The so-called strengths of Islamic terrorism: fanatical intent; lack of a centralized leadership; absence of a final authority and cellular structure guarantee uncontrollable escalation once the nuclear threshold is crossed. Therefore the 'rational' American response to the initiation of terrorist WMD attack would be all out retaliation from the outset.I don't quite understand the mathematical equations he employs in the body of the post, but he makes a good point about the bygone days of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
The terrorist intent to destroy the United States, at whatever cost to themselves, has been a given since September 11. Only their capability is in doubt. This is an inversion of the Cold War situation when the capability of the Soviet Union to destroy America was given but their intent to do so, in the face of certain retaliation, was doubtful.The notion that radical Islamists have the intent, but (thankfully) not the capability, to use WMD is sobering, for in all likelihood it's just a matter of time before they get it. Unfortunately, the emotion-based mentality of the Muslim world so often overwhelms reason and cannot see the opportunity placed before it--the world's superpower is spending its blood and treasure (and is willing to spend billions more) to modernize an Arab country's infrastructure and stabilize its political structure.
Throughout Arab culture conspiracy theories abound, virulent anti-Semitim and anti-Americanism are used as psychological crutches, and every effort we make to alleviate their suffering (e.g. reconstruction in Iraq, freeing Afghanistan from the Taliban, saving Albanian muslims from the Serbians, trying to prevent civil war in Lebanon in the early 1980s, trying to prevent the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Somalis, giving billions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians, etc.) is spun to our disadvantage. This irrationality is discouraging because, without agreement on a basic set of facts, we are left with precious little common ground from which to move forward.
The light of hope dims.
Senator Joe Lieberman's primary loss last night to anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont, is troubling because of what it portends relative to the deterioration in the American will to complete the task at hand. If America gives up, there's no question that it will embolden the terrorists and states, such as Iran, sworn to our destruction. I'm concerned that the reconstruction and political stabilization of Iraq will not be completed in time to prevent the strong currents of hatred, which have pulled that region for centuries, from becoming too difficult to overcome. Our window opportunity to make a positive difference in the Middle East before Iran's mullahs and whack-job President get the bomb, is closing.
It is quite clear that Islamic terrorists want to obliterate Israel and the U.S. I hate to be fatalistic, but I fear that it's just a matter of time before all hell breaks loose.
It is quite clear that Islamic terrorists want to obliterate Israel and the U.S. I hate to be fatalistic, but I fear that it's just a matter of time before all hell breaks loose.
Looks like I'm not alone.
9 comments:
You write "Unfortunately, the emotion-based mentality of the Muslim world so often overwhelms reason and cannot see the opportunity placed before it--the world's superpower is spending its blood and treasure (and is willing to spend billions more) to modernize an Arab country's infrastructure and stabilize its political structure."
The "emotion-based Muslim World"? Whoa. First of all, there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Are you really tarring them ALL with the same brush? Secondly, what human world (muslim or otherwise) is not emotional? Thirdly, I don't recall the Muslim world asking the US to blow its "blood and treasure" to stabilize the middle east political structure. I'm sure it's not intended to be, but the statement I've quoted above just reads so belligerently self-righteous and arrogant.
Believe me when I say I don't empathize with fanatics and I loathe those legitimately convicted of acts or plots of terrorism. I just get nervous when people start lumping 1.2 billion people into the same category. Those types of sweeping, incriminating statements sound almost ... I don't know ... fanatical.
To quote a famous president ... 'Fool me once ...'
That's such a lame argument. The implication that my argument is invalid because it doesn't apply to ALL 1.2 billion Muslims is a non sequitur. Is it necessary to qualify ALL my arguments by saying "I realize this doesn't apply to everyone but..."? How ridiculous. I mean, c'mon.
No disrespect intended (Canadians do love qualifiers!), but your way of debating a point by picking out a clear generalization and making the obvious assertion that it doesn't apply in all circumstances--as if that somehow disproves my entire contention--is silly. This "nuance" is just a way of avoiding the issue.
The generalization in my post was so obvious that, I thought, it should have gone without saying. Guess I was wrong. But your comment doesn't even address, much less refute, my proposition that there is a strong propensity by a majority of Muslims (is that better?) to under-utilize, shall we say, reason and logic in formulating their world views and political policies.
With respect to my "belligerently self-righteous and arrogant" statement about Iraq, if you read my post, you would know I wasn't debating the merits of going to war in the first place (a post for another day, perhaps), but rather the opportunity that exists today as a result of the American presence there. So, your point about not being invited into Iraq by the Muslim world is irrelevant.
What is relevant is: 1) we're there 2) we're willing to spend our lives and a massive amount of money to rebuild their country, and 3) although not inexhaustable, we have the resources and political will to do it. I fail to see how that is not an opportunity for Iraq today. If these set of facts appear "belligerently self-righteous and arrogant" to you then, may I suggest, your view of America is jaundiced.
Yours truly,
The Fanatic
Oh my. Well, where to start ...
First, I wasn't saying that the fact that you lump all 1.2 billion muslims into one category refuted your larger claim. I was simply taking issue with it. So if there is a non sequitur there, it lies in you drawing an inference that I am attacking your argument on the basis of that statement, when I was merely taking issue with a massive, offensive and sweeping statement about an entire religion.
You can't say "the Muslim world" and then say "well, it's obvious I didn't mean the WHOLE Muslim world". That's what you SAID! EXPLICITLY! And that's offensive and, frankly, on the cusp of prejuidiced, if not religist (not sure that religist is indeed a word, but racist seems incorrect)!
It would sort of be comparable to ascribing all Christians your views just because you post a very public blog espousing them. I know a Christian or two who would certainly find that prospect more than a mite offensive.
Now, to the more "relevant" aspect of your argument, that "1) [you're] there; 2) [you're] willing to spend your lives and a massive amount of money to rebuild their country; and 3) although not inexhaustable, [you] have the resources and political will to do it.", I will happily address those points. I partially did so in my last comment, but will do so more explicitly here:
1) I don't recall anybody in Iraq inviting the US there -- certainly not the majority. In fact, most of the world didn't want you there as was evidence by the paltry 'coallition' that was formed going in.
2) See above.
3) Bravo. See above.
If you fail to see how that's not an opportunity for Iraq, I'd say review your Viet Nam history.
Pardon the typo in prejudiced.
You're technically right that I wrote "the Muslim world," but I figure most readers are intelligent enough to understand the broader point without demanding numerical specificity. Next time I'll either write "by Muslim world I mean approximately 643,247,091 of the 1.2 billion people, predominately Arab or Persian, that generally live in the region commonly known as the Middle East, who subscribe to the Islamic faith." Or for simplicity's sake (and because the polling data isn't in yet), I'll just write "much of the Muslim world..." Better?
I do apologize for the psychic pain my "massive[ly] offensive and sweeping statement" inflicted upon you. And I am ever so grateful for people like you with highly-calibrated "religist" barometers to keep us knuckle-dragging, right wing Christians in check.
You may attribute my shocking and upsetting post to some lurking bigotry. I prefer to think of it as a lazy error caused from inattention while writing too quickly (again). But, suit yourself.
I do find it strange that you're so offended on behalf of Muslims (of which, I assume you're not one), but you don't protest my broad parenthetical swipe at Canadians for loving qualifiers. To what do you attribute this inconsistency? How do you know I don't mean ALL Canadians, Tom? Where's the OUTRAGE? Is your "Canadianist" measuring device broken or just in storage?
As to your last three-point repetition of an irrelevant non-rebuttal, I appreciate the history lesson. I actually had another historical precedent in mind from a little further back in time. Hint: it starts with "Marshall" and ends with "Plan."
This is all quite tiresome, if not time-consuming. What has become clear is that you are comfortable with your own prejudices and don't really care to dialogue about broader issues (the very thing you have taken issue with me on occasion). Instead of taking a position (I presume you have one on something) and debating it, I find that your method of argumentation falls into one of three categories: 1) relativism (i.e. "who are you to judge," "who invited you," etc. 2) claiming to "not be on the left or the right" of an issue, a form of relativism, which allows you to stay "above the fray," maintaining a (perceived) moral high ground intended to promote the myth of fair-mindedness, while not commiting to an opinion that can be debated, or 3) deconstructing a specific passage to such a degree that the overall point is meaningless. This has the opposite affect of clarifying a deeper truth, or helping to reach consenus.
You can see multiple facets of an argument, which is a great thing. I would have more respect for you if you actually expressed a point of view and defended it, rather than being smug and condescending, and accusing me of being a bigot, among other things (e.g. self-righteous, arrogant, beligerent, offensive, "religist," fanatical, etc.). But, then again, the whole point is not to have a point, isn't it?
I hope you didn't post that reply at 3:11am your time (that's the time it displays for me, but it could be timezone specific). If you did, it explains your grumpy response :) But I'll merrily address it just the same.
Technicalities and Barometers
You suggest that "technically" I'm right on the generalization point, but that the problem is I'm focusing overly on an inconsequential detail. It was merely a "lazy error caused from inattention while writing too quickly," and you apologize for the "psychic pain" caused to me. I actually felt no pain, I just said I thought it was offensive.
Suppose someone said something like "Unfortunately, the emotion-based mentality of the Christian world so often overwhelms reason ..." and then when challenged on the validity, he said "Oh no ... I meant the Christian Identity Movement. They're a loosely, but poorly organized group of extremely emotional, racist Christians. I didn't mean all Christians. Sorry ... typo."
You might be inclined to just say "Oh ... no problem, carry on. It doesn't diminish your larger point," but you might also be inclined to say "Hang on there, partner. You might want to be a little more careful with your words."
So, I guess I would argue that you can take issue with whether I ought to be feeling "psychic pain" by proxy for all Muslims, and assail my "religist barometer", but I still think the faux pas is significant and warranted a comment. If you're seriously looking for suggestions on alternatives, perhaps "radical Muslims" or "Muslim extremists". They seem fairly common amongst reputable writings (both left and right) and wouldn't require much attention while writing quickly.
By the way, my religist barometer was in storage, but I took it out and dusted it off for commentary on your blog. It needed a new flux capacitor and the diodes were dusty, but she seems in good working order now.
Qualified Swipes
As for why I didn't express outrage on your swipe at Canadians:
1) I wasn't sure it was a swipe. If it's meant to mean all Canadians qualify their arguments, I'm not sure how that's offensive. Seems sensible to me.
2) I hadn't expressed any outrage in the first place. I was simply pointing out the remark was offensive. As you so rightly point out, I'm not Muslim and so it would not directly offend me from that perspective, at least. At any rate, offense does not equal outrage and I was certainly not outraged.
Perhaps it was my use of ALL CAPS. That was more for emphasis on the particular words and was more, if any emotion can be attributed, designed to denote incredulity than outrage.
The Non-Rebuttal Rebuttal
I actually think my comment addressed your point quite well. The fact that the US was uninvited and was not viewed as doing anybody any favours in Iraq, should explain very simply and very clearly why people from Iraq (Muslims and otherwise), may not view the US's presence as an "opportunity" to take advantage of their kind offerings of their "blood and treasure". That was why I raised the point about Viet Nam. When you attack a people who so firmly oppose your ideology and don't want your "help", you ought not be surprised when they're not grateful.
Marshall Plan
Regarding the Marshall Plan, you're right about the plan. It was a great plan. I think the key difference there, though, is it was applied after a World War and was addressing the issues that ensue a World War. A much more global solution was needed.
Further, it wasn't forced upon them. Actually, the Russians were offered the support as well and turned it down. They were left out of the plan, but they weren't forced to accept the "opportunity" being given to them.
The people of the countries that accepted Marshall Plan support felt as though they were in need of support. The countries wanted it, and accepted it. In the case of Iraq, a sizeable number of the population (at very least the sizeable contingent of radical Muslims who are launching attacks) don't seem to want the support as is demonstrated by the steady flow of terrorist activity. It could be partly because it is the very group that pretty much single-handedly attacked them is now the very group trying to "help" them.
So, I'd say good idea, but doesn't seem to apply in the same way. Hey ... that sounds like a defensible opinion ... wouldn't you say?
Respek and My Opinions
("Respek" is an Ali G reference not a typo so no need for offense :)
Contrary to your suggestion that you'd have more respect for me if I expressed an opinion, I actually don't think there is a dearth of opinions in my comments. I think I express my opinions fairly clearly (see above) and you're welcome to attack them as you see fit (I think you readily do). I invite/encourage it!
I try, though, to keep my writings on your site to those of a "commentary" nature rather than a completely separate "post" of my own opinion because it is, after all, a "comment" box, not a "post" box (although you might contest that given the length of these last comments).
Further, to a point you made in an earlier response to one of my comments, I have a blog of my own. I don't choose to post my opinions about politics, per se, but that makes them no less assailable. In fact, I believe I encouraged you to launch the odd "heat-seeking, left-loathing missle" at my blog. I half expected to get one regarding the whole Meat Rendering post, but you left none. I realize as a busy Dad in two bands, it probably doesn't allow time to post to your blog and comment heavily on others, so that's probably the reason.
Alas, it seems as though my lengthy commentary on your blog, though, has been a touch too antagonistic and time intensive causing you to grow weary of my words. As such, I can easily refrain from commenting, if you wish. I would guess that eBlogger must allow you to delete comments (I use different blog software, so I'm not sure). Feel free to delete any that you find overly offensive or barbaric.
I'll not comment again unless invited.
Finally! A comment in which you don’t accuse me of bigotry or insinuate some nefarious motive on my part…and even throw in a couple of points of view to boot! I must respond.
You wrote, “If you're seriously looking for suggestions on alternatives, perhaps "radical Muslims" or "Muslim extremists".
I am familiar with those adjectives and have used them on many occasions (in fact, I use the term “radical Islamists” in the body of the post). But, this is instructive, as it helps clarify the larger point I was attempting to make. When I used the term “Muslim world” I specifically intended to include not only the relatively small minority of extreme elements in Muslim society, as you suggest, but also the supposedly moderate elements in that society who are unable--or unwilling--to see beyond bizarre conspiracies and other irrationalities. Their "reasoning” is often rendered ineffectual because it is so commonly expressed with bitter hatred.
Numerous so-called moderate Muslim groups in the U.S. will “condemn” atrocities committed by Muslims in one breath, and in the next list myriad grievances providing justification for such actions (they are strangely silent when Muslims kill Muslims, though). We have a group in the U.S. named CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), which is expert at this technique. Thankfully, some Muslim intellectuals and organizations are speaking out against Islamism, but sadly they are still the minority.
Since, as you correctly point out, long-term solutions imposed from without are rarely successful, my original point essentially boiled down to something along these lines:
“Until a rational, unified and strong moderate voice emerges from within the Muslim world--one which condemns terrorism and those who perpetrate it, cleans out the hatred being taught in madrassas against the West and Israel, and commits to a path toward modernity--there will be no end to violence in the foreseeable future.”
Hmm. Maybe I should have just written it that way in the first place, eh? Oh well.
My not-so-subtle reference to a common colloquialism used by a vast preponderance of our neighbors in the Great White North (I’m getting good at these qualifiers!), brings me to my parenthetical swipe at Canadians. As you could probably tell, it was made in jest. However, I did find your acute awareness to a perceived offense vis-à-vis the Muslim world strangely inconsistent with an equally generalized statement about a people group to which you actually belong.
As I understand it, the "offensiveness" of my statement in your mind didn't result from my contention that the Muslim world was emotion-based. In fact, you implicitly concede the point by asking the rhetorical question, "What human world (muslim or otherwise) is not emotional?" Rather, it was in “tarring them ALL with the same brush” that the literary sin was committed. Indeed you accentuate this assertion by (repeatedly) using an example that exchanges Muslims with Christians under the same scenario.
The salient point here is that it would have been perfectly consistent for you to ask, “How, on earth, would you know if all Canadians qualify their statements? I know a lot of Canadians and, even though they all qualify their statements, there may be some crazy Canuck in this town who hasn’t gotten the memo.” The fact that you did not take offense at my facetious remark about Canadians reveals an inconsistency in your application of the moral offense in question. Just thought that was amusing.
You actually make a few good points about the Marshall Plan that I will address in a blog post later. This is, after all, getting very long.
I will end by assuring you that I am not offended by the ideas/criticisms you put forth; in fact, I often find them interesting. I do, however, take issue with the manner in which, on occasion, you have commented. Whereas your last contribution was amiable, you have in the past suggested that I am a bigot, close-minded, self-righteous, arrogant and fanatical, among other choice adjectives (for someone so apparently sensitive to offending people, you sure dole it out with frequency). Ad hominem attacks are not a substitution for cogent arguments. If you think you can elucidate a point without impugning my motives or character, then I am more than happy to have you comment on my blog. Otherwise, don’t bother.
Right. Well, I'm glad I've been invited to comment provided I play nice.
First, I never did call you a bigot, arrogant, racist, religist, or any of the other nasty names you cite. I simply said that the passages I quoted read that way. That's a huge distinction.
I simply commented on the way it reads with the expectation that you would rephrase or ... wait for it ... qualify your statements. When prompted by the notion that his/her words are possibly offensive, it is customary for one to qualify his/her statements in order to clarify his/her intentions. I was merely pointing out to you what I and/or others may find offensive or interpret to be arrogance.
This approach affords you the opportunity to defend those views or you may, as you've done here, choose to clarify your words and state that you had simply been fairly loose with the words. In other cases, one might go so far as to apologize for a poor choice of words. So, not to put too fine a point on it, but I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply pointed out what I considered offensive, or potentially offensive, wording leaving you to decide to defend or qualify. It's up to the reader whether they agree with my issues on the wording and draw their own character judgments.
Regarding Canadian qualifiers, I'd say, "Touché!" You're right! I should have taken issue with the fact that you lumped all Canadians into one group. I suppose because I didn't see it as offensive, I didn't take issue with it. I guess I'm ok with generalizations for complimentary or innocuous remarks. I just interrupt generalizations that are possibly offensive. It's a matter of temporal prudence :)
Back to the Muslim comment. You say that you specifically meant to apply your statement to a broader group than the 'radical muslims':
"When I used the term 'Muslim world' I specifically intended to include not only the relatively small minority of extreme elements in Muslim society, as you suggest, but also the supposedly moderate elements in that society who are unable--or unwilling--to see beyond bizarre conspiracies and other irrationalities.
It's precisely this type of statement that seems offensive. I mean you're saying things like 'supposed moderate elements' and 'unable -- or unwilling -- to see' and your saying 'bizarre conspiracies and other irrationalities'. You know, with words like those, you could see how a Muslim who is in fact moderate might think you treat their concerns as farcical conspiracies and bizarre irrational thought. Do you really expect them to ever be 'willing' to see the light you so graciously hold out for them when you belittle their concerns as such?
Essentially you're taking a group and saying their "supposedly moderate", but they musn't actually be moderate because they come up with these whacky conspiracies and highly irrational ideas. Maybe that's true. Maybe. But do you really think they will come to a middle ground if people treat their ideas in such a glib fashion?
That's precisely the point I was getting at with my earlier comments. You put all of the Muslim world into one camp because even when you describe those who aren't attacking or conducting terrorist acts, you describe them as supposed moderates with zany theories that are untenable. I strongly doubt that anybody will come to a moderate position if their views are treated with such disdain.
Regarding your point on the need for a strong moderate Muslim voice (to qualify, not referring to a 'supposed' moderate voice - whatever that might be) to come to the fore, I agree. I think that is necessary. I also agree that this is unlikely to happen any time soon. Finally, I also agree, that as you pointed out and, as one of the articles you cited points out, that terrorism will continue to escalate, quite possibly, if not probably, until the point at which nuclear arms or some form of biological warfare is used.
Given the devotion of the radical muslims and the fact that they identify so strongly with afterlife and martyrdom and so distantly with the mortal coil and material world, they will likely continue to escalate their efforts by any means possible. In fact, as you suggest, it may well be that the only possibility for peace in the long term may come from long term military occupation in the region ... Now.
By "Now", I mean now that Pandora's box was wrenched open in Iraq by Uncle Sam. It is unlikely that the radical muslims in Iraq and around the World are going to just settle down and accept the "opportunity" of America's "blood and treasure". They'll likely accept the blood and pass on the treasure (treasure seems contrary to their stated values).
The US going into Iraq has served as catalyst for much of the increased terrorist activity and exacerbated the issues. It didn't help that they didn't find any WMD's. It also didn't help that they didn't finish the job in Afghanistan - the one place that the rest of the world felt they had a legitimate beef. Instead they went to settle an old score in Iraq.
So, yep, long, long, LONG, military occupation may be the only way now. It may be a costly, ugly path but, it shouldn't be a revelation that the radical muslims and 'supposed' moderates don't see the "opportunity" and lay down to accept the wealth and wisdom of their friendly neighbourhood saviours from the West.
In the arcticle you cited, Stanley Kurtz says "No, I don’t think our venture in Iraq has gotten us into this mess. I think this mess has gotten us into Iraq. And the mess will not go away, whatever we do." Perhaps the 'venture' into Iraq didn't technically start the mess, but it sure as heck didn't help! Actually, what got the US into the mess was years of abysmal Middle East and Foreign Policy. The Madassas you refer to weren't formed overnight after the attack on Iraq.
Nope. They were there all through the war in Afghanistan breeding fighters against the invading Soviets. The US didn't mind them so much at the time. After the war, though, the US walked away without offering any "blood or treasure" in the form of a modified Marshal Plan to rebuild. Now you, Kurtz, and the Belmont group seem surprised that those schools now teach hatred of the West and that those fighters will stop at nothing (including Nuclear war) in their fight?
Also, the quote you cited where the Belmont Club says "The terrorist intent to destroy the United States, at whatever cost to themselves, has been a given since September 11." Since September 11? Hello? The multiple suicide bombings and bombing attempts on multiple US targets (including the WTC) didn't indicate that any earlier? This isn't news, man. It's just been ignored UNTIL September 11th and exacerbated BY the invasion into Iraq!
Post a Comment