Why they cant win the War on Terror
This is NOT another run-of-the-mill, pat-me-on-the-back article for conservatives. Give it a shot.
I’d post it here but don’t want to lose the formatting.
According to that article (did you even read it), terrorism is fomented by interventionist US policies destabilizing the world and, specifically, the middle east.
SO…the unstated point that the author was kinda trying to misdirect you away from is that the “GWOT” has been created by the same people who are so desperately trying to fight it.
AND…the liberals will fail because what they want to do is a “kinder, gentler version of neo-conservativism.”
This is a strawman argument and not a very good one. Democrats, and liberals in general, want nothing to do with the bullshit, half-baked Wolfowitz/Feith/etc. nonsense.
BUT…the author’s argument doens’t work without the lie.
All the neo-cons got used by big oil.
Once we got into Iraq the neo-cons were shipped off or indicted (Franklin).
The moral of the story is reality trumps ideology when reality has more money than god and ideology does not.
This is pretty well known to liberals already. The problem is deciding which policy is correct one.
[i]
According to al-Qaeda expert Rohan Gunaratna, “What Osama and his followers object to is not so much the American way of life, not so much Americans themselves, as what they perceive the American government, in the shape of its foreign policy, is doing to Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, the occupation of which is intolerable to Osama.”
The key to winning the war on terrorism, then, is not a liberal internationalist version of neoconservatism or going back to the future by applying Truman anti-totalitarian liberalism to promote freedom and democracy against the radical Islamic threat. Rather, what is required is a real overhaul of U.S. foreign and national security policy based on an understanding that U.S. interventionism is a root cause of anti-American resentment in the Muslim world ? which breeds hatred and becomes a steppingstone to violence, including terrorism. Accordingly, the guiding principle for U.S. policy should be to stop meddling in the internal affairs of countries and regions around the world, except when they directly threaten U.S. national security interests ? i.e., when the territorial integrity, national sovereignty, or liberty of the United States is at risk. This is especially true in the Middle East and Muslim world.[/i]
Conservatives don’t get this either.
So what if we got bases in the middle east? We got bases in Japan, South Korea, Europe but they don’t have a huge problem with it.
[quote]semper_fi wrote:
So what if we got bases in the middle east? We got bases in Japan, South Korea, Europe but they don’t have a huge problem with it.
[/quote]
They don’t like the imperialistic nature of what we are doing. Even though it isn’t strictly imperialistic it does have that ring to it.
Imperialism leads to our values and culture dominating over their values and culture. This may or may not be a bad thing depending on how you view it. To the fundamentalists our values take away from their culture–mainly their culture of religious domination.
Personally, I like the idea of democracy being spread but it isn’t the only thing we are spreading and that is hurting our image in the eyes of these fundamentalists. We pay lip service to the all mighty dollar and that is all that they see.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
According to that article (did you even read it), terrorism is fomented by interventionist US policies destabilizing the world and, specifically, the middle east.[/quote]
Yes, naturally. The piece is made from a libertarian/paleo-conservative perspective, and I wholely agree with its underlying premise. I know that such viewpoints come as a shock to those who are used to hearing nothing besides the mainstream non-debate. It’s good to broaden your horizons every once in a while; every person here is stuck in a “liberal vs. conservative” mindset. This article takes both sides to task.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
SO…the unstated point that the author was kinda trying to misdirect you away from is that the “GWOT” has been created by the same people who are so desperately trying to fight it.[/quote]
Please explain “GWOT”. I don’t know what this is.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
AND…the liberals will fail because what they want to do is a “kinder, gentler version of neo-conservativism.”
This is a strawman argument and not a very good one. Democrats, and liberals in general, want nothing to do with the bullshit, half-baked Wolfowitz/Feith/etc. nonsense.
BUT…the author’s argument doens’t work without the lie.
[/quote]
How is that a strawman? What he’s saying is that liberals will inevitably fail because they subscribe to the same ideology as the neocons, albeit a slightly weaker, toned down version of it. Whenever there is a national crisis, such as a terrorist attack, people will naturally side with the stronger, bolder version of what amounts to two nearly-identical platforms. That’s why liberals will continue to lose until they either adopt a consistent stance against intervention or manage to beat the neocons at their own game of war. Predictably, they’re following the latter route. Hillary Clinton is started to outshout hawks on the right in preparation for a Presidential run.
Mainstream liberals aren’t even remotely opposed to war. They support it when it is done for the “right” reasons (i.e. by a Democratic admin). This makes them hypocrites and kills any chance they might have of “ending the war”. That is the point of the article.
[quote]semper_fi wrote:
So what if we got bases in the middle east? We got bases in Japan, South Korea, Europe but they don’t have a huge problem with it. [/quote]
Anti-American sentiment is rather high among the South Korean and European population, though, granted, not in Japan - to the best of my knowledge. Regardless, you’re missing the point. Nobody in America gave two shits about the Middle East until they sent a rocket up your ass in the form of 9/11 and thus ignited the present firestorm. It is no different with any other occupied territory. Perhaps nothing has happened in S. Korea or Europe…yet. But what’s key is the realization that a continued American presence in these lands only fuels the fires which inevitably lead to conflict.
I have yet to see the following question answered by an adherent of the interventionist school of foreign policy.
How would you feel if Chinese troops were stationed in your city?
How would you feel if the Russian government issued issued an ultimatum to the United States, with the implied threat of force if it didn’t comply?
Foreigners around the world have lived under precisely such conditions for decades or even generations.
Terrorism is, first and foremost, the blowback for decades of imperialism.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I have yet to see the following question answered by an adherent of the interventionist school of foreign policy.
How would you feel if Chinese troops were stationed in your city?[/quote]
Were the Chinese troops requested by my government to be there?
If so, and I didn’t like the troops there, I would vent my disapproval toward the ones that permitted it.
In this scenario, are the United States and Russia in any kind of transnational agreement that permits force? I just want to clarify.
And, they have done the same to others. This is the problem with all this ‘blowback’ justification nonsense - it is used selectively against the West. Why can’t we just as easily say all the aggression toward the Middle East - assuming there is some - isn’t justified as blowback from all the meanness of the Ottoman Empire?
Terrorism is, first and foremost, a form of combat used by an ideology that wants to dominate like every other murderous ideology before it. Until the Islamists achieve dhimmitude of the non-believers - or die trying - they will continue to wage their war. And along with it, they will continue to manipluate their way into the hearts of the soft thinkers that peddle the imperialist-blowback theory.
First, the Islamists wanted the West out of Saudi Arabia. Now, they want Jews out of Israel - the Palestinian cause is of recent vintage, by the way. OBL has suggested that he wants to reclaim Spanish Andalusia. Where does it end?
If you think that Islamists merely want a little justice and a little land to call their own, you are as foolish as those who thought Hitler would stop in the Sudetenland.
“Peace in our time!” - thank God the libertarians are kept away from the big boys’ table.
There are a lot of people speaking for what “the terrorists” want as if they actually know.
Anyhow, the strange part is that nobody can “win” against terrorism, because terrorism is the byproduct of other things. One of these things is a little matter of religious indoctrination.
So, tell me, how can anyone, liberal or conservative, plan to defeat terrorism if it will continue to spring up due to the easy indoctrination into a fanatical mindset of Islam?
The option of simply committing genocide and wiping out anyone who chooses to read the Koran is not something that is every going to be appropriate or even possible.
Other solutions simply must be found. Frankly, anybody who is willing to try things AS WELL AS combatting known terrorists when they can be indentified, will have a better chance than someone who only knows how to use force.
Force is not a very sophisticated tool and it isn’t good at eliminating ideas. People tend to harden when faced with force directed against their beliefs.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Force is not a very sophisticated tool and it isn’t good at eliminating ideas. People tend to harden when faced with force directed against their beliefs.[/quote]
This is true up to a point. I think the Japanese reaction to Hiroshima and Nagasaki suggests that resistant societies can also crumble when OVERWHELMING force is directed against their beliefs.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
semper_fi wrote:
So what if we got bases in the middle east? We got bases in Japan, South Korea, Europe but they don’t have a huge problem with it.
They don’t like the imperialistic nature of what we are doing. Even though it isn’t strictly imperialistic it does have that ring to it.
…[/quote]
But interestingly our bases in the middle east are far less imperialistic than out bases elsewhere.
We set up military governments in Japan and Germany. Far more imperialistic than the democracy we quickly implemented in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our bases in the Philipines were imperialistic.
Of course the terrorists knowledge of our history is worse than our knowledge of theirs.
I don’t buy into the terrorists propaganda.
They want us out of the middle east (especially Saudi Arabia) so they can take over, raise the price of oil (Osama says $ 100/barrel minimum) and export their ideology to the west.
We could back out of the middle east and our children could fight a stronger foe tomorrow.
I believe it is best to end the threat today.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Were the Chinese troops requested by my government to be there?
If so, and I didn’t like the troops there, I would vent my disapproval toward the ones that permitted it.
[/quote]
I believe that is what they are doing in addition to blowing up a few stray American’s here and there–casualties of war…
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
This is true up to a point. I think the Japanese reaction to Hiroshima and Nagasaki suggests that resistant societies can also crumble when OVERWHELMING force is directed against their beliefs.[/quote]
LOL. Okay, are you suggesting that nuclear weapons should be used in this scenario?
It isn’t like the general populace is in favor of the insurgency, so wiping out the population will have an incredibly negative effect.
Once again, the situation of today is nothing like WWII. The entire world would be consumed with hatred (hardened) if such a tactic were employed today.
You simply make my point for me.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Were the Chinese troops requested by my government to be there?
If so, and I didn’t like the troops there, I would vent my disapproval toward the ones that permitted it.[/quote]
Since this hypothetical scenario is based on actual, historical precedent, I will reply that in some cases the answer would be yes, in others no. But providing aid to unpopular governments (as in Iran, Vietnam, and Uzbekistan) has never done anything to improve America’s image to the people who live under those governments, so the question is moot.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In this scenario, are the United States and Russia in any kind of transnational agreement that permits force? I just want to clarify.[/quote]
Perhaps so, perhaps not, but what can be said for certain is that such agreements tend to be honored only by those nations who lack the capability of imposing their will on others. Real politik has always been based on the principle of might, not law. Law is completely irrelevant unless one has the might to enforce it (Libertarian principle #1: All laws are enforced at the point of a gun). History validates this time and again. For instance, everything that Hitler did was legal under the modern, western standards of law in his country. George Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton each violated dozens of international laws and treaties by pursuing military action in Iraq and Bosnia, respectively. Neocons and other followers of the interventionist school of foreign policy have no regard for international treaties. Once more, the question is moot.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And, they have done the same to others. This is the problem with all this ‘blowback’ justification nonsense - it is used selectively against the West. Why can’t we just as easily say all the aggression toward the Middle East - assuming there is some - isn’t justified as blowback from all the meanness of the Ottoman Empire?[/quote]
From a historical perspective, that’s absolutely correct. Every nation and culture has had its turn at being the hegemon, the global bully. In the grand scheme of geopolitics, that’s why they still exist as independant entities today. But we are not living in the time of Alexander the Great. We are supposedly living in a modern era of democracy and enlightment, in which such territorial conflicts are a thing of the past. Nobody today - not even the neocons - is justifying interventionism on the grounds you raised.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Terrorism is, first and foremost, a form of combat used by an ideology that wants to dominate like every other murderous ideology before it. Until the Islamists achieve dhimmitude of the non-believers - or die trying - they will continue to wage their war. And along with it, they will continue to manipluate their way into the hearts of the soft thinkers that peddle the imperialist-blowback theory.[/quote]
This is a grave mistake. Terrorism is most certainly not reserved for Muslims; it has an extensive historical basis. And every ideology strives to dominate. Fundamentalists hate moderates, and moderates hate fundamentalists. The methods which are employed to advance ideologies vary depending on circumstance. In dire circumstances, more extreme methods are used. This is the very reason why the Catholic Church once used torture to peddle its own ideology. In its current position of power, there is no need to employ such drastic measures. But Muslim fundamentalists do not enjoy this level of power, and this is reflected in their methods.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
First, the Islamists wanted the West out of Saudi Arabia. Now, they want Jews out of Israel - the Palestinian cause is of recent vintage, by the way. OBL has suggested that he wants to reclaim Spanish Andalusia. Where does it end?[/quote]
It ends when you learn to how to distinguish between ideological propaganda and legitimate grievences. Every ideologue has a list of objectives that stretches into infinity, far beyond what is possible for him to achieve. Liberals want a world without poverty – it ain’t gonna happen. Conservatives want a world without immorality – it ain’t gonna happen. Religious fundamentalists (of any breed) want to convert the entire world to their side. That ain’t gonna happen, either. You have to realize that no matter what propaganda is spouted by OBL or any other ideologue, they all require the support of other individuals in order to carry out their objectives. Thus, it is pointless to react to mere threats. One must first determine how much weight there is behind a threat and its maker.
How then, do extremists obtain the necessary support to carry out their goals? The answer is simple and time-tested:
They exploit legitimate grievances to win the support of the general population. Once popular support has been established, it is not difficult to make a gradual shift from a relatively moderate ideological platform to one that is far more radical in nature.
This has happened again and again. It is a time-tested formula if ever there was one.
It is necessary to recognize that extremists always make up a small minority of an entire population. The best way of combatting them is to deprive them of popular support by not causing the grievances which they use as stepping stones to power. This is the Libertarian stance on foreign policy, in a nutshell. It is also the principle behind the common Libertarian (NOT liberal) sentiment that “Osama Bin Laden and George Bush are allies in the war on terror”. Everything the latter has done has only empowered the former.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/BinLadenWins.htm
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If you think that Islamists merely want a little justice and a little land to call their own, you are as foolish as those who thought Hitler would stop in the Sudetenland.
“Peace in our time!” - thank God the libertarians are kept away from the big boys’ table.[/quote]
Academic Libertarians have an immensely comprehensive understanding of geopolitics, power dynamics, and history. None of the points you raised were new to me, as a student of Libertarian doctrines. Naturally, everything is open to debate, but it is foolish to raise a single anecdote and act as if it validates your entire argument while crushing that of your opponent, particularly in an area of such depth as international relations.
In regards to your anecdote about Hitler, there is a very simple Libertarian retort which echoes the principle I mentioned above. It is this:
Who empowered Hitler, in the first place? Who provided him with the means to hijack one of the most advanced cultures in Europe and turn it into what he did?
Just as the history of terrorism didn’t start on 9/11, the history of Nazi Germany didn’t start when Hitler assumed power.
Once again, we’re presented with the issue of blowback.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Since this hypothetical scenario is based on actual, historical precedent, I will reply that in some cases the answer would be yes, in others no. But providing aid to unpopular governments (as in Iran, Vietnam, and Uzbekistan) has never done anything to improve America’s image to the people who live under those governments, so the question is moot. [/quote]
Well, the question isn’t moot because it is part of a larger context - the US needed a presence in the Middle East to prevent Soviet penetration into the Gulf. The alternative was what? Allow the advancing totalitarian regime easy access to the largest oil reserves in the world?
Non-academic geopolitics present difficult questions without clean solutions.
I was just curious as to what extent you wanted to afford a transnational treaty any respect with regards to your question. I see that you afford it none, so moving on.
And here is your most glaring mistake - the erroneous assumption that we live in some ‘enlightened age’ where territorial conflicts are a thing of the past. Nope. And there is no basis for believing so.
Moreover, your paragraph was a large non-answer. That still doesn’t explain why ‘blowback’ is used selectively.
I wasn’t advocating any kind of interventionism - but I would like to know why ‘blowback’ is justified for some but not for others.
Here is another mistake. I never suggested the terror was reserved for Muslims. I said terror was a form of combat used by Islamists. It has been and is used by many other ideologies.
What is the legitimate grievance here? The Islamists repeatedly state that they want to destroy the apostates so they can introduce the one and pure Sharia law. Recently in an interview, an Islamist said that Muslims should ‘own’ Britain - that’s not a function of some grievance, that is a desire to conquer, pure and simple.
Exploit? Yes. Legitimate grievances? No.
But this ignores their ideology. It doesn’t matter what actually occurs - they will find an excuse to advance their ideology because they want to. If we packed up and went home and became pure isolationists, the Islamist charge would still occur and it would still have as much support as it does now.
Does that mean I recommend acting like a transnational bully? No.
I know Libertarians well, and I think they are fantastically naive.
Hitler rose via democratic power - so what? You going to blame the meanies who had the audacity to make a humiliated aggressor like Germany sign the Treaty of Versailles?
No - nor will it end by rolling over and engaging in a policy of appeasement, or pretending like the control of the Middle Eastern oil reserves doesn’t matter to our country. The Islamists want to dominate the region and use the price of oil to cripple the nations they despise. Withdrawing from the Middle East, withdrawing support for Israel, and going home with only a trade relationship with the Middle East won’t stop the Islamist movement.
As for blowback, it is a trendy and threrapeutic word that means little in a historical context. It only works if you constantly assign victimhood arbitrarily to one group, which you have consistently done. The world is more complicated - ‘blowback’ of the West against the Middle East could have easily started when certain Arab countries reacted to the creation of Israel - a perfectly legitimate creation of a nation-state, yet the Arab countries immediately took military action.
[quote]vroom wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
This is true up to a point. I think the Japanese reaction to Hiroshima and Nagasaki suggests that resistant societies can also crumble when OVERWHELMING force is directed against their beliefs.
LOL. Okay, are you suggesting that nuclear weapons should be used in this scenario?
It isn’t like the general populace is in favor of the insurgency, so wiping out the population will have an incredibly negative effect.
Once again, the situation of today is nothing like WWII. The entire world would be consumed with hatred (hardened) if such a tactic were employed today.
You simply make my point for me.[/quote]
I am not necessarily advocating the use of nuclear weapons, although that would be an option in response to terrorist attacks (ie not the situation in Iraq). There are other methods of applying overwhelming force by non-nuclear means.
Pershing was successful in putting down Islamic terrorism in the Philippines with the strategic use of pigs. The key to achieving overwhelming force has less to do with the method employed and more to do with the reaction of the people you are trying to overwhelm.
My solution would be to take all the waste from our pig farms here in the US, which is a huge problem, and drop it on any Mosque or muslim that preaches hate toward Israel and/or the US.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
My solution would be to take all the waste from our pig farms here in the US, which is a huge problem, and drop it on any Mosque or muslim that preaches hate toward Israel and/or the US.[/quote]
I’m down.
i’m a liberal, and so is everyone on this site.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
This is the very reason why the Catholic Church once used torture to peddle its own ideology. [/quote]
I wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inquisition.