-breed resentment and hate, and then give them islamistic terrorists as heroes to combat the hated arrogant west, imbedded in a religious background, this can and will lead to problems. PROBLEMS, not "we'll soon have the Scharia in a few years" nonsense. So tell me: How would YOU deal with this? How do YOU propose to integrate them? I'd love to hear about that. But I agree that making toilets not face Mecca is a real risk for secular civilization ^_^ Ask yourself, neill: Isn't it likely that interested circles which try to incite a cultural war between the Christian/Judeo-world and the Islamic world are getting the better of you? Posted by: Mentar at February 4, 2007 10:59 PM | Permalink to this comment
It would be to take advantage of the divisions I mentioned previously, plus the non-Muslim people in Islamic countries like the southern Sudanese. The U.S. has done this before, for example by playing Iraq and Iran off against each other, supporting Kurdish rebels in Iraq, and using the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. By maintaining an army in Iraq the U.S. is bleeding itself, wasting resources that could be employed more efficiently in the way I described. Posted by: David Tomlin at February 5, 2007 12:46 AM | Permalink to this comment
David Tomlin, what you say makes sense. However, suppose we hadn't kept up our occupation of iraq. It's possible a competent iraqi govenrment might have restored order fairly quickly, done reconstruction, etc. (Iraqis pointed out that we tried to destroy their infrastructure in the Gulf war, and they got the electricity running in 6 weeks and most things limping along in well under 6 months. We tried to go easy on them this time around and we're at 4 years and counting for putting things back together.) Maybe we had to be on the spot to prevent reconstruction, prevent responsible iraqi government, prevent security, and to encourage the sunni-shia divisions. We couldn't be sure it would turn to civil war without our careful intervention. "If you want something done right, do it yourself."
neill, email me, and I will gladly discuss your questions. We may need to define some terms. Posted by: Tom Perry at February 5, 2007 01:59 PM | Permalink to this comment
Mentar: And what groups exactly do you think are trying to incite a war between the West & Germany, ah I mean Islam? The Jews, ah excuse me, the Likudniks, right Colonel Lindbergh? As for most of Europe's Moslems being nice & moderate, you might look at a recent British report which said that 40% of British Moslems, ages 16 to 24, prefer to live under Sharia Law. (See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml for story "Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'" in their 2007/01/29 issue. Note: Muslims do not need to breed a majority, nor do the Islamists need to be in the majority of the Moslem population. Once the Islamists make up a large enough minority they can simply disrupte society enough so they are handed power as the only way to restore order. This is how the Nazis in Germany & the Fascists in Italy came to power through brute force & intimidation. Also it is mistake to think that White Europeans will not become Islamists: They will, whether it is because Miltant Isalm is the 21st Century equivlent of Fascism & Communism, borrowing from both its Anti-Americanism & Anti-Semitism, is attractive to the descendants of those who followed one or both movements or just out of a sense of wanting to be on the winning side. Posted by: David All at February 5, 2007 10:42 PM | Permalink to this comment
Thanks. Here's a direct link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/29/nmuslims29.xml Here's an opinion piece: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/02/03/do0302.xml It raises the interesting speculation that young muslims telling pollsters they want sharia law may be a form of youthful rebellion, like hippies waving commie flags and chanting for Ho Chi Minh. I need to learn more before taking either side in this particular debate. For now I have a question. How is bombing and invading Muslim countries supposed to help? That policy seems to exacerbate the problem, by producing more refugees and provoking more anti-Western hostility.
And what groups exactly do you think are trying to incite a war between the West & Germany, ah I mean Islam? The Jews, ah excuse me, the Likudniks, right Colonel Lindbergh? The anti-semitism card has been worn to tatters. See http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/01/the_new_antisemitism/ http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/01/excommunication/ http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/round_round_round_and_round_an/ http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/popping_up_everywhere/
David All: I assume that you mean between the West (including Germany) and the "Islamofascists"? An unholy melange consisting primarily of Likudniks - indeed - and American supremacists. I'm a bit puzzled about your sneering undertone, do you SERIOUSLY want to contest that? If so, please say so clearly here. Haven't you been following what nutcases like Michael Ledeen and his cronies have been trying to do for ages? If it was about them, we'd have been at war with Iran a long time ago. Real men go to Teheran and all the stuff. One more country to liberate, and then all will be fine. The numbers in the article you quoted underscore a trend of a serious issue we have to address indeed: A growing minority opinion within a minority itself is growing increasingly radical. I pose the same question to you which I posed to neill, without receiving an answer. What should be done about it? The increase clearly coincides with the disasterous Iraq and Middle East policies of the West, which is increasingly seen to be waging war against Islam in general. What we're seeing here is the backlash of our incredible hypocrisy and hubris, and unless we manage to _radically_ turn around, the alienation trend will continue. I'm not holding my breath. Nevertheless, I'm amazed about the conclusions you're drawing. I can only conclude that you're no European yourself, and thus basing your opinions on reports and political theories instead of personal real life experience. What you're seeing here is the expression of personal frustration of a problem group rather than a first step of jihad. Look at the numbers of the normal-age and especially older muslims: They're generally as peaceful as it gets. The YOUNG group is generally plagued by unemployment and isolation. What we're seeing here is a failure of integration, also fueled by a self-driven desire to REMAIN isolated. What we're seeing here are power games and group dynamics, very similar to "hoodz" in America. With the only difference that the unifying aspect is Islam here. However, penetration of the religion in the rest of Europe is minimal. Europe is much too secular to ever be in danger. If anything, I expect that eventually, the result of the latest developments will be a stiff requirement for integration (verified literacy, demanded oath on the constitution) and expulsion from Europe for violent and hate-inciting individuals. That's what's being cautiously discussed in Germany. But the notion that Europe in general and Germany in particular is supposed to eventually "hand over power" to islamists is so blatantly ridiculous that I can hardly contain myself. How can educated people fall for primitive fearmongering so easily? If you want to play the numbers game, look at America. There, the percentage of muslims within the entire group of inhabitants have been growing at a much faster rate than in Europe lately (this number is much more reasonable to talk about, since it already includes the "growth rate" pseudo-argument). Shouldn't you rather be worried that America is taken over by them? Why aren't you? And why don't the very same reasons why there's no cause for concern over there apply to Europe? Unless I misunderstand you, your position is that the world (and particularly Europe) is full of innate Anti-Americans and Antisemites who only wait for the next fad du jour to turn on America and Israel to wipe them out. And Islamofascism is just the latest model of the same brand. Right? If this were so, then why do those groups who are _known_ to REALLY be Anti-American or Antisemitic show any kind of affinity? Why don't Nazi groups throughout the world convert to Islam? Nope, that's not what it's all about. What we're seeing here is paranoid fearmongering of those people who try their hardest to get and KEEP us in a constant state of fear and war, because it furthers their goals. Look at the people spreading gospel among these lines, and you will find the very same people who have been trying hard to dismantle the American constitution, blow executive rights out of proportion, nixed habeas corpus, shipped terror suspects to Syria to have them tortured, created and defended (and STILL defend) places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and who now - their empire crumbling - try to incite a followup war with Iran. Look at the news outlets where the "Europe soon overrun by Islam" come from - they're the very same who got us into the current predicament. Sorry. Europe's not buying. I pray that the nightmare will be over in 2 years. Posted by: Mentar at February 6, 2007 07:22 AM | Permalink to this comment
However, suppose we hadn't kept up our occupation of iraq. It's possible a competent iraqi govenrment might have restored order fairly quickly, done reconstruction, etc. . . . Maybe we had to be on the spot to prevent reconstruction, prevent responsible iraqi government, prevent security, and to encourage the sunni-shia divisions. Assuming the Iraqis succeeded in putting together some kind of national unity government, I don't think it would have been too hard to undermine it. For example, if it excluded Baathists and Sadrists, those groups could be incited and supported. The main drawback to this approach would be lack of contracts for Halliburton. Posted by: David Tomlin at February 6, 2007 07:39 AM | Permalink to this comment
the road to the caliphate includes defeating the Americans in Iraq, and instituting sharia there. If the U.S wins in Iraq, Sharia will be instituted, except probably for Kurdistan. If the U.S. loses, then part of Iraq will be under the control of Baathists who will not institute Sharia. it includes consuming Europe into sharia, in Qaddafi's words, without firing a shot. I'd like to see a cite for this. As usual I won't be holding my breath. From a quick google: http://www.bta.bg/site/libya/en/07courtsystem.htm ' The People’s Court must comply with two legal standards: the Libyan Constitution and the Criminal Code, as well as, to a certain extent, with the Sharia, the Islamic canon law whose legal validity has been recognized by the country’s basic law. . . . The Libyan legal system is strongly influenced by the traditions of continental law and particularly Italian law. . . . Libyan legal and religious scholars are still divided over ways to reconcile the two systems. . . . Traditional Sharia punishments like limb amputation and flogging are seen as inhuman in Libya. Without formally rejecting Sharia punishment, Libyan criminal justice administers extensively modern forms of punishment like various terms of imprisonment.' Bin Laden condemned several Arab leaders, including Qaddafi, in an audio-cassette tape released on December 16, 2004. http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP83804 '"Therefore, despite our grave misfortune caused by the rulers of the region, who are agents [of foreign powers], we suffer greater misfortune because of some of the leaders of the Muslim world, who insist on describing these tyrants as legitimate rulers. . . . The honest people in these [Islamic] associations should purge the Islamic activities of them [the tyrants] . . . Such is also the case with 'Abd Al-Nasser, Sadat, Qaddafi, and Saddam."' More on Qaddafi and al Qaeda: http://www.cfr.org/publication/6617/ 'One of the things you have to realize is that starting in the mid-1980s, Qaddafi began to face some significant organized opposition at home. And what nobody was paying any attention to, except Qaddafi himself, was the fact that this organized opposition was what we would later come to call an early “Qaeda-type network.” In other words, he began to face opposition from people who were motivated by the international Islamist sentiment, who felt he was too eccentric, too un-Islamic . . . he was regarded by the al-Qaeda types as no better than the Saudi government, no better than any of these other governments that they hate. . . . the head of Libyan intelligence, Musa Kusa, who has also been involved in negotiating on the WMD issues, was meeting in Europe with people from the CIA, saying, “This is our list of suspects. These are the terrorists that we know that are connected to al Qaeda, who are operating out of Europe,” . . . within a couple of days of the September 11 attacks.' http://www.slate.com/?id=115757 'Col. Muammar Qaddafi has long considered Bin Laden an enemy. Bin Laden has enraged Qaddafi by training and funding Libyan Islamic guerrillas who seek to overthrow the colonel's regime. But though Libya has condemned the World Trade Center bombing, it probably wouldn't endorse American military assaults.' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2650155.stm 'Libya is exchanging intelligence about the al-Qaeda network with the United States, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has said. . . . Colonel Gaddafi - who himself has been accused of sponsoring international terrorism - said there had been assassination attempts on his life by al-Qaeda members. . . . "[Fundamentalism] is a threat to all regimes in the region," he said.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_al-Gaddafi 'Two years prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Libya pledged its commitment to fighting Al-Qaeda . . . Following the attacks of September 11, Gaddafi made one of the first, and firmest, denunciations of the Al-Qaeda bombers by any Muslim leader. ' Posted by: David Tomlin at February 6, 2007 10:18 AM | Permalink to this comment
mentar, (mentar lifts head out of sand) your placing the entire blame for the radicalization for european muslim youths on America in Iraq etc is kind of like the hockey referee only penalizing the player who threw the second punch. and as to your your economic disadvantage argument, hogwash. most of young muslim perpetrators are from middle class non-radical families. the 9-11 hijackers were very smart kids from good families. some of them went on welfare to recruit and train. mohammed who nearly decapitated theo van gogh, was from a "good" family as well and had a job that as he got more intense religiously he quit because he then refused to serve alcohol. he was on welfare at the time of the murder. the demograpics of europe are nightmarish. european natives are self-exterminating (while aging) by not reproducing sufficiently, while muslim minorities are pumping those babies out, with most of their group under 30. let's do the math, say, re France: let's say there's 10 families that make up the state of France, 2 (20%) are muslim and 8 (80%) are non-muslim -- the 2 muslim families have 3 babies each (6) while the non-muslim families each have 1 baby (8). This 3:1 ratio isn't exact, but close enough for example's sake. Muslims go from 20% to 40% in one short (remember these are muslims) generation. That's astounding political growth and influence. Add a pinch of intimidation and...... This is also a potential problem for America, but not nearly as dire. We at leaast are replacing ourselves. We also seem to be set up to be more inclusive of our immigrants -- as we all trace ourselves to immigrants. As to what to do about it? That's your problem, bub. You might start by acknowledging the actual nature of the problem, and what y'all can do to help ameliorate it (like not bankrupting yourselves with cushy social programs). Maybe do something else with your Augusts -- like work? or fuck? or both? btw, as to the netherlands, in 2004 they became a net emigrator of native dutch for the first time in 50 years. Primarily due to a sucky economy, but "hardened attitudes" as well as perceiving their country as "more violent, less tolerant" is contributory as well. Wonder who's being less tolerant? http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=18295 I'm curious, seeing as you live so close to THAT mosque, what if anything is being done to find out what exactly is going on in places like that. No, that couldn't be part of the problem. Factoid: global population in 1900 is 12% muslim, global population in 2000 is 30% muslim.
Posted by: neill at February 6, 2007 03:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
neill, > your placing the entire blame for the radicalization for european Hardly. In case you still haven't heard of it, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (the first punch you're alluding to). When 9/11 happened, America had the sympathies of the civilized world, with extremely few exceptions at the most radical spots. The dramatic shift against America was 95% homemade. > and as to your your economic disadvantage argument, hogwash. So who exactly are we talking about here? Al-Qaeda terrorists or muslims in general? Or do you even see them as synonyms? Calling the economic disadvantage argument "hogwash" only indicates that you have no clue what you're actually talking about. It's a plain and uncontested fact that the vast majority of the muslim youth in western european countries tends to be on the lower end of the economic scale. Unemployment and perceived discrimination are a good breeding ground for resentment, and Islam as a religion is a good pressure valve to deal with it. And now give it credible enemies to fight and rally against and militant islamism is spreading. That's not "hogwash". It's a simple and obvious correlation, no matter how much you try to deny it. And the more paranoid and extreme your raging against muslims gets, the more you help create your enemies yourself. Look at the US forces in Iraq. They're making the same experience. About your "demographics": Right now, France has 10-12% muslims, by far the biggest percentage due to the Algerian link and the law which states that every baby born in France is French - nothing close to your 20%. Also, again you treat muslims like Borgs: As if every muslim was an enemy. And finally, you do realize that even by your nightmare scenario, it would take more than 2 generations (of more than 20 years each) to let muslims catch up, and EVEN MORE if you take into account that not every muslim would prefer the Scharia to normal western civil law. You feel able to predict social developments of this scale for 50 years or more? Social scientists would be pointing their fingers at you and start giggling. > As to what to do about it? That's your problem, bub. Listening to you and your fellow neocon doomsayers, it seems to be your problem somehow :) ... the Mark Steyns of this world and their disciples are the one who are spreading doom and gloom around in their desperate attempt to frighten the American public. Look, neill. Unlike you, I actually know how things really are over here. I have 2 muslim colleagues at work, and we're getting along great. One of them doesn't have many good things to say about the current American administration, but neither do I. Neither of those two would ever become a menace to western civilization, and I'd prefer to keep their children like this aswell. The question is: How do we do this? That's why I posed the question to you: Let's assume for a second that the spread of Islam is a threat to western civilization, then what? There's this strange thing called "Freedom of Religion". Are you going to forbid Islam? There's this thing called international law. Are you gonna invade Iran and Syria? Maybe you expect that if Teheran is taken (by you and which army?), muslims will see the error of their ways and get baptized? The simple truth is that there is no workable approach other than trying for dialogue and integration - and removing those radicals from our countries which don't adhere to the rules of law (which, in case of citizenship, isn't easily done). In other words, we can try them on a criminal basis where it's possible, but other than that, we'll have to deal with them exactly the same way as any other unfeasible elements. To do this, brutally put, what America has been doing in the last years is not helpful in the least. We don't expect you to solve our problems, but it would be much appreciated if you wouldn't make the job any harder than it is. Feel free to shiver in your boots, scream around in panic and preach to your fellow Americans that the antichrist is roaming on the face of earth, and his worshippers are muslim. If you feel you can't survive without cutting back on civil rights, torturing suspects and all the joyful stuff, or when you invade other nations while you're at it, WE are held co-responsible for that. Not fun, not fair, but very real. So please grow some spine, stop shaking in your boots about muslims and accept that terrorism is a problem which can NOT be dealt with via invasions and aerial bombardments. That would let us die out in peace, mucg appreciated ^_^
Neil, thank you for your fine post answering Mentar. Could not have done better myself. 1). When talking about the Islamists triumphing in Western Europe, am talking about 20 to 25 years time. Hopeful that Britain, with its tradition of freedom & many non-Moslem immigrants (West Indians, Hindus, Sikhs, etec.) will survive as Germany & Eastern Europe countries who have just emerged from Soviet Tyrannery & know what it is to be enslaved will do so too. Italy, where the largest number of immigrants are from Eastern Europe, might be able to withstand the Islamists tide. France, Spain & the Low Countries though unfortunately will likely surrender to Islamist Rule. 2)Trouble with believing that Secular Europe will never surrender to Islam is that most native or white Western Europeans no long really believe in anything, at least not to the extent of risking their precious lives for. Peace at any Price, nothings worth fighting for and let's all sing 60s peace songs are their mottoes. Sheep never put up much resistance to the wolves. As for Europeans not converting to Islam, not so long ago, a Belgian woman convert became the first European suicide bomber in Baghdad. Fortunately she only kill herself! 3)About the dirty Zionists & their American Puppets being the source of all Islamic Rage. India could be just as much blamed for this because of their own activities in fighting the Moslem rebels in Kashmir in inciting Islamists in Pakistan & elsewhere, but India is not. Could it be that it is easier to blame a country of 8 million like Israel then it is to blame a country of 1 billion like India? Posted by: David All at February 6, 2007 10:58 PM | Permalink to this comment
Mentar & everyone else who thinks that just as soon as we sell out the Jews . . . I don't buy that I was born into this world owing something to 'the Jews'. I also don't by that 'the Jews' are metaphysically equivalent to Israel/Zionism. These are cult beliefs which many people do not share. It's true that in my youth, before I learned some of the relevant history, I was as knee-jerk pro-Israel as the average American. But I never swore an oath of loyalty to Zionism, so spare me the absurd accusation that my anti-Zionism is a 'sell-out'.
Could it be that it is easier to blame a country of 8 million like Israel then it is to blame a country of 1 billion like India? I think it has more to do with Israel and its American backer being Western. To some extent it is a matter of anti-colonialism taking religious expression. In the Cold War, India was a leader of the 'non-aligned' movement, while Pakistan was pro-U.S. This may complicate the matter, and mute some people's enthusiasm for siding with Pakistan against India. That said, Kashmir is one of the fronts to which al Qaeda has contributed fighters. Posted by: David Tomlin at February 7, 2007 01:03 AM | Permalink to this comment
Mentar:
Nice continent ya got there. So....what's yer big PLAN....?
uh....that's great..... really great.....and we are to assume your two colleagues are representative of how many million muslims?
There's this strange thing called "Freedom of Religion". Are you going to forbid Islam? There's this thing called international law." So freedom of religion and international law trumps the very existence of Western Civilization?
There's this thing called individual and ethnic/religious rights. Are you going to forbid individual and ethnic/individual rights to protect your wife from being raped and your children from being buggered -- or beheaded -- by thugs in the neighborhood? Oh, of course, there are laws for that. The same laws that are providing justice for Daniel Pearl? But, as we all know, laws and especially enforcement of those laws in a democracy change as the electorate changes. and the electorate is changing -- daily -- with every birth and every death. "The simple truth is that there is no workable approach other than trying for dialogue and integration - and removing those radicals from our countries which don't adhere to the rules of law (which, in case of citizenship, isn't easily done). In other words, we can try them on a criminal basis where it's possible, but other than that, we'll have to deal with them exactly the same way as any other unfeasible elements." Mentar -- 1992
"Unemployment and perceived discrimination are a good breeding ground for resentment, and Islam as a religion is a good pressure valve to deal with it."
Big oil has been exerting a powerful influence on Middle East policy -- and in some cases leading it -- for more than half a century. I sometimes wonder if the global warming alarmism isn't a cunning way to dismantle it slowly from within. Only half-joking ... Posted by: Dave F at February 8, 2007 12:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
David Tomlin: Well I am glad you have been enlighten as to the evil blood sucking (literally) nature of the Jews, ah I mean the Zionisits. (Your Islamists friends hardly bother to make any differencies between the two!) However if you had read the rest of my post, you would have seen my arguement, which you did not respond to, that selling out the Jews or Zionists, (as I said above, the Islamist Propaganda does not differentiate) will not save Western Europe or at least parts of it, from being dominated by Militant Islam, any more then it saved Europe from being overrun by the Nazis in the 1940s. First thing you, Mentar, etec might do is to get informed about the hate being preached in the many Mosques that are funded by Our Enemies, the Saudis.
However if you had read the rest of my post . . . I read it all. I made it a priority to respond to the most asinine part of it. Posted by: David Tomlin at February 9, 2007 03:01 AM | Permalink to this comment
Who doubts that there is a huge disparity in fertility rates?
.......Jihadist networks span Europe from Poland to Portugal, thanks to the spread of radical Islam among the descendants of guest workers once recruited to shore up Europe's postwar economic miracle. In smoky coffeehouses in Rotterdam and Copenhagen, makeshift prayer halls in Hamburg and Brussels, Islamic bookstalls in Birmingham and "Londonistan," and the prisons of Madrid, Milan, and Marseilles, immigrants or their descendants are volunteering for jihad against the West. It was a Dutch Muslim of Moroccan descent, born and socialized in Europe, who murdered the filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam last November. A Nixon Center study of 373 mujahideen in western Europe and North America between 1993 and 2004 found more than twice as many Frenchmen as Saudis and more Britons than Sudanese, Yemenites, Emiratis, Lebanese, or Libyans. Fully a quarter of the jihadists it listed were western European nationals --
The mass immigration of Muslims to Europe was an unintended consequence of post-World War II guest-worker programs. Backed by friendly politicians and sympathetic judges, foreign workers, who were supposed to stay temporarily, benefited from family reunification programs and became permanent. Successive waves of immigrants formed a sea of descendants. Today, Muslims constitute the majority of immigrants in most western European countries, including Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, and the largest single component of the immigrant population in the United Kingdom. Exact numbers are hard to come by because Western censuses rarely ask respondents about their faith. But it is estimated that between 15 and 20 million Muslims now call Europe home and make up four to five percent of its total population. (Muslims in the United States probably do not exceed 3 million, accounting for less than two percent of the total population.) France has the largest proportion of Muslims (seven to ten percent of its total population), followed by the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Italy. Given continued immigration and high Muslim fertility rates, the National Intelligence Council projects that Europe's Muslim population will double by 2025. Unlike their U.S. counterparts, who entered a gigantic country built on immigration, most Muslim newcomers to western Europe started arriving only after World War II, crowding into small, culturally homogenous nations. Their influx was a new phenomenon for many host states and often unwelcome. Meanwhile, North African immigrants retained powerful attachments to their native cultures. So unlike American Muslims, who are geographically diffuse, ethnically fragmented, and generally well off, Europe's Muslims gather in bleak enclaves with their compatriots: Algerians in France, Moroccans in Spain, Turks in Germany, and Pakistanis in the United Kingdom. ......The footprint of Muslim immigrants in Europe is already more visible than that of the Hispanic population in the United States. Unlike the jumble of nationalities that make up the American Latino community, the Muslims of western Europe are likely to be distinct, cohesive, and bitter. In Europe, host countries that never learned to integrate newcomers collide with immigrants exceptionally retentive of their ways, producing a variant of what the French scholar Olivier Roy calls "globalized Islam": militant Islamic resentment at Western dominance, anti-imperialism exalted by revivalism. As the French academic Gilles Kepel acknowledges, "neither the blood spilled by Muslims from North Africa fighting in French uniforms during both world wars nor the sweat of migrant laborers, living under deplorable living conditions, who rebuilt France (and Europe) for a pittance after 1945, has made their children ... full fellow citizens." Small wonder, then, that a radical leader of the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, a group associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, curses his new homeland: "Oh sweet France! Are you astonished that so many of your children commune in a stinging naal bou la France [fuck France], and damn your Fathers?" As a consequence of demography, history, ideology, and policy, western Europe now plays host to often disconsolate Muslim offspring, who are its citizens in name but not culturally or socially. In a fit of absentmindedness, during which its academics discoursed on the obsolescence of the nation-state, western Europe acquired not a colonial empire but something of an internal colony, whose numbers are roughly equivalent to the population of Syria. Many of its members are willing to integrate and try to climb Europe's steep social ladder. But many younger Muslims reject the minority status to which their parents acquiesced. A volatile mix of European nativism and immigrant dissidence challenges what the Danish sociologist Ole Waever calls "societal security," or national cohesion. To make matters worse, the very isolation of these diaspora communities obscures their inner workings, allowing mujahideen to fundraise, prepare, and recruit for jihad with a freedom available in few Muslim countries. As these conditions developed in the late 1990s, even liberal segments of the European public began to have second thoughts about immigration. Many were galled by their governments' failure to reduce or even identify the sources of insécurité (a French code word for the combination of vandalism, delinquency, and hate crimes stemming from Muslim immigrant enclaves). The state appeared unable to regulate the entry of immigrants, and society seemed unwilling to integrate them. In some cases, the backlash was xenophobic and racist; in others, it was a reaction against policymakers captivated by a multiculturalist dream of diverse communities living in harmony, offering oppressed nationalities marked compassion and remedial benefits. By 2002, electoral rebellion over the issue of immigration was threatening the party systems of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, and the Netherlands. The Dutch were so incensed by the 2002 assassination of Pim Fortuyn, a gay anti-immigration politician, that mainstream parties adopted much of the victim's program. In the United Kingdom this spring, the Tories not only joined the ruling Labour Party in embracing sweeping immigration restrictions, such as tightened procedures for asylum and family reunification (both regularly abused throughout Europe) and a computerized exit-entry system like the new U.S. Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology program; they also campaigned for numerical caps on immigrants. With the Muslim headscarf controversy raging in France, talk about the connection between asylum abuse and terrorism rising in the United Kingdom, an immigration dispute threatening to tear Belgium apart, and the Dutch outrage over the van Gogh killing, western Europe may now be reaching a tipping point.
The uncomfortable truth is that disenfranchisement and radicalization are happening even in countries, such as the Netherlands, that have done much to accommodate Muslim immigrants. Proud of a legendary tolerance of minorities, the Netherlands welcomed tens of thousands of Muslim asylum seekers allegedly escaping persecution. Immigrants availed themselves of generous welfare and housing benefits, an affirmative-action hiring policy, and free language courses. Dutch taxpayers funded Muslim religious schools and mosques, and public television broadcast programs in Moroccan Arabic. Mohammed Bouyeri was collecting unemployment benefits when he murdered van Gogh. The van Gogh slaying rocked the Netherlands and neighboring countries not only because the victim, a provocative filmmaker, was a descendant of the painter Vincent, the Dutch's most cherished icon, but also because Bouyeri was "an average second-generation immigrant," according to Stef Blok, the chairman of the parliamentary commission reviewing Bouyeri's immigration record. European counterterrorism authorities saw the killing as a new phase in the terrorist threat. It raised the specter of Middle East-style political assassinations as part of the European jihadist arsenal and it disclosed a new source of danger: unknown individuals among Europe's own Muslims. The cell in Hamburg that was connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001, was composed of student visitors, and the Madrid train bombings of March 2004 were committed by Moroccan immigrants. But van Gogh's killer and his associates were born and raised in Europe. Bouyeri was the child of Moroccan immigrant workers. He grew up in a proletarian area of Amsterdam sometimes known as Satellite City because of the many reception dishes that sit on its balconies, tuned to al Jazeera and Moroccan television. Bouyeri's parents arrived in a wave of immigration in the 1970s and never learned Dutch. But Bouyeri graduated from the area's best high school. His transformation from promising student to jihadist follows a pattern in which groups of thriving, young European Muslims enlist in jihad to slaughter Westerners. After graduating from a local college and then taking advanced courses in accounting and information technology, Bouyeri, who had an unruly temper, was jailed for seven months on a violence-related crime. He emerged from jail an Islamist, angry over Palestine and sympathetic to Hamas. He studied social work and became a community organizer. He wrote in a community newsletter that "the Netherlands is now our enemy because they participate in the occupation of Iraq." After he failed to get funding for a youth center in Satellite City and was unable to ban the sale of beer or the presence of women at the events he organized, he moved to downtown Amsterdam. There, he was recruited into the Hofstad Group, a cell of second-generation Islamic militants. The cell started meeting every two weeks in Bouyeri's apartment to hear the sermons of a Syrian preacher known as Abu Khatib. Hofstad was connected to networks in Spain, Morocco, Italy, and Belgium, and it was planning a string of assassinations of Dutch politicians, an attack on the Netherlands' sole nuclear reactor, and other actions around Europe. European intelligence services have linked the cell to the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group, which is associated with the Madrid bombings and a series of attacks in Casablanca in 2003. Its Syrian imam was involved with mujahideen in Iraq and with an operational chief of al Qaeda. "Judging by Bouyeri's and the Hofstad network's international contacts," an analyst for the Norwegian government says, "it seems safe to conclude that they were part of the numerous terrorist plots that have been unraveled over the past years in western Europe." The Hofstad Group should not be compared with marginal European terrorist groups of the past, such as the Baader-Meinhof Gang in Germany, Action Directe in France, or the Red Brigades in Italy. Like other jihadist groups today, it enjoys what Marxist terrorists long sought but always lacked: a social base. And its base is growing rapidly....... I'm feeling better already.
What percentage of the German population were Nazis in the early and mid 1930s? Posted by: neill at February 9, 2007 03:14 AM | Permalink to this comment
'freedom of religion' is a tenet of most western democracies only because religion has been completely almost separated from western political life. all our laws and 'rights' relating to religion are based on this state of affairs. what has been and is fermenting in mosques around the world at this moment is completely different. Sharia combines spiritual belief, civil and criminal law, and relations between family members and people in general -- sharia controls all aspects of life. Why should Islam, including the promotion of Sharia -- which is hostile to all other social structures -- be afforded the same protections as western religions that don't threaten the domestic political status quo? Posted by: neill at February 9, 2007 03:35 AM | Permalink to this comment
Neil is right, it is suicidal to tolerate those who are intolerant of those who hold other beliefs & faiths. It is as just true for Jihadism today as it has been in the past for Nazism & Communism Neil: "What percentage of Germans were Nazis in the early and mid 1930s?" David Tomlin: *In two positivly weird coincidences, Jan. 30th was FDR's birthday, his 51st in 1933, & the day of Churchill's funeral in 1965. Churchill's own death on Jan. 24, 1965 was the 70 anniversary of his father, Lord Randolph's, death in 1895. Posted by: David All at February 9, 2007 03:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
How do you notice that the discussion has been completely derailed? Simple, most of the reasonable people have left it a long time ago, and the anklebiters remain. David All: I'm not "selling out the jews/zionists", those were your own words. I'm criticizing the American and Israeli policies in the last years, which have been extremely irresponsible, and which have at the very least significantly contributed to the current explosive situation in the middle east. Stating this obvious fact isn't "selling out Israel", it should be in their own interest to reverse this course, instead of continuing to make it worse. You remind me of someone who uses a hammer to beat his own thumb to a bloody pulp in an effort to MAKE THE HURTING STOP. Your and neill's simplicistic approach to turn every muslim into a Scharia-demanding pseudo terrorist in spe is borderline racist in nature. It insulting our intelligence as much as islamistic extremists who try to turn every christian into followers of lunatic American evangelist preachers calling for the next crusade and praying for the end of the world. Islam by itself is not incompatible to western-style civilization, only certain extremist forms are (just like there are extremist forms of the christian and jewish faith which I consider just as dangerous and inherently incompatible to western civilization, too). Now here comes _the_ cornerstone of western civilization in my eyes: The rule of _law_. The fact that there are rules which define what members of a society may and may not do. Also, the process how these rules are made and how they are independently and fairly judged, and how they are properly enforced. This is the borderline which needs to be watched, and where the more radical forms of religion need to be kept and check and punished where they overstep the boundary of law. So far, I have seen no indication that operating within these constraints of western civilization is insufficient to protect society. And I'm absolutely opposed to SACRIFICE the rule of law to allegedly "protect" western civilization. That's as bogus a concept as committing suicide for fear of death. Besides, the law already has provisions for cases like these. They're differing from country to country, but in essence they offer the tools we need. In Germany, there are provisions against hate speeches designed to incite civil unrest. And there have been cases in which offenders have been apprehended and punished/expulsed (for example the self-announced islamistic Caliph of Cologne). The same will have to continue where it's necessary. Simple as that. (Sidecomment: The same people who are now demanding so loudly to act against islamists tend to be the same who criticized Germany's anti-nazi legislation as infringement on free speech - talk about ironies) Is the rising number of extreme islamists in ALL western societies a problem? Certainly so. The question is how to deal with it. WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF LAW. So let's hear it, what would have to be done? Forbid Islam as religion? Install state-maintained security cameras in every mosque? Turn them into second-class citizens to "discourage" them from coming over? Forbid family members of muslims to immigrate to those who are rightfully living in Europe? Where we'll have to agree to disagree is the perception of "threat". Unlike you, I don't see the "muslim flood" coming which is going to extinguish western civilization. It's an issue which needs to be addressed with reason, not knee-jerk panic activism. And for that, the current situation in the Middle East is not helpful at all. Posted by: Mentar at February 9, 2007 04:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
"'freedom of religion' is a tenet of most western democracies only because religion has been completely almost separated from western political life. all our laws and 'rights' relating to religion are based on this state of affairs." Well, no. It takes people who're ignorant of US history to say that. (Or liars.) We got religious freedom precisely because religious state governments had caused so much trouble, and we didn't want to continue that. And it helped a lot that no one religion was dominant in many states at once. Virginia was run by anglicans, Maryland was run by catholics, and massachusetts was run by some sort of protestant cultists. Our religious freedom was an achievement -- yet another american achievement you're ready to give up. "Neil is right, it is suicidal to tolerate those who are intolerant of those who hold other beliefs & faiths." David All, when you find yourself agreeing with Neill about something fundamental, that's a strong warning to you that something has gone way wrong with your thinking. You can take a stand for religious intolerance if you want to. If you get what you want in the short run, it's still real likely it will backfire later.
Mentar: I do not believe every Moslem is a potential suicide bomber, nor do I believe that Islam is a religion incompatible with Freedom. The problem with Islam is its increasing growing attractions for its extreme or jihadist forms that are incompatible with Freedom, just as the Klan or Nazis are. You say this is because America & Israel are doing violence to Moslems. I believe it is more because of the extremists forms of Islam being promoted primarily by the Saudis with their massive propaganda funded by their oil richs. Given that Sunni suicide bombers have now killed far more of their fellow Moslems, mostly Shia, then they have killed of any other faith, yes even including the 3,000 dead on 9/11, may hypothetis is at least as valid as yours. Oh speaking of backfire, here are a couple of Arab bloggers wondering if Arabs hatred of Jews has not provided the background for Arabs killing each other en masse in Iraq & elsewhere. http://www.bigpharaoh.com/2007/02/04the-curse/#comments & http://baghdadtreasure.blogspot.com/2006/12/zionists-jews.html#comments Posted by: David All at February 9, 2007 10:52 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Islam by itself is not incompatible to western-style civilization, only certain extremist forms are...." *Since 9-11, the extremist 'forms' have been the dominant voice of Islam, n'est-ce pas? Where are the moderate muslim voices who seek to dominate the debate?*
1) Install state-maintained security cameras in every mosque? *Why not? actually, I'd prefer reliable translators. 9-11 emanated from a mosque. as did virtually every other terrorist event.* 2) Turn them into second-class citizens to "discourage" them from coming over? *You euros have already accomplished this without our help.* 3) Forbid family members of muslims to immigrate to those who are rightfully living in Europe? *Actually, if it's a BIG problem for the family, send the FAMILY back.* "Where we'll have to agree to disagree is the perception of "threat". Unlike you, I don't see the "muslim flood" coming which is going to extinguish western civilization. It's an issue which needs to be addressed with reason, not knee-jerk panic activism. " *"flood" is your term not mine. there can be threat without being a flood. What IS your perception of threat regarding european muslims? Reasonably, of course.* "the simple truth is that there is no workable approach other than trying for dialogue and integration - and removing those radicals from our countries which don't adhere to the rules of law (which, in case of citizenship, isn't easily done). In other words, we can try them on a criminal basis where it's possible, but other than that, we'll have to deal with them exactly the same way as any other unfeasible elements" *Ah yes..... that'll stop the growth of a hateful, murderous ideology.* mentar, if tomorrow morning you were to learn that a malignant tumor were growing on one of your vital organs, what would be your reasonable response? Posted by: neill at February 10, 2007 05:24 AM | Permalink to this comment
off topic, but interesting nonetheless. http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=ecba6516-396c-4eb4-b7e4-4bc791ccd0c8 interview with NYT baghdad correspondent John Burns: HH: Can you give us some idea of the scope of mayhem you would predict, Mr. Burns? JB: Well, let me put it to you this way, and I’ve said this before, so…one Iraqi I know well, who lives in an area of Baghdad known as Adamiya, Adamiya was the birthplace of the Baath Party in Iraq. It was the last place that Saddam appeared before he went underground, I recall, on April the 9th, 2003, with American troops already in Baghdad, your listeners may remember. Saddam appeared in Baath Party uniform, his green uniform, standing on top of a vehicle outside a Mosque. That was Adamiya. Adamiya is a Sunni stronghold on the East side of the river in Baghdad. That places it within two miles of the principal Shiite stronghold of Sadr City. My friend who lives in Adamiya said to me a few weeks ago, after a major suicide bombing in Sadr City which killed 225 people and injured three or four hundred, a multiple suicide bombing, that American troops moved in between Adamiya and Sadr City, that’s to say between the Shiite stronghold and the Sunni stronghold, anticipating that Shiite sectarian death squads might come out of Sadr City to avenge the killing of Shiites in this multiple suicide bombing, and attack Adamiya. So there were tanks and other American military units placed between Sadr City and Adamiya. My friend said to me, if the United Nations is correct in saying that 3,700 Iraqi civilians died in October, and that’s a morgue’s count. It may be an underestimate, we don’t know. But he said if it’s correct that 3,700 people died in October across Iraq, think about this. You take the American troops away in this situation, leaving Shiite death squads to move into Adamiya in force without any kind of protection, he said it won’t be 3,700 dead in a month, it’ll be 3,700 dead in the night in Adamiya. Now that may be an exaggeration, but it reflects the kind of fears that are quite widespread, amongst Sunnis in particular, but also to some extent amongst Shiites in Iraq, about the consequences of an American troop withdrawal. (remember later, withdrawal-ites, this is what YOU ordered) ..... HH: Mr. Burns, in reviewing the Charlie Rose interview, as well as the one you did with Bill Maher in March of 2006, I was struck by two statements. To Bill Maher, I’m paraphrasing, yes, the Americans made a whole bunch of mistakes in the occupation, but if we fail, it won’t be because of those mistakes, and to Charlie Rose, the statement that when Iraqis sit down and talk with you in calm situations, the vast majority of people still believe they are better off with Saddam, under Saddam. Nothing was possible, it was frozen. Those two statements are extraordinary. You don’t hear them very much. Can you expand on them? JB: Yeah, I need to say something about opinion polling in Iraq, because opinion polls tend to tell you something different. But I think opinion polling in Iraq is extremely misleading, because opinion is intimidation led. It was under Saddam. If CNN posed a camera in the face of somebody on the street in Baghdad in the fall of 2002, when the war was looming, and they said are you with Saddam or are you with George Bush, well of course, 100% of all Iraqis who were asked that question said they were with Saddam. What else could they do? They didn’t…they were going to end up in Abu Ghraib on the end of a rope. Of course the situation changed somewhat, but any Iraqi who is asked now a question like do you regard American troops as occupation troops, do you want them out, is wise, given the fact that American troops may be in the neighborhood for 30 minutes, but the bad guys are in the neighborhood for 24 hours, it’s wise to give a heavily, carefully calibrated answer, which does nothing to upset the bad guys. So yes, I do believe, number one, that most Iraqis still believe that for all of the price they have paid, amidst all of this chaos, that the possibility of a different kind of future for the country that was opened by the arrival of American troops was net an advantage. Let’s look at what happened after the hanging of Saddam. There were protests, but they were not very widespread, they were not very protracted. Saddam had very little legacy left at the end. The problem was not Saddam. The problem is that the Sunni minority in Iraq has not reconciled to the loss of power. That explains a great deal about the war. It was a frozen society. It was an unbelievably brutal society. And most Iraqis, and this is beyond doubt, and I include in this Sunnis, yearned to be relieved of it. And when America did that for them, it was after many, many years of Iraqis attempting to overthrow Saddam, failing, and paying an incredible price for it. So I think that we’d have to remember that in making an assessment of what happened. As for what has happened since, and the American mistakes, when I said if it fails, it won’t be because of American mistakes, what did I mean by that? Of course, if there hadn’t been some of the mistakes that were made along the way, the situation might be somewhat better. But my sense of it is that if it fails, that history may say it was mission impossible from the beginning, which is to say that when you remove the carapace of terror that Saddam had imposed on that society, what was revealed underneath it was an extremely fractured society which had never resolved the question of power, political and economic power, and how it was going to be divided between the principal communities, mainly Sunni and Shiites. That’s the situation the United States inherited, it’s the situation which continues to fuel the violence there, and it may be that history will say that the china shop rule, the power rule, you break it, you own it, might have been well to consider beforehand, not because Iraqis didn’t want him overthrown, Saddam overthrown. They did want him, and there was scenes of liberation in the streets of Iraq afterward. But you know, this is an extremely complex, extremely violence-prone society, a society that has proven to be resistant to, not yet ready for, and maybe will not be ready for a very long time, for Jeffersonian democracy of the kind that the United States hopes to install there. We’ll have to see what history’s verdict is, but my sense is that Iraqis still, in the main, are happy at least that Saddam is gone, very unhappy about other things, but happy to see him gone. HH: Do you…we’ve got a minute until our break, Mr. Burns. As this new operation goes forward in Baghdad, do you worry that the enemy will stage atrocities and blame the Americans for them, an attempt to set us up again in the court of public opinion? JB: This is what the American commanders call a learning enemy. They’re very astute. I think that’s one of the possibilities, another possibility is that they will melt away, that with an American military build-up in Baghdad, they’ll simply go and cause trouble elsewhere, and there’s all kinds of potential for trouble, but there’s no doubt that if you can stabilize Baghdad, and I think more American troops will go at least some way towards that, that at least you have a stronger foothold from which you can then proceed to try and achieve something else. .....
JB: My sense is, of course there are a range of opinions, as you would expect, especially with an army where in Iraq, which is 40% composed of reservists. My sense is that we don’t talk a lot about that, although I saw George W. Bush when he spoke to the troops in Baghdad in June, in the palace, and he got a response, an absolutely ecstatic response, and I could see how ebullient he was, how buoyed up he was after that, because I think it’s the kind of response he doesn’t get too often in the United States anymore. But what I can say is the American military in Iraq overwhelmingly believe in the mission that they’ve been given. They take it seriously, they know there’s a high price to be paid… HH: Do they believe in Bush, though, Mr. Burns? JB: Do they believe in Bush? You know, it’s not a question I spend a great deal of time asking them about, to tell you the truth. We talk about the mission, we talk about whether it can be accomplished or not. We don’t talk about American politics. I’m sure you would find that there are many people who do not support President Bush, just as there are many others who do. As to how that compares to the opinion at home, it’s really hard for me to say. Posted by: neill at February 10, 2007 04:38 PM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
About Belgravia Dispatch
Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries
Lunch w/ the FT...
Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search
The News
Financial Times
New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks
Security
Books
American Scholar
LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner
Archives
Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
