Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism

[Rex Brynen]

Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism,
Al Qaeda, American Policies, and Islamist Politics

Wednesday, February 25, 2009
9:00 – 10:30 am
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C.
Root Room, 2nd Floor


The START Center of the University of Maryland and WorldPublicOpinion.org will release the findings from extensive new public opinion research in Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia, supplemented with additional data from Turkey, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories, and Azerbaijan. The research examines in detail public attitudes on such topics as:

• Views of terrorist attacks on civilians in general and Americans in particular
• Views of attacks on US troops based in Muslim countries
• Perceptions and views of the goals of al Qaeda
• Perceptions and views of US foreign policy objectives in the region US military presence in the Persian Gulf
• The participation of Islamist groups in the political process
This survey repeats some questions asked in START’s groundbreaking 2007 study and permits assessment of positive and negative trends over time in Muslim public attitudes. Insights from focus groups in several countries will complement the polling data.

A panel will discuss the implications of the findings.

Moderator: Gary LaFree, Professor, University of Maryland and Director of START
Presenter: Steven Kull, Director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes and WorldPublicOpinion.org
Discussant: Daniel Brumberg, Acting Director Muslim World Initiative, United States Institute of Peace

Coffee and continental breakfast will be available at 8:30am. Please RSVP at info@pipa.org or 202-232-7500.

[George L. Singleton]

Rex in Montreal:

Thanks for this posting and please update it when the final report is issued to the public.

Also, as just one American I appreciate that he Government of Canada last year did a 4 year extension/continuaiton of your military helping us in Afghanistan.

Much oblidged!

[120mm]

I'm not normally a betting man, but I would almost be willing to bet money that the outcomes of this would surprise your typical American. Gallup's polls on the same subjects found that the Islamic World's public opinion opposes terrorism more than the same opinions in the US.

There is a definitional problem here, though. Is an irregular attack on US military forces in a foreign country "terrorism?" Sometimes, I think we throw events in the "terrorism" basket unjustly.

[jmm99]

from 120mm
There is a definitional problem here, though. Is an irregular attack on US military forces in a foreign country "terrorism?" Sometimes, I think we throw events in the "terrorism" basket unjustly.

Been looking at this problem in the last few "War Crimes" posts dealing with the Eminent Jurists report, which I've slogged through. Also slogged through the 1977 Protocols to the 1949 GCs (1977s not ratified by US; 1949s are in force for us).

As I read the Protocols, the guy who attacks you is required to carry arms openly when he attacks (maybe when he is setting up for the attack) - and is considered a protected combatant. Then, he goes back home (hiding his weapon on the way) and become Joe Villager, a protected non-combatant. Totally nuts.

Since most of the NATO countries have ratified the 1977 Protocols, this issue is not academic - it affects their rules of engagement. Their ROEs are also affected by a very limited definition of "armed conflict" in their jurisprudence, which would treat many of these "incidents" as criminal acts only.

Keep that little doggie avatar safe from those non-combatant combatants.

[John T. Fishel]

you've just made the point that while domestic law is more than sufficiently complex, international law (of war, at least) is totally problematic.:eek:

By current "laws" all insurgents who don't fight openly - 99% - are illegal combatants and most (90%+?) are terrorists at one time or another - making them simply criminals. So, the obvious conclusion is that rather than lionize a Nelson Mandela, we should haul him before the ICC and try him for his acts of terrorism 40 years ago - even though he (1) served time and (2) was critical to the emergence of a new South Africa that is the only really stabilizing force in the region.

Cheers

JohnT

[jmm99]

:confused:

Here is a starting point (for what ended up a longer screed than I intended):


from John
By current "laws" all insurgents who don't fight openly - 99% - are illegal combatants and most (90%+?) are terrorists at one time or another - making them simply criminals.

As I view this statement (with which I have much agreement in end result), it mixes two different things:

(1) How to treat combatants under the Laws of War (kill, wound or detain); and

(2) How to treat the same people under the Rule of Law (criminal prosecutions).

----------------------------
As to the first thing, there are two different streams of law:

(1) 1949 GCs, where in US law these insurgent combatants are not protected combatants (GC III does not apply, but Common Article 3 does), and are certainly not protected civilians (GC IV does not apply). One of them can claim either GC III or GC IV status; and if so is entitled to an fair hearing on that claim. Otherwise, that combatant is entitled only to the rights under Common Article 3 - which are not the best-defined in the world.

(2) 1949 GCs + the 1977 Protocals I and II. While those Protocals may be subject to interpretation, one reading is that an insurgent combatant can turn on and off his or her combatant or civilian status - but, regardless of which status, is still protected either as a combatant or civilian. In that view, the ANC folks, being part of a "national liberation struggle", were lawful combatants or lawful civilians - depending on which costume they decided to wear at the time. Most NATO nations accept the Protocals. Interestingly enough, the nations where we now have armed conflicts (Iraq through India) do not accept the Protocals.

--------------------------
As to the second thing, I see use of "terrorism" to define a crime as problematic - simply because attempts at drafting definitions of "terrorism" have been notably unsuccessful. In terms of US constitutional law, those definitions tend to flunk either the void for vagueness test, the overbreadth test or both.

Still, like pornography, we do have a grasp of what terrorism is - we know it when we see it, even if we can't define it. Moreover, the acts of combatants (if they are unprotected under the 1949 GCs) can certainly be criminal acts, as well as acts of armed conflict.

My suggested path out of this morass is basically KISS - relying on US constitutional law as the fundamental guide (I'm sworn to support that, not the views of the Eminent Jurists).

As to the first point (the Laws of War), the power to declare and conduct armed conflicts is vested in our Executive and Legislative branches (leaving aside the relative powers of each in that area, the overall power cannot be questioned). There is no limitation that that power can only be exercised against State actors who commit acts of armed conflict against us. It is up to the Executive and Legislative branches to decide what in any particular case constitutes acts of armed conflict within that power, and what State or non-State actor or actors are responsible for those acts of armed conflict. Those acts may or may not constitute "terrorism" - the definition of which is not material to the existence of an armed conflict (which is determined in the discretion of our constitutionally designated bodies - hopefully in their sound discretion, but determined none the less).

The criminal law issues then fall into place, once we determine under our (US) law whether the combatants on the other side are lawful or not under the 1949 GCs (see, e.g., FM 27-10) that we have ratified. If they have lawful status, their combatant acts in the armed conflict are protected from criminal prosecution (lawful combatant immunity); and, if detained, have PW/POW status. If they do not have lawful status, their combatant acts in the armed conflict are not protected and they may be prosecuted criminally; and, if detained, would be subject to Common Article 3 status [**].

The criminal law charges are vanilla - murder, assault, attempts to do the same and conspiracy are all well-defined crimes in our domestic law. One could (as in the case of KSM) add some of the Nuremberg charges. E.g., I view 9/11 as a crime against humanity - as well as a planned attack by combatants (unlawful) against strategic targets in an armed conflict. Whether those crimes should be tried in Federal court, or in special courts under different procedural and evidentiary rules, is a separate question as to which reasonable people can differ as to the pros and cons.

As a final note, a criminal statute could be enacted making it a criminal act for individual combatants to engage in an armed conflict with the US, where they are not protected by combatant immunity under the GCs as we have ratified and interpreted them. So far, we have not done that; but have provided that they may be detained for the duration of the armed conflict in which they were involved.

In conclusion, my view is that "terrorism" is not a good term - either to define legal standards, or for that matter to define the nature of an armed conflict.


-----------------

Yes, the literal phrase is "declare war", but from the gitgo that was read by US jurists (e.g., Kent's Commentaries (http://www.constitution.org/jk/jk_000.htm) from the early 1800s) not to require a formal declaration of war:


LECTURE III. OF THE DECLARATION, AND OTHER ABLY MEASURES OF A STATE OF WAR.
....
2. Declaration of War.
....
But though a solemn declaration, or previous notice to the enemy, be now laid aside, it is essential that some formal public act, proceeding directly from the competent source, should announce to the people at home their new relations and duties growing out of a state of war, and which should equally apprise neutral nations of the fact, to enable them to conform their conduct to the rights belonging to the new state of things. War, says Vattel, [(b)] is at present published and declared by manifestoes. Such an official act operates from its date to legalize all hostile acts, in like manner as a treaty of peace operates from its date to annul them. As war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States without an act of Congress, such an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and equivalent to the most solemn declaration.

Thus, there must be an AUMF act by Congress, which may be short of a formal declaration of war - as Kent points out by examples from the times before and after the Constitution was adopted (footnotes omitted below - see full text at link above for context):


Since the time of Bynkershoek, it has become settled by the practice of Europe that war may lawfully exist by a declaration which is unilateral only, or without a declaration on either side. It may begin with mutual hostilities. [(a)] After the peace of Versailles, in 1763, formal declarations of war of any kind seem to have been discontinued, and all the necessary and legitimate consequences of war flow at once from a state of public hostilities, duly recognized and explicitly announced by a domestic manifesto or state paper.

In the war between England and France, in 1T78, the first public act on the part of the English government was recalling its minister; and that single act was considered by France as a breach of the peace between the two countries. There was no other declaration of war, though each government afterwards published a manifesto in vindication of its claims and conduct. The same thing may be said of the war which broke out in 1793, and again in 1803; and, indeed, in the war of 1756, though a solemn and formal declaration of war, in the ancient style, was made in June, 1756, vigorous hostilities had been carried on between England and France for a year preceding.

In the war declared by the United States against England, in 1812, hostilities were immediately commenced on our part [{55}] as soon as the act of Congress was passed, without waiting to communicate to the English government any notice of our intentions. [(x)]

------------------------

[**] The Executive and Legislative branches have overall constitutional power (again leaving aside the issues of the powers held by each branch) to abrogate, amend or clarify the GCs. That may be unwise, and a breach of I Law, in a particular case; but, they (acting jointly) clearly have that power. It is difficult for many people around the World (e.g., the Eminent Jurists) to grasp that the Constitution, not I Law, is the Supreme Law of our land.

[John T. Fishel]

As is often the case, we really do agree. I found the interpretation of "declaration of war" particularly interesting. By this discussion, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the authorization to use force against Iraq (2002) constitute declarations of war.

I also believe that I understand your argument to say that there is no reason that a protected combatant who commits a crime - not inherent in making war such as premeditated murder of noncombatant civilians - could not be prosecuted for that act. (That is the Nurnberg precedent, isn't it?)

cheers

JohnT

[jmm99]

from JTF
By this discussion, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the authorization to use force against Iraq (2002) constitute declarations of war.

Briefly, the 1949 GCs moved away from defining hostilities in terms of "war" to defining them in terms of "armed conflict". The GTR was more phrased in terms of Southeast Asia as a whole, where Vietnam was only one of the dominoes. If we take it in that broader context, we won the "armed conflict" as defined in that "declaration of war".


from JTF
I also believe that I understand your argument to say that there is no reason that a protected combatant who commits a crime - not inherent in making war such as premeditated murder of noncombatant civilians - could not be prosecuted for that act. (That is the Nurnberg precedent, isn't it?)

Combatant immunity applies only to a protected (lawful) combatant in reference to acts which are within the bounds of the laws of war. I did not make that clear enough in my screed. E.g., shooting a prisoner or a known non-combatant is an obvious crime in hindsight - what it seemed at the time to folks in the field was another thing entirely.

[Bob's World]

Personally I try to avoid the term "terrorism" as much as possible. It just isn't very helpful as it describes an organization's actions with no linkage to their purpose. It is widely held that when one's purpose is adequate, or cause just, that terrorism is lawful and proper. The fire bombings of cities filled with civilians and little else in WWII in an effort to force an early surrender and thereby preserve allied lives, for example. This, however, creates a slipperly slope, as one is going always have a lower standard for justifying ones own actions, while at the same time emposing an impossibly high standard to hold ones opponents to. This is why only the losing side faces trial for war crimes, regardless of actions on the ground.

Similarly, "Counterterrorism" as a mission set is not particularly helpful either, and encourages the use of the previously discussed unhelpful term "terrorist" to describe the opponent. There are already plenty of terms in the lexicon to describe offensive actions, one adds nothing by labeling the target of those actions as a "terrorist."

If something does not provide value, it is superfluous, and should be dropped. When that same thing in fact causes one to lose value it should be dropped quickly. Yet we cling to this, as it helps us feel good about our actions as they are being levied against those who are so bad. If you need such a moral crutch to justify your actions, you may need to reassess your approach to the problems you face.

As to the legality of insurgency, we declare "just" insurgency as not only legal, but as the nobelest of callings in our Declaration of Independence. We declare it to be both an inalianable right and a sacred duty of a populace faced with despotism that cannot be cured by available legitimate means. This is our first law as a nation, and as such it has precedence over all others, or at least I would comfortably argue that to be true in court.

We only find insurgency to be illegal when the populace exercising this duty and right is doing so against us or an ally. That is a hard position to justify, unless we are willing to nullify the Declaration first. And that, would be cause for insurgency indeed.

[George L. Singleton]

We only find insurgency to be illegal when the populace exercising this duty and right is doing so against us or an ally. That is a hard position to justify, unless we are willing to nullify the Declaration first. And that, would be cause for insurgency indeed.

Since when do you we give US citizenship status to foreign terrorists [which term I do use as it is accurate, despite academic asides] in order to then give them the "benefits" of US citizens?

This is absurd on it's face, and it looks to me [my view, again] that some here are pandering to what they may think to be "political correctness."

Summary court martials in the field with executions would stop more, not fewer, repeat murders and attacks by the same terrorists, my view again here.

It is historic fact, not rumor, that the US Congress bipartisanly pursued, and subsequently the UN, too, the old Taliban regime in Kabul to surrender up bin Laden and his fellow terrorist thugs, and yes, I still think the term Islamo-Fascists fits them quite well, but due to the guise and excuse of "Muslim hospitality" owed to fellow Muslims, the old Taliban governemnt of Afghanistan refused our demands. Of course all this was predicated against the fresh event of 9/11.

What you are defiant of is the fact that this is a religion driven form of terrorism, which the terrorists advertise daily but some here in the West want to "pretend" it just "ain't" so...but it is. Closing girls, and even some boys schools "in the name of religion." Killing other Muslims who are not of the stripe of what many of us know now as the form of Wahabbi Islam. Arab Islamic terrorists, infecting via their funding of later day radical Islamic madrassahs, not to be confused with just plain madrassahs in days of yore.

Pakistan has it's hand full, but I will offer a compliment to former President Musharraf who had the backbone to police up the red madrassah in Islamabad, which we all recall was a weeks long hot fight in the capital city.

As for President Kharzi, he is a Pukhtun who is also a former Taliban, and as such was a member of the Taliban Cabinet that allowed bin Laden to come in, have sanctuary, and foster his evil plots and deeds from insiide Afghanistan.

You may want to think about President Kharzai in view of circulating stories that he has paid cash for and now owns 6 Pizza Hut franchised restaurants in the Atlanta area, where word has it he would or will "retreat to" when he has to "leave office."

For my part, I wouldn't mind seeing a return to the king dynasty in Afghanistan, which was no worse than we have today in Jordan. I like the system which works in Jordan and wouldn't mind that system, a kingdom with a parliament, be installed, again, in Afghanistan.

[Bob's World]

Since when do you we give US citizenship status to foreign terrorists [which term I do use as it is accurate, despite academic asides] in order to then give them the "benefits" of US citizesn?

This is absurd on it's face, and it looks to me [my view, again] that some here are pandering to what they may think to be "political correctness."

Summary court martials in the field with executions would stop more, not fewer, repeat murders and attacks by the same terrorists, my view again here.

What you are defiant of is the fact that this is a religion driven form of terrorism, which the terrorists advertise daily but some here in the West want to "pretend" it just "ain't" so...but it is.


America's founding fathers, or in this case primarily Thomas Jefferson with major final edits by John Adams and Ben Franklin, wrote a powerful and timeless document, and they did not believe that the principles contained within it only applied to the populace of the American colonies, in fact, I believe they held "that all men were created equal." If you are making the argument that these principles upon which America was founded only apply to Americans, then I believe you will find yourself taking a position that not many will share.

As to your focus on religion, you are confusing causation and motivation. The cause that gives rise to insurgeny is poor governance that cannot be resolved through legal means. The role of ideology in insurgency is to rally the populace to join together to fight for that cause. In the Middle East the causation is poor governance, often in countries whose governance the U.S either installed or has supported in staying in power. This is why we find ourselves joining these governments on various insurgent target lists far too often. The ideology that is effective in the Middle East is based in the dominant religion of the region. This does not somehow convert the conflict to being about religion.

[George L. Singleton]

Bob:

Your points are mistaken, in my view. It is that simple.

The ideology we share as Americans was not based on nor derived from the tenants of terrorist Islam. That was and remains what I am talking to and about.

Governance as mentioned by you as applies to Afghanistan refers to religion in my book, not governance as you and I routinely in a Western sense understand it.

Your well intentioned Quaker views just don't fit the Islamic terrorists who are not coming from the same foundation as you.

Religion {Islam} is the culture of Afghanistan, and vice versa. IN the attempt to impose the terorists form of governance the poor are kept downtrodden by the mullahs who make a living off their backs, the same way slave owners in the US of old made their fortunes off the backs of held down by slavery blacks.

Thanks for your views, but we simply are not on the same page.

My focus has to be specific in today's world, which is finding ways and means to outwit and out maneuver the violent religious terrorists, who have the "high ground" among their fellow Muslims almost all the time in that Muslims are being "gagged and dragged around" by the religious notion that all Muslims must tolerate other, even terrorist, Muslims vs. the UN and NATO. Never forget that the late, former UN Administrator to and in Afghanistan was murdered a few years ago by the Taliban in Afghanistan, their reaction to attempted UN assistance to the average Afghan in need.

I still think "the wedge" belongs between Pukhtuns and Arab al Qaida. Arabs are simply a different lot vs. the Pukhtuns.

I am recovering from a bad virus and in and out of hospital, so excuse what you or anyone else reading us on SWJ might interpret as shortness on my part. I am weary, not fully well, and perpetually frustrated to put down the Islamo-Fascists whose headway is being made by default in Swat...the Punjabi ruling elite in Pakistan never historically having been willing to once and for all impose and man, repeat man, with troops and more police, the enforcement of the writ of law vs. the.....Sharria law, there we ago again, the religious law over the civil law!

Also, if you read some of the Global Hujra Online postings I added to SWJ just yesterday (2/21 on my side of the pond) you will see very many Pukhtuns saying pretty much what I am observing myself in this posting.

[jmm99]

as Judge Bates might say:


from BW
As to the legality of insurgency, we declare "just" insurgency as not only legal, but as the nobelest of callings in our Declaration of Independence. We declare it to be both an inalianable right and a sacred duty of a populace faced with despotism that cannot be cured by available legitimate means. This is our first law as a nation, and as such it has precedence over all others, or at least I would comfortably argue that to be true in court.

We only find insurgency to be illegal when the populace exercising this duty and right is doing so against us or an ally. That is a hard position to justify, unless we are willing to nullify the Declaration first. And that, would be cause for insurgency indeed.

Since these speak of the legality of insurgency, I have to say that the justness or unjustness of the insurgency is not material to whether the acts of the insurgents are lawful within the Laws of War or within the Rule of Law. The question of "justness" or "unjustness" are valid policy questions for a nation to ask in deciding whether to support or oppose an insurgency. They also are valid questions of conscience (between you and God) for you to ask before engaging in an armed conflict.

Whether the insurgents are lawful combatants or not (within the 1949 GCs as ratified by the US) hinges on whether their insurgency (a "Power" to the armed conflict as defined in Common Article 2) has accepted and applied the 1949 GCs in their insurgent acts.

The "justness" or the "unjustness" of their cause has nothing to do with it - unless you adopt the 1977 Protocals which are very clearly aimed at "justness" and "unjustness" - as in "national liberation struggles" which are presumptively "just" in those additions to the GCs. If, BW, you are arguing that, so be it - but that ain't the law in the US.

In 2 of our wars directly dealing with the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, the insurgents were first treated as traitors. Eventually, in both wars, the respective parties saw the light of law and treated their opponents as lawful combatants (for the most part).

------------------
None of the following statements has any legal validity, except the third.


from GLS
Since when do you we give US citizenship status to foreign terrorists [which term I do use as it is accurate, despite academic asides] in order to then give them the "benefits" of US citizesn?

This is absurd on it's face, and it looks to me [my view, again] that some here are pandering to what they may think to be "political correctness."

Summary court martials in the field with executions would stop more, not fewer, repeat murders and attacks by the same terrorists, my view again here.

What you are defiant of is the fact that this is a religion driven form of terrorism, which the terrorists advertise daily but some here in the West want to "pretend" it just "ain't" so...but it is.

As to the first ("US citizenship"), none of the cases so far decided has conferred US citizenship on any detainee - and the sole benefit accorded has been habeas corpus. That latter right, BTW, has always existed for aliens within the jurisdiction of US courts. You can validly argue (as Justice Scalia did very well) that the Gitmo detainees are not properly within that jurisdiction (but he lost that argument). The first talking point is best left to talk radio.

As to the second point, "pandering" and "political correctness", and if that is directed at yours truly, I'll leave it to the readers of 700+ posts to decide whether "pandering" and "political correctness" is part of the program.

As to the third point, that has legal validity. We could have a statute which says in effect that any unlawful combatant, in an armed conflict declared by the Executive and Legislative branches, shall be tried before a summary court martial in the field and, if found to be an unlawful combatant, shall be executed.

As to whether that would be wise or effective, I would like to hear from some field officers who would have to be doing the trying and the executing - Cavguy and Schmedlap immediately come to mind, but there are many more here.

As to the fourth point, whether the combatant is religiously motivated has nothing to do with the lawfulness of his acts - except in one respect. The laws of war accepted by AQ, for example, are not the GCs (which they cannot accept in good faith).

Guess it's just my day to interpose with O-6s.

[Ken White]

Guess it's just my day to interpose with O-6s.Keeps 'em alert... ;)

I'm here to testify that you do not pander and PC does not pertain.

I could insert a Yooper comment here but I'll be PC and decline. :D

[George L. Singleton]

Thanks for your posting.

I believe the UN Resolution(s) dealing with Afghanistan; the decisions of the NATO Council cover what needs to be done and is being done.

Add to that the bipartisan Resolutions of our US Congress (you chose not to comment on this) adds to the above two points.

How many allied troops, captured, have been summarily beheaded or otherwise murdered vs. safely returne to us you might also want to look into.

This part of the world historically has respected the winner, regardless of means, which has the terrorists again in current circumstances "on top" in too much of Afghanistan.

Here is today's postings by native Pukhtuns in and around Swat and related areas fyi as well:

http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2295

Here is another just put on the wire Global Hujra Online set of postings wherein one Afghan who is an old Communist himself [the Communists were part of the Northern Alliance when we took them in as partners initially against or vs. the Taliban in Afghanistan], which may be of readership academic interest. Sounds a bit like some of our postings today, but for the insertion of the term Communist and Communism.

Does this foretell yet more civil war options in Afghanistan? I certainly hope not as we don't need to go back to Communism any more than we need to tolerate today's Taliban.

http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?p=61092#post61092post61092

One last thought: Today's Pukhtuns in Northern Paksitan are in many cases the children of Pukhtun Refugee Camps set up outside of Peshawar and related areas during and after the long war in old Afghanistan of the 1980s. Many of these exile Pukhtuns have someone been recruited into and now are a part of the back and forth stream of terrorists going to war in Afghanistan, then running back into Paksitan for presumed "safe haven."

http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?p=61092#post61092post61092

[Bob's World]

I really only post those thoughts that I believe contribute to expanding the perspectives of those who come to this site looking for insights on the current problems facing the world. Those positions I hold that are already widely held or established I don't feel compelled to restate. Though I will freely admit that I am an unconventional thinker even within an unconventional community.

America possesses a powerful ideology. It was forged in crisis, and has been tested by time and conflict, and has emerged as sound and enduring. Men and women around the world look to the words, the thoughts, the principles contained in those documents and draw hope and strength from them just as those early American Insurgents did as General George Washington formed his 7000 man army in a hollow square to hear them for the first time in lower Manhatten on 7 July 1776.

Later day insurgents like Mao and Ho studied the American experience carefully, and applied the lessons to their own long struggles to overcome poor governance in the face of far superior, legitimate forces of government.

We do a disservice to ourselves and to our heritage when we do not stand firmly on these principles, and grant the same rights and duties to others that we demanded for ourselves. To do otherwise, is frankly, un-American.

The governance of the Middle East was both shaped and held static by Western powers since the fall of the Ottomans; and just as the end of WWI and WWII, the end of the Cold War was a catalyst for change, and the information tools of Globalization are powerful accelerants.

This conflict has been widely mischaracterized in my opinion; and the US response has been far more designed to sustain a status quo that is favorable to the US under the old Cold War terms, than to help enable a future equally favorable to the US, but one that is also far more consistent with our ideological roots as a nation.

The days of "he's a dictator, but he's a friendly dictator" ended with Globalization. No longer can a sovereign control the information available to his populace (with rare exception, such as N. Korea). Foreign policy today must be more sophisticated in design, and must take fully into account the needs, the will, the hopes and the desires of the populaces who occupy the regions where we believe our interests lie; and can no longer be covered by simple treaties between sovereigns with the tacit understanding that each sovereign will control his populace as part of honoring the agreement.

To ignore this is to risk the same folly that other great nations have faced before us. History tells us that empires come and go. I believe firmly that America is nowhere near the end of her time, but if we ignore the changes to the environment in which we live, we risk hastening the day our power wanes.

I don't take these positions to argue with anyone. I take them because I believe them to be both important and under represented in the marketplace of ideas. We are a nation at a crossroads, I merely point out that we have options as to which route we take.

[George L. Singleton]

Bob, I like your history lectures as was history major myself.

My "guerialla" thinking, humerously but factually true, I guess flows down from my ancestral cousin, Colonel John Singleton Mosby, CSA, known as the Grey Ghost and at least formerly taught to have been "a" father of guerilla warefare at West Point, even though Mosby never set foot there.

Seriously, Islam is it's own culture, it's own governance system, and has nothing democratic about it. We are not going to change a billion Muslims lifelong imbued theology with my or your views.

But, as regards this site, the SWJ, yes, you do good for those who take the time to read and understand your highminded idealism.

The fact that we disagree as applied to Afghanistan, Paksitan, etc. is yet another matter in my book. But, I respect your right to express your views and you have done and are doing some good by same.

Thus, your Quaker origins shine through constructively just as my wife's Christian Science background saves us many medical bills by her reliance, as Norman Vincent Peale said and wrote, on the "power of positive thinking."

Final Question that might best be addressed as a new thread: Does anyone think that NATO forces might soon be invited to come into to help salvage, as in save, the City of Peshawar and that part of Northern Pakistan, in conjunction with the Pak Army? Just a wild shot question which comes from some Pukhtuns who are in touch with me daily who "wish" such could and would happen. Talk about day dreaming, right?

[Rex Brynen]

Seriously, Islam is it's own culture, it's own governance system, and has nothing democratic about it. We are not going to change a billion Muslims lifelong imbued theology with my or your views.

There is simply no way that one can reduce the complex and varied societies (note plural) that make up the Muslim world to a formulation this simplistic—and, I might add, misleading.

There is no single Muslim "culture" any more than there is a "Christian" one, and Islam (like Christianity) contains both democratic and anti-democratic theological elements, all of which are in turn open to varied interpretations.

Anyone who does thinks that formal religious doctrine trumps all should live in Quebec: by far the most Catholic province in Canada (86%), it also has the highest proportion of support for abortion, support for same-sex marriage, support for euthanasia, and more than one third of all couples never bother to get married.

[jmm99]

Extensive links and quotes about GCs, combatants, war crimes, constitutional and diplomatic history - all in Astan context specifically - can be found here at these two SWC threads:

Possible Afghan war crime evidence removed (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6421) - started by Tom Odom

Defending Hamdan (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6118) - started by JMM

I've also "touched" on these issues in the War Crimes (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4921) thread - started by Davidbfpo

-------------------
More important

I would be very interested in links (evidence, not hearsay) on the following topic:


from GLS
How many allied troops, captured, have been summarily beheaded or otherwise murdered vs. safely returne to us you might also want to look into.

My ulterior motive is that those cases would provide negative answers to the following questions that I asked in Defending Hamdan post # 10:


Did the Taliban state, at any time, that it was bound by the provisions of the GCs, including common Article III ? If so, provide text of statement, date, source, etc.

Did the Taliban abide by the provisions of the GCs in their armed conflicts with the Northern Alliance, US and allied forces ? If so, make your case - prove it

Did AQ-Ansar state, at any time, that it was bound by the provisions of the GCs, including common Article III ? If so, provide text of statement, date, source, etc.

Did AQ-Ansar abide by the provisions of the GCs in their armed conflicts with the Northern Alliance, US and allied forces ? If so, make your case - prove it

Positive answers to these questions would mean that Taliban and AQ are lawful combatants within the scope of the Reporter's Notes to Common Article III and preceding Articles I & II of the 1948 GCs. Thus far, no one has answered those questions in the affirmative.

To put my quest in non-PC terms, evidence of war crimes puts Taliban and AQ into the scumbag status - unlawful enemy combatants in more accurate legal terms.

If anyone wants to contribute to this by providing evidence of Taliban or AQ war crimes against US or allied forces in Astan (or Iraq for AQ), start a new thread in Law Enforcement and we will go from there.


I know they committed war crimes against both civilians and opfor units in Astan before our involvement - and to the present. I've read the DoS and UN reports. I'd like to see what war crimes they have committed against us.

[George L. Singleton]

http://www.unama-afg.org/docs/_UN-Docs/_ga/_resolutions/ares53165.pdf

Here is a UN Report giving you a factual starting point on Taliban atrocities vs. the various international agreements which Afghanistan [on paper, at least] is supposed to belong to, observe, etc. While the Taliban today are not the government of Afghanistan, they were "the" government of Afghanistan and in power when when the UN published this report. Allow me to use grouping terms as you know what my meaning is.

Dead as in killed is the condition of our brave soliders who are "caught up with" by the Taliban more than beheadings. If you expand your view to other parts of the primitive Islamic world, Somalia, now parts of Kenya, you find the same terrorism, murder and brutality all in the name of religion, theirs, not ours to be sure.

SIDE COMMENT: Of course the US and West/our allies world wide are focused on what is best for us in anything we undertake. That is common sense. But we didn't go looking for this religious war that came to our shores. I'm sure some/one of you corresponding writers on this thread didn't mean we should not promote our own best interests, which involve our basic concepts of free enterprise, democracy, etc.?

The 2008 murder in Kabul of a UK national AID worker, a girl in her early 20s; the beheading of Danny Pearl in Pakistan but by the same "stripe" of terrorist Islamic Pukhtuns are not new news.

The Taliban of both Pakistan and Afghanistan are essentially one and the same. They and their likeminded religious terrorist allies are one and the same when it comes to their Islamofobic theology driven actions of murder and mayhem. Ask the Chinese, the French whose engineers have been slaughtered. Ask innocents in a fronter northern Pakistan church peacefully observing Christmas in recent years, machine gunned down by Taliban terrorists.

The UN currently is trying to "talk the Taliban" into not using children under age 15 as suicide bombers. I find this absurd as suicide bombers per se, women,girls [children], boys and men, is a wrong action in terms of those who say Islam is a religion of peace.

You refer to my statements as "overly simplistic" and I answer that I have written on SWJ more than once that, of course, there are more than 25-26 differing versions of Islam as there are that many differing Arabic dialects used to translate the Quaran for the various Muslim readers.

Why in the world would you overlook my total statements and presume otherwise baffles me?

I guess some just don't like the fact that I believe in building a house one brick at a time. Therefore the story of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Ismhael, and Isaac are the first few bricks of truth and fact for me, at least. God then blessing the lines of both Ishmael and Isaac, but favoring as "his own" the line of Isaac. This is where this whole divergance that ends up in radical Islam comes from. Too me, I am baffled folks don't accept this historic religious reality to know what we are dealing with today. It all starts with Abraham, Hagar, Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac.

Today, I believe the issue of Israel, Jerusalem, etc. is a factor used by radical Islamofascits/terrorists to incite hatred throughout the Islam and total world where other Islamics live. I understand and know from my own past and current, everyday experinieces with Muslims here in our city that attitudes vary toward Israel, but the line of central thought is Israel has no justification to exist, the Holocaust is now being said to not have happened, even among some Paksitanis in their media, etc, etc.

Today we still have to deal with the hundreds of millions of illiterate Muslims [I am repeating myself again] who are controlled by oral tradititon and thus it depends on which mullah is talking to them, friend or foe of the West my meaning, as to how these illiterate Muslims act out their faith. I have written on this, too, during this weekend on SWJ.

One example of my first hand experiences: A young Muslim engineer, I'd suggest no more than age 25 if that, born and raised in UK, but now working in Quatar with a jointly owned UK-Arab Oil Company picks up on letters from me in the Karachi DAWN on the war on terrorism. He starts e-mail dialogue with me, the second e-mail is to tell me that I am an infidel, practice a false religion, and that he and his fellow Muslims are correct, etc, etc.

Of course, I put this idiot down by contacting (e-mail) the top management of his UK-Arab Co. and they shut him down at my request. But, things are not always that simple or that peaceful.

I've had threats of my life, and have had to take some protective actions through area law enforcement officials. These religious fanatics, who exist inside Muslim communities in US today as well as where we are fighting, in Europe, etc. the hot heads, the terrorists, are a "may way or no way" bunch. *See my posting of this weekend wherein I mention teenage Muslim boys, in our local public schools, circulating al Qaida pamplets encouraging boys to volunteer to kill Americans, etc.

Over and over my point in your apparent wishing that all Muslims are or would be moderates or peaceful/both doesn't overcome the basic religious Abraham-Ishmael-Isaac dicotomary that was/is step one on their part to judging, condemtning and sentencing us all as regards those who decide to literally sign onto the actoveterrorist agenda

So allow me my first hand and other documented here info without distorting what I am saying here.

I have used the building block process, the Abraham and Sarah et all Bible story to discuss, peacefully, religion (comparative) the past three Christmases in a row on Global Hujra Online, with increasing success. But, there have been hostiality and slurs, too. But the numbers of more friendly respondents/correspondents has grown each Christmas. People to people still works, slow as it may be.

These statements on my part, at least, show this thread as I was warned by one of the commentators here two days ago that this would, and it has, become circular in motion.

Knowing my own theology is my creedo, but knowing what in my theology is shared and what is disputed with Islam is essential to knowing where we are and where the war on terrorism is or is not going.

I have several Muslim friends and we jointly emphasize what we believe in common and avoid what we don't agree with. That works for us but is not, as you must realize, not always the case, either here inside the US nor worldwide.

Surely you have read the news from last week where a so-called moderate Islamic couple with a major TV show here in the US feel into marital disharmony, and the husband, a Vice President of the US Council of Muslims (unsure exact title) cut his wife's head off...as he saw his authority to do so from his Islamic faith!

I am weary of reports about what "we" may have done to offend others and more focused on what they (the Islamofascist terrorists) are doing and saying that offends me. My view.

[jmm99]

for the moment (only), both George and Bob have raised a couple of points that do tie in with the OP and polling data - that is, what do the natives think.

First from George:


I still think "the wedge" belongs between Pukhtuns and Arab al Qaida. Arabs are simply a different lot vs. the Pukhtuns.

I think there may be merit in this wedge - also the wedge between Taliban and non-Taliban Pashtuns.

I've visited Global Hujra Online a number of times; and, yesterday, spent a good part of the night there (including the two threads George cited most recently below). I say that because there seems some tendency to assume that people are not reading things.

Global Hujra Online slants anti-Taliban and anti-AQ - and very pro-Pashtun (and less than friendly to "Punjabis"). But, having said that, the questions I would still ask are:

1. What is the magnitude of those sentiments among all Pashtuns - and then break that down by regions in "Pashtunistan" ?

2. What power base (if any) do these anti-Taliban and anti-AQ Pashtuns have - how many brigades can they field ?

In the run-up to Iraq, we had a surplus of anti-Saddam types who were going to be the solution to the problem. Yeh, right. So, I am leery about the talk, without seeing the walk.

PS - George: I've read that UN report and a dozen others; and also all of our DoS reports on human rights violations in Astan. What I was looking for are specific, documented cases where Taliban & AQ in Astan (or AQ in Iraq) committed war crimes - not just fought us - against our troops. Those cases belong in a new thread in Law Enforcement, if anyone is interested.

-----------------------------
Second, from Bob. No specific quote to start this off, but it has to do with propagating ideology and providing governance.

From the gitgo on SWC, you have made an excellent case for US ideology. While the two of us have disagreed on specific points, both of us are in love with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. OK, agreed that we (US) have an excellent ideology. And, I would say we have a good (albeit scarcely perfect) system of governance. A number of other countries could present the same message (albeit somewhat different, as in David's UK).

So far as assisting another country in countering an insurgency problem, I would ask how material are our ideology and system of governance in solving their problem. Both would be very material if we were willing to make that country our 51st state - not a likely scenario.

Let us take Vietnam as an example. Well-read Vietnamese were well aware of our ideology - Ho wrote it into the preamble of his first constitution. But, let's move south and ask the important question of which was more important to combatting the VC and PAVN: the ideology and governance system of the GSV (from Diem through the iterations of generals); or our ideology and governance system - which was unknown to the vast majority of the population and which was not going to be established in SVN no how, no way ?

In short, if the ideology and governance system of the host nation is FUBAR, what difference can our superior ideology and governance system make in the end result ?

Anyone on this one.

[George L. Singleton]

On your question #1, what is the magnitude of negative sentiment against the Taliban among Pukhtuns?

A healthy percentage (your should have data on this among the various contributors to SWJ, as you guys are sharp on detailed information and data) of the Pakistani Frontier Corp; the regular Pak military in general (Army, Navy, and Air Force) are ethnic Pukhtuns. But, under current circumstances the "loyalty" of these in uniform Paksitanis who are simultaneously Pukhtuns is questioned by some, of whom I am one.

As to how these existing Pak military folk who are ethnic Pukhtuns view this, we would slide into the awful discussion of the Pak general officership and leadership in general having used through the ISI the Taliban as surrogates to cause trouble both with Afghanistan and with India, primarily over Kashmir. Very messy topic.

As to the younger Pukhtuns, hundreds of whom belong to and write on Global Hujra Online, a minority want to work with today's Pak military in the hope that the Pak Government will actually use it's Army (more so than the Frontier Corp, which is or was designed to go along to get along with the wild frontier people...Pukhtuns of the most feudal background and levels of undersanding and lifestyle...).

Some (but not all) of the most outspoken young Pukhtuns on Global Hujra Online are high school and lower level university students abroad, mainly in Europe. Many such, but not all, were born in Europe of native Pukhtun parents. These heavily outspoken younger Pukhtuns, apart from my side e-mail I plan to send you shortly [privately] are [my opinion] disorganized day dreamers who dote on who conquered who hundreds of years ago down to the fight with the USSR in the 1980s. *As an Australian Army Captain currently in the field in Afghanistan recently noted some young observer Pukthun teenage boys recently joined Taliban Pukhtuns in a fire right against NATO forces in Afghanistan "on a lark" as it looked like a "fun" thing to do. This sort of spontaneous terrorism is a topic unto itself, but deserrves mentioning.

A third grouping of Pukhtuns who are daily on Global Hujra Online are the Taliban Pukhtuns themselves! They are learning the art of disinformation and confusion and move more and more adroitly between topics to create information chaos, simply put. They will also, of course, spread lies to alledge atrocities against the Pak miliary, the UN/NATO/US forces in the field over there. Of course don't expect these Taliban writers on Global Hujra Online to identify themselves as such. In general I have found some such are among those who are least able to write in English and thus tend to do postings in Pushtu instead of English. But, a few do try English and you can get "some" meaning out of their remarks.

My answer to your second, #2 question, is now in a private e-mail to you, as I believe it is best answered outside of public view at this time.

Stopping this open dialogue now, being "nice" for a change and not commenting at all in/on Bob's area of your counter questioning.

[Bob's World]

-----------------------------
Second, from Bob. No specific quote to start this off, but it has to do with propagating ideology and providing governance.

From the gitgo on SWC, you have made an excellent case for US ideology. While the two of us have disagreed on specific points, both of us are in love with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. OK, agreed that we (US) have an excellent ideology. And, I would say we have a good (albeit scarcely perfect) system of governance. A number of other countries could present the same message (albeit somewhat different, as in David's UK).

So far as assisting another country in countering an insurgency problem, I would ask how material are our ideology and system of governance in solving their problem. Both would be very material if we were willing to make that country our 51st state - not a likely scenario.

Let us take Vietnam as an example. Well-read Vietnamese were well aware of our ideology - Ho wrote it into the preamble of his first constitution. But, let's move south and ask the important question of which was more important to combatting the VC and PAVN: the ideology and governance system of the GSV (from Diem through the iterations of generals); or our ideology and governance system - which was unknown to the vast majority of the population and which was not going to be established in SVN no how, no way ?

In short, if the ideology and governance system of the host nation is FUBAR, what difference can our superior ideology and governance system make in the end result ?

Anyone on this one.

I know that I have called the tenants embedded within our Declaration of Independence "US Ideology," and given how confused the entire topic of the role of ideology in insurgency in general, and the GWOT in particular, I probably need to reconsider, to get my messaging right so that my message itself is not hindered by these diverse perceptions.

When I speak to the importance of the principles embedded in Declaration, it is not to say that we need to force others to adopt them, it is that we need to hold ourselves to them in our engagement with others. This is important so I will reiterate:

We need to hold ourselves to the principles contained within the Declaration of Independence in our engagement with others.

For example. The Saudi Monarchy derives its legitimacy not from its own populace, but from the security and support of the Government of the United States of America. When the Saudi populace desires to reshape their government to one that draws its legitimacy not from a foreign power, but from the populace of the governed, we resist those changes and focus instead on the preservation of the governance as it currently exists.

There are several aspects of such an approach that puts current U.S. Policy clearly at odds with the founding principles contained within the Declaration.
1. The sovereignty of a government should come from its own populace, not from a foreign government.
2. Every populace has the right to choose whatever form of government that it believes will best serve their needs.
3. Every populace has the right/duty to rise up in insurgency if need be in order to establish points one and two.

Now, what I typically see, is that when you take the words of the Declaration literally today (as they were certainly taken when it was written) it strikes nearly as much fear and causes nearly as much resistance among American officials as it did among the British officials when they received their copy back in 1776.

My peers say: "you can't let the Saudi populace chose its own governance, they would select a form of government heavily infused with Wahabist ideology!"

But the Declaration says that as an American, not only must I respect the will of populaces everywhere to sort out their own governance, but because I demanded this for my own nation, I am doubly held to contempt when I attempt to deny it to others for the sheer hypocrisy of my actions.

So I do not, and have not, ever suggested that America should set out to make every populace believe as we believe; in fact I am the strongest advocate I know of for being against that very proposition. We have done far too much shaping of governance of others to meet our own needs to date. What I do advocate is that we hold ourselves to our own principles; and then enable populaces and governances to evolve as peacefully as possible from their current governments that draw legitimacy from abroad, to new governments of their own choosing that draw legitimacy from the governed.

As I have stated before, we did what we needed to do to win the Cold War; but the Cold War is long over, and the populaces that had the greatest controls exerted over them in that Cold War effort that have not yet self determined are largely in the Middle East, and are largely in Sunni dominated states within the Middle East.

We do not need to apologize for our Cold War actions; but we do need to shape our post Cold War strategies to be far more in synch with our founding principles as a nation. The Cold Warriors were effective, but they are now as obsolete as the rotary phone line they set up between the Kremlin and the Whitehouse. We must evolve.

I don't know what America's new strategy needs to look like, and I can only speak for myself. But if asked to offer our new President one piece of advice it would be that I think he would be far better served drawing from the principles drafted by men like Jefferson, Adams and Franklin; than those drafted by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. But that's just me. The later three are not bad men, but they are good Cold Warriors, and the model they sought to enforce no longer works in the current environment. The timeless model proposed by the first three still does.

[slapout9]

When I speak to the importance of the principles embedded in Declaration, it is not to say that we need to force others to adopt them, it is that we need to hold ourselves to them in our engagement with others. This is important so I will reiterate:

We need to hold ourselves to the principles contained within the Declaration of Independence in our engagement with others.




There is some super duper Grand Strategic Stuff here!!!

[davidbfpo]

Here in the UK much is made of our shared, common values as the bedrock of confronting terrorism / violent extremism / extremism (there is a seperate debate over which phrase is best). In the Cold War there were some shared values in the Western alliances, notably within NATO and the Pacific partners.

What values do we, the West, share with Muslim public opinion? The UN Declaration Human Rights and many other declarations?

Political Islamism is often explained as different from the Western notions of democracy, but embraces accountability, change of rulers etc (alas notes not to hand now).

Just a small contribution.

davidbfpo

[George L. Singleton]

What we must have is the ability to recognize that the war on terrorism will last generations.

That said,it has a great deal in common with how the Cold War was fought ideologically.

That is why last year I pushed and still favor better enhanced use of Voice of America to the Islamic world overseas who in so many cases are illiterate and dependant on their battery operated radios and tv sets for outside and even national news day to day.

The Internet is not a resource to these several hundred millions of poor, uneducated folks.

[jmm99]

My final question in my last post, which was this:


In short, if the ideology and governance system of the host nation is FUBAR, what difference can our superior ideology and governance system make in the end result ?

was targeted to the micro level - that is, what works or doesn't work in the Host Nation in-country - as opposed to the macro level (US national policy and the decision whether to assist the Host Nation in the first place).

I picked South Vietnam as an example because my impression of that situation was that the GSV (from Diem onward) generally lacked a message that could be successfully propagated among the vast majority of its population; and also failed in governance of that population.

The GNV did have a number of messages (land reform, nationalism, etc.) which appealed to the population on their face. Note that Communism was not the message that the GNV propagated to the masses. Also note that the GSV preached similar messages (land reform, nationalism, etc.). The GNV, via the NLF (which included non-communists and communists, but was controlled by the latter), also established a parallel system of governance (run by the LD cadres and their hit squads) throughout South Vietnam.

The majority of the populace was caught between a rock and a hard place. The respective messages were not that distinguishable; and the traditional village-based system of governance was respected by neither the GNV nor the GSV. The folks who were anti-GNV and anti-GSV, and who wanted to chart an independent course, were "neutralized" by one side or the other well before we became more involved in 1964-1965. The governance by the GSV was corrupt in many senses of that word. The governance by the GNV, via its cadres in the South, was very totalitarian - from the muzzle of a rifle to paraphrase Mao. By 1964, the situation (in terms of respective areas of control by the GNV and GSV) had returned to much the same picture that existed in 1954.

Now, moving to the macro level (US national policy) and the three basic principles cited by BW, we have:


from BW
There are several aspects of such an approach that puts current U.S. Policy clearly at odds with the founding principles contained within the Declaration.

1. The sovereignty of a government should come from its own populace, not from a foreign government.

2. Every populace has the right to choose whatever form of government that it believes will best serve their needs.

3. Every populace has the right/duty to rise up in insurgency if need be in order to establish points one and two.

and my macro level question, assuming those principles were to be applied in 1964: What should the US have done in Vietnam in 1964 ?

-----------------------

In 1954, the GNV, via the VM and PAVN, controlled large areas of South Vietnam (i.e., in Annam, the French held some coastal enclaves; the Central Highlands were GNV-controlled; Cochin China was a patchwork). The Geneva Accords resulted in a large movement of VM cadres north (ca. 100K; many later were infiltrated south) and theoretically gave the GSV control over the VM areas. The actual practice over the next 10 years was quite different.

I've tried to keep the facts as simple as possible in describing Vietnam between 1954-1964. If there are fallacies included, or added facts needed, feel free to add or subtract.

[jmm99]

from David
What values do we, the West, share with Muslim public opinion? The UN Declaration Human Rights and many other declarations?

The following links may help in answering these questions.

A few months after 9/11, American and Saudi intellectuals exchanged letters. The Americans started the exchange with a letter entitled What We're Fighting For (http://www.americanvalues.org/html/wwff.html), affirming American values and explaining the US response to 9/11. The Saudis replied with a letter entitled How We Can Coexist (http://www.americanvalues.org/html/saudi_statement.html), welcoming a dialogue with Americans and explaining certain points of agreement and disagreement with the American letter.

Bin Laden went a bit ballistic because of the Saudi letter, not least by its title. He wrote an open letter to the Saudis entitled "Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West".

My nite light reading last nite was UBL's screed, which is a good argument from one neo-fundamentalist Islamic standpoint. The Saudi letter represents one conservative Islamic approach.

An excerpt from the book I am reading (The AQ Reader), concerning the letter exchange and UBL response, is here (http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook49071.htm).

Bin Laden's arguments are Koran- and ahaditha-based. He also renders his opinion (his Koranic references, etc., are elsewhere in the essay). Here is one of his bottom line conclusions from the book (link above):


What the West desires is that we abandon the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity, and offensive Jihad. That is the very essence of their request and desire of us. Do the intellectuals, then, think it's actually possible for Muslims to abandon these two commandments and simply to coexist with the West?

Battle, animosity and hatred -- directed from the Muslim to the Infidel -- is the foundation of our religion. The West perceives fighting, emnity, and hatred all for the sake of religion as unjust, hostile, and evil. But whose understanding of justice and righteousness is right -- our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs?

Furthermore, how can [you] claim that we have no right to force a people to change its particular values, when they transgress the bounds of nature? Such are lies. In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the land of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their system of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the Sharia from being publically voiced . . . .

PS: You will note (if you have the book and compare what UBL says to the Saudis, and what he has said to the US in other statements) that his statements as to his "causes" differ. The excerpt from the book (link above) discusses this apparent inconsistency. Not really an inconsistency. UBL and Zawahiri are masters of the "Tactical Manipulation of the Cause" - a topic discussed by Galula in his book.

See the index here (http://www.americanvalues.org/html/follow-up.html#Saudis) for more from American Values.org.

[Ron Humphrey]

We need to hold ourselves to the principles contained within the Declaration of Independence in our engagement with others.



Always thought the most simplistic way to se this was that the overarching Ideology for us is liberty along with all the craziness that accompanies figuring out how to ensure it.

Everything else is those characteristics which contribute to the hows of that

[JJackson]

We need to hold ourselves to the principles contained within the Declaration of Independence in our engagement with others.

For example. The Saudi Monarchy derives its legitimacy not from its own populace, but from the security and support of the Government of the United States of America. When the Saudi populace desires to reshape their government to one that draws its legitimacy not from a foreign power, but from the populace of the governed, we resist those changes and focus instead on the preservation of the governance as it currently exists.

There are several aspects of such an approach that puts current U.S. Policy clearly at odds with the founding principles contained within the Declaration.
1. The sovereignty of a government should come from its own populace, not from a foreign government.
2. Every populace has the right to choose whatever form of government that it believes will best serve their needs.
3. Every populace has the right/duty to rise up in insurgency if need be in order to establish points one and two.


Bob thank you for all of your comments but this especially. Now if you could just get it incorporated in US foreign policy ...

[Bob's World]

For those interested, a piece I wrote recently is carried in special section on the Westphalian system in World Politics Review.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Default.aspx

It requires signing up for a subscription, but 4 months scripts are currently free, so really no cost. The piece is intended to be a civilianized follow-on to one I published here in the Small Wars Journal on a concept of Populace-Centric Engagement. I had tied my position to the historic U.S. principles described in this thread, but the editor felt that they detracted from the story they wanted to tell with the three ariticles, so that part was edited out.

I mention it only because I did try to make a case for a way the US could change our strategic perspective to be more in synch with our ideological roots, that would in turn also be more effective for the globalized world we live in today than our Cold War based policies.

[marct]

When I speak to the importance of the principles embedded in Declaration, it is not to say that we need to force others to adopt them, it is that we need to hold ourselves to them in our engagement with others. This is important so I will reiterate:

We need to hold ourselves to the principles contained within the Declaration of Independence in our engagement with others.

Thank You! As a Canadian and descendant of United Empire Loyalists who fought against your insurgency, all I can say is - right frakin' on! Any other stance is, IMO, totally unethical - a betrayal of your roots.

[Ken White]

the roots needed oil...

[Bob's World]

My final question in my last post, which was this:


and my macro level question, assuming those principles were to be applied in 1964: What should the US have done in Vietnam in 1964 ?

-----------------------

In 1954, the GNV, via the VM and PAVN, controlled large areas of South Vietnam (i.e., in Annam, the French held some coastal enclaves; the Central Highlands were GNV-controlled; Cochin China was a patchwork). The Geneva Accords resulted in a large movement of VM cadres north (ca. 100K; many later were infiltrated south) and theoretically gave the GSV control over the VM areas. The actual practice over the next 10 years was quite different.

I've tried to keep the facts as simple as possible in describing Vietnam between 1954-1964. If there are fallacies included, or added facts needed, feel free to add or subtract.


Personally, I think we got sideways with American principles when we thanked Ho for helping us defeat the Japanese by reinstalling French governance in Vietnam. So that was the first off ramp that we missed.

The next off ramp was when the French were defeated. I'm no expert on the Geneva accords, but I've always perceived that it was a "cut the baby in half" decision to maintain balance between the Soviets and the West. Probably made great sense at the time, but it was also an opportunity to right the wrong of putting the French in power and instead creating a unified country then. Imposing ourselves only so far as necessary to ensure the entire populace had a voice in determing their governance, but not to intervene if we disagreed with what they chose.

By 1964 we had missed the to two best exits and were picking up speed. By then we were seeing South Vietnam as a separate country, and certainly the North did not agree. Much as China sees Taiwan as part of China to this day (ok, China probably sees Vietnam as part of China as well). I think one of Colin Powell's leadership principles is apt here: "Never get so close to your position that when your position falls your ego falls with it." We were too close and had too much ego invested, not so much over Vietnam itself, but over how it would be perceived in the larger Cold War power struggle. Personally I don't think South Vietnam should ever have been created in the first place; but once bad decisions compound they are harder to work your way out of.

I guess when in doubt, go back to the founding fathers for advice. George Washington's advice on foreign intervention from his farewell address in 1796, while obviously needing to be taken less than literally today to take in account the current global environment, is still sage advice:

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim."

[slapout9]

For those interested, a piece I wrote recently is carried in special section on the Westphalian system in World Politics Review.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Default.aspx

It requires signing up for a subscription, but 4 months scripts are currently free, so really no cost. The piece is intended to be a civilianized follow-on to one I published here in the Small Wars Journal on a concept of Populace-Centric Engagement. I had tied my position to the historic U.S. principles described in this thread, but the editor felt that they detracted from the story they wanted to tell with the three ariticles, so that part was edited out.

I mention it only because I did try to make a case for a way the US could change our strategic perspective to be more in synch with our ideological roots, that would in turn also be more effective for the globalized world we live in today than our Cold War based policies.

Rob, you put this up on the Grand Strategy Thread also....Slap

[marct]

In short, if the ideology and governance system of the host nation is FUBAR, what difference can our superior ideology and governance system make in the end result ?

Anyone on this one.

In short, not much.

Historically, the US has imposed its republican (small "R"... most of the time ;)) ideology on many societies where it was totally inappropriate to do so. Indeed, I am forced to ask why you consider US ideology and governance as "superior"? Superior for whom in what conditions?

JMM, I believe that you have fallen into what I call the Baskin Robbins Fallacy - 31 flavours of governance and they all taste the same. You are assuming that governance must come from the top; i.e. a systemic form rather than an organic, bottom-up form. Why?

Again historically, no democracy, whether an open free for all like Athens (if you were male and a citizen, say 10% of the population) or a republican system like Rome or the US, has survived for more than 500 years (the only possible exception is parliamentary democracies, but there are definitional problems there...).

The "US ideology" (there are actually competing ones including at least one that is technically Fascist, i.e. the older Fordist model), at least in the romanticized form Bob's World talks about (and that is the one that has galvanized world notice from the French Revolution on), bears little resemblance to the forms of governance either practiced currently in the US or exported via "reconstruction" efforts. If an HN system of governance is FUBAR, then it has to be up to them to reconstruct it, unfettered by inane systems that will not work for their people.

Shifting out of rant mode.... :wry:

Okay, let's play this out. Ideally, what is needed is an updated international convention that parallels the old European concept of the Right of Departure. Since no system of governance will ever match the ideals of all of any geographically based populace, then a shift of populace would be indicated such that systems of governance become subject to "voting" [by their feet].

[Steve Blair]

Historically, the US has imposed its republican (small "R"... most of the time ;)) ideology on many societies where it was totally inappropriate to do so. Indeed, I am forced to ask why you consider US ideology and governance as "superior"? Superior for whom in what conditions?

Good point. I, for one, don't consider the US system to be inherently superior (or inferior, for that matter). Governments tend to arise (and fall) due more to local conditions than anything else, and ours has evolved over time to match our specific conditions and needs. Which, I might add, are (like most such things) almost impossible to duplicate.

Much of the early US dynamism was based on the idea of growth (more or less for its own sake), and that soon became conjoined with the idea that anything that created that much energy and movement must be superior to other things around it. Once it ran "from sea to shining sea," it started exporting itself (linked with masses of post-Civil War enthusiasm for the republic and all things linked to it) in ways that I don't know that its originators would have foreseen (aside from their fixation on Canada....;)).

[Ken White]

Re: Viet Nam. Had F.D.R. been in charge, we would probably not have helped the French back into Indo China. Unfortunately, he died, Truman took over and did help them because he disagreed with F.D.Rs announced plan of getting the British and French out of the Colonial business (Some stupid and Scowcroft-like 'realism'...).

He also came up with the Truman Doctrine and hard containment (which many seem to think was a. Good or b. worked...:confused:) and that was in reaction more to domestic political sentiment than anything else -- other than British urging which was quite strong. So you can place the blame for all that on Harry. The 54 accords occurred during Eisenhower's watch and John Foster Dulles was even more into containment than was Truman and a strong effort was made to get South Viet Nam into SEATO. It failed -- in any event, a part of the cost for those accords was a Mutual Defense Treaty.

Fast forward to John Kennedy and his desire to boost the US economy, then in the doldrums. He talked South Viet Nam into asking for more US assistance. Then we get to L.B.J. -- who simply didn't want to be seen as soft on Communism which the democrats had for some reason been accused of being.

Thus, most of that ignoring of our 'roots' was due to domestic, not international politics. That's sort of important.

Marc T. said:
"Historically, the US has imposed its republican (small "R"... most of the time ) ideology on many societies where it was totally inappropriate to do so. Indeed, I am forced to ask why you consider US ideology and governance as "superior"? Superior for whom in what conditions?"We have? Well, I'll give you the Philippines. It seemed a good idea at the time and the Social Sciences were in their infancy and so no one was as smart as we are today. Then there was Japan, a special case due to circumstances and the persons involved. Other than that, where did we do this imposing? Serious question.

I'll grant it's not the best for many place and people but we haven't tried to impose it all that often. A lot of nations have tried to adopt all or parts of it -- that's their problem; it is not from our pushing it on them...

Marc further says
"The "US ideology" (there are actually competing ones including at least one that is technically Fascist, i.e. the older Fordist model), at least in the romanticized form Bob's World talks about (and that is the one that has galvanized world notice from the French Revolution on), bears little resemblance to the forms of governance either practiced currently in the US or exported via "reconstruction" efforts."All true. I'd only note that the form of government currently practiced in the US is the bequest of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, a couple of cases of ultra liberal, left leaning idealists deciding that rules were to be ignored for the greater good of mankind. Both were inclined to ignore the Constitution as an impediment to getting what they wanted. I'll play nice and not mention Lyndon Baines Johnson again...

Nor will I cite Jimmy Carter, an imposer of some reknown.

As I said above, F.D.R. wanted to oil the roots -- and he got Ibn Saud to agree, the oil flowed and its been slippery out there ever since.

As Steve Blair correctly said
"Once it ran "from sea to shining sea," it started exporting itself (linked with masses of post-Civil War enthusiasm for the republic and all things linked to it) in ways that I don't know that its originators would have foreseen (aside from their fixation on Canada....)."Or Canada's fixation on us??? :D

All of which has little bearing on the fact that the US and every nation I can think of has abandoned their roots and tried to export their beliefs. We were just fortunate or unfortunate enough, viewpoint dependent, to be more successful than many because we happened to be bigger and more entrepreneurial than most. Sorry. ;)

P.S.

We're still big but I think that entrepreneurial spark has been extinguished, it certainly seems to be sputtering in any event. I'm less sure the World will be as happy about that as they think.

[jmm99]

from Marc
Indeed, I am forced to ask why you consider US ideology and governance as "superior"? Superior for whom in what conditions?

JMM, I believe that you have fallen into what I call the Baskin Robbins Fallacy - 31 flavours of governance and they all taste the same. You are assuming that governance must come from the top; i.e. a systemic form rather than an organic, bottom-up form. Why?

First point. Please re-read this quote from me, especially the "if" clause:


In short, if the ideology and governance system of the host nation is FUBAR, what difference can our superior ideology and governance system make in the end result ?

Since the qualifying premise is that the host nation's ideology and governance system is FUBAR, our (US) ideology and governance system, which is not FUBAR, is superior to one that is FUBAR.

My opinion on US ideology and governance is in the same post, which you ignore:


While the two of us have disagreed on specific points, both of us are in love with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. OK, agreed that we (US) have an excellent ideology. And, I would say we have a good (albeit scarcely perfect) system of governance. A number of other countries could present the same message (albeit somewhat different, as in David's UK).

If I did not believe the first three sentences, I would move to Canada or Finland, both of which would be happy enough to give me landed status.

As to the second point - and your ice cream store, that is refuted by the last sentence of the quote immediately above. As to the trickle down vs. bubble up theories of governance, I've made it clear, in more than one post discussing US constitutional law, that I take the Preamble ("We, the People ... do ordain and establish") very literally. It is "You [who] are assumiing" what you think I am assuming - bad assumption and a bad windmill at which to tilt.

Now, as a final point, I happen to agree with this from you - and would add the bracketed insert:


If an HN system of governance is FUBAR, then it has to be up to them to reconstruct it, unfettered by inane [or superior] systems that will not work for their people.

My question, which I'll repeat again, was rhetorical:


In short, if the ideology and governance system of the host nation is FUBAR, what difference can our superior ideology and governance system make in the end result ?

My answer is the same as yours - "In short, not much."

For "COIN" to work, the host nation's message must work - not the US message, nor the Canadian message for that matter.

PS: In some of my first posts here, you and I discussed in some detail (and mostly agreement) why the US message failed in Canada during both the Revoltionary War and the War of 1812. We also discussed and agreed on why the British message and governance system, adapted for Canadian conditions, succeeded - albeit over a very long timespan. I still remember that discussion.

[jmm99]

that the US should have pulled the plug on South Vietnam in 1964 ? That is the impression I got from the six paragraphs of rhetoric.

If that is your conclusion, you'll get no flaming from me. That was one of many opinions concerning the better (note I did not say "best") course of action for the US to take.

The 1964 election decided the nation's course, for better or worse.

[120mm]

I = agree with Bob's World, in this issue

[Ken White]

that the US should have pulled the plug on South Vietnam in 1964 ?Eisenhower should have continued to listen to his first two Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Collins and Ridgeway, instead of John Foster Dulles (who was probably listening to his brother) and stayed out of the whole mess...

[George L. Singleton]

OK, here are some simplified observations:

1. Our founding fathers....the United States...the Republic...were "at the top" of their societies, they saw, organized and led a revolution to help the less informed, under educated, down trodden masses "find"... with their strong leadership and personal wealth...the way to our democracy. This was a qualified top down process. My view.

2. When you are dealing with a hundreds of years old society of Islamic countries which operate on a still in many cases large number of illiterate and uneducated masses, and your leadership "is from God [Allah]" as given to you by these "proclaimed" leaders who are first religious and then secondarily your leaders...because they are first religious, some self announced historically as infallably so, you have an internal and worldview which is dominated at the top by the haves over the have nots. True, some fruit basket turn overs then occur over hundreds of years, but it still involves the haves killing each other off to have or have more at the top, all in the name of religion, or, to be movie humorous..."God wills it."

3. Dealing in President's my favorite was Eisenhower. But I wrote a paper for high school senior year American History praising Wilson...who in retrospect...was haughty...guess that came from being a Presbyterian minister's son (I am the great grandson of a Presbyterian minister on one side and the grandson of a Methodist minister on the other side)...Wilson failed to include Senator Lodge of Mass., then chairman of the Senae Foreign Relations Committee, in his plans and negotiations for the League of Nations and hence alienated him and the Republicans in the US Senate... which cost Wilson the votes he wanted to join the League of Nations.

4. As for Truman, I liked him and he was OK in my book. The world "allied" with the devil, the USSR, in order to stop Hitler. Even my UK favaorite Churchill did business with Joe and the USSR so that his kingdom and nation could survive on the front lines of the war to stop Hitler.
*It remains, to me, a historic irony that the USSR, which we fought as an ally of the White Russians at the end (ing) of WW I...was first a Nazi/Hitler ally, then a US/Allies ally, then our enemy for 50 years.

5. Especially important to me is that Truman enabled the founding of today's Israel as a refuge and homeland, homeland restored in my book, after Hitler and even Stalin's attempts to liquidate the Jews. *Has anybody noticed the number of achieving Israeli and world citizen Jews who are outstanding and distinguised in the sciences, arts, the law, whatever vs. the paucity of same among the Arabs and the broader, overall Muslim world population, regardless of the stripe of Islamic sects and types? Does this say something about developmental democratic culture from the bottom up in favor of the Jews and against the Islamic styles of governance or what?

I will stop here for now. Just decided to put an oar in.

[Bob's World]

One thing that has struck me in my journeys is that the cultures of Amercia are slightly different than those of western europe, and that those of the middle and far east are extremely different.

This is not about architecture, clothing, food, language, or even religion, but more about how people think, and what they value or prioritize in their decision making processess; and how likely they are to act independently within broad parameters, or more narrowly within clearly set limits.

In its simplest form, the concept of "commander's intent" works very well in an American military; and conversely american soldiers do not work well with detailed orders that tell them exactly what to do and how to do it. In the middle and far east it is very much the opposite.

For example, the fastest way to desynch a middle eastern army to set it up for a devastating counter attack is to simply fall back. Once they achieve their planned objective for the day they will stop. To go on would be to risk courts martial. An American commander would assume the same risk by stopping.

So as to what I (my opinion)think is the real difference between Israel and their neighbors. It is not about religion at all. The simple fact is that most of their neighbors are born, raised, and influenced in thought and deed by untold generations of middle eastern culture. Most current residents of Israel are from the West. They think with about things in ways influenced by generations of living in the west, and 1-2 generations back in the middle east will not change that. Israelis understand commander's intent. Arabs don't.

As to homelands, like western europe, Israel sits on key terrain. Key terrain over thousands of years will always be contested and swap hands many times. Arguments of rights to occupation based solely on a previous occupation don't carry much weight with me; for how far back do you go? Just to where it supports your cause? I fear this is one area where the only logical argument is the right of might. Certainly it was the might of America that enabled Israel to exist; and the might of Israel itself that sustained themselves when pressed hard by their neighbors. Now America must step into a far more neutral role in order both to regain our own credibility in the region, and to allow Israel to clearly establish that they exist of their own right of might. I believe this to be a critical step forward in putting the issue of Israel to rest and allowing America to move forward in our engagement with every nation and populace of the region.

[George L. Singleton]

Bob, your postings are always edifying to old coots like me.


This is not about architecture, clothing, food, language, or even religion, but more about how people think, and what they value or prioritize in their decision making processess; and how likely they are to act independently within broad parameters, or more narrowly within clearly set limits.

I again, politely as you are much smarter than me in many things on this excellent site, disagree in that "religion" is the "how" of the Muslim thought process.

Your observations about how Muslim nation troops behave and handle orders I agree with, but it is their religion that drives their thought process to behave the way they do.

I am curious as to where we have all gotten to here if the purpose of the SWJ in the main is to help our troops fight better small/guerialla wars nowadays?

Mention in media this week of US trainers of Pakistani Frontier Corp troops is nothing new...it was in the open news since early fall, 2008. The trainers were DOD announced as from USSOCOM. Our US and allied media are a bunch of block heads for having zero recall. Guess they are practicing the atypical yellow journalism to now try to smear Obama or to try to "scare" Obama and pit him against his own military leadership.

Goofy media, so give me a revived and better focused Voice of America on one hand, and in the field, more and better psyops.

Cheers, off to work for a while. When you are my age and stage work is almost a hobby. And believe me, income in the field of real estate (I am a referral only broker, doing business USA wide and worldwide) these days is about as elusive as the proverbial hen's teeth!

[Steve Blair]

Marc T. said:We have? Well, I'll give you the Philippines. It seemed a good idea at the time and the Social Sciences were in their infancy and so no one was as smart as we are today. Then there was Japan, a special case due to circumstances and the persons involved. Other than that, where did we do this imposing? Serious question.

I'll grant it's not the best for many place and people but we haven't tried to impose it all that often. A lot of nations have tried to adopt all or parts of it -- that's their problem; it is not from our pushing it on them...

In all candor, we did flirt rather heavily around imposing things on Mexico more than a couple of times prior to 1900, and there are those who see our involvement in Central and South America as attempts to impose our own vision of democracy (not that I'm saying that this is where Marc is going, but those are case studies that I've seen tossed about in discussions like this). Again, though, most of those events were linked in one way or another (often quite strongly) to domestic considerations and events and were not necessarily part of some grand international design. Most US moves into the Caribbean were triggered by fear of external involvement by European powers (and in some, if not most, cases that fear was exaggerated, but it was usually the trigger), as were the Mexican intrigues after the Civil War. There have always been elements that have wanted the US to take a more active international role in projecting our version of democracy, but it's been relatively rare that they've been able to achieve positions of power allowing them to carry that policy forward.

Vietnam is another deal.

[Rex Brynen]

Your observations about how Muslim nation troops behave and handle orders I agree with, but it is their religion that drives their thought process to behave the way they do.

Actually, Bob didn't say anything about Muslim troops, he said Middle Eastern troops—which is not at all the same thing. The attitude he describes (partly due to culture, partly due to social class, partly due to the legacies of old Soviet doctrine in some armies, Egyptian included, as well as weaknesses in officer and NCO training) is common in many non-Muslim armies too.

The best study of this is Ken Pollack's Arabs at War: Arab Military Effectiveness 1948-91 (http://books.google.com/books?id=sSHYdGR_xvoC).

[Ken White]

...There have always been elements that have wanted the US to take a more active international role in projecting our version of democracy, but it's been relatively rare that they've been able to achieve positions of power allowing them to carry that policy forward.that sums it up once you get past the Philippines and Japan. Their succes has generally been below minimal in 'imposing' the American way...

Flirting was a good word... ;)
Vietnam is another deal.True dat. More Wilsonian and Roosevelt foolishness. Kennedy and Johnson have a lot to answer for.

[marct]

Hi Ken,


Marc T. said:We have? Well, I'll give you the Philippines. It seemed a good idea at the time and the Social Sciences were in their infancy and so no one was as smart as we are today. Then there was Japan, a special case due to circumstances and the persons involved. Other than that, where did we do this imposing? Serious question.

Steve was correct, I was thinking about Central and South America and the Caribbean although we could also add in parts of Africa as well.


Or Canada's fixation on us??? :D

Us?!? Fixated on you?!?!? :eek: Okay, there's a lot of validity to that :D.


All of which has little bearing on the fact that the US and every nation I can think of has abandoned their roots and tried to export their beliefs. We were just fortunate or unfortunate enough, viewpoint dependent, to be more successful than many because we happened to be bigger and more entrepreneurial than most. Sorry.

You certainly won't get any arguments from me over that ;). Actually, I think a large part of the reason why you were successful in exporting it has to do with the fact that the original ideology was a real break with pretty much everything else going on at the time.

[marct]

Hi JMM,


First point. Please re-read this quote from me, especially the "if" clause:


In short, if the ideology and governance system of the host nation is FUBAR, what difference can our superior ideology and governance system make in the end result ?

Since the qualifying premise is that the host nation's ideology and governance system is FUBAR, our (US) ideology and governance system, which is not FUBAR, is superior to one that is FUBAR.

Well, let me make a couple of observations. First, you are assuming that the US ideology and system of governance is not FUBAR. That may be a valid assumption, but it is still an assumption. Given the recent FUBAR in the financial system, it is also one worth checking out I think :wry:. Please don't take this to mean that I am saying it is FUBAR, just that you are making an assumption that it is not.


My opinion on US ideology and governance is in the same post, which you ignore:

Of course I ignored it; it's not germain to the question of "superior to what" in the absolute sense implied by your original usage :cool:.


As to the trickle down vs. bubble up theories of governance, I've made it clear, in more than one post discussing US constitutional law, that I take the Preamble ("We, the People ... do ordain and establish") very literally. It is "You [who] are assumiing" what you think I am assuming - bad assumption and a bad windmill at which to tilt.

Yup, you're quite right - my apologies on that.

Let me ask you a question: if an ideology and system of governance is imposed, is this bottom up or top down?


PS: In some of my first posts here, you and I discussed in some detail (and mostly agreement) why the US message failed in Canada during both the Revoltionary War and the War of 1812. We also discussed and agreed on why the British message and governance system, adapted for Canadian conditions, succeeded - albeit over a very long timespan. I still remember that discussion.

I do as well :D: good discussions.

[Steve Blair]

Another interesting aspect to this, although something of a departure from the original thread intent, is that many of the US 'democracy exporting' projects saw opposition at home. Only the occupation of Japan after World War II escaped that sort of stuff (for obvious reasons). There was domestic opposition to our activities in the Philippines, Haiti, the DR, and other areas. Granted, it wasn't necessarily a consistent high level of outrage, but I think it ties into our mostly domestic outlook. For every cry to expand into Mexico in 1847 there was a cry saying no...especially in the Old Northeast. It's an interesting polarity, and may go at least part of the way toward explaining why the US has never really had a long-term "grand strategy" worthy of the name.

[Ken White]

Yes -- and my point way back when. There has always been domestic objection (there was even a very slight bit to Japan) and it's always been sort of a tepid effort on attempts to export 'governance'. That's one reason it has been very unsuccessful, the other being that the locals knew it might not work for them and chose some aspects to use. I would agree we occasionally got pushy with our system but knowing both domestic and local opposition correctly killed such ideas, I'm not at all sure I'd even buy exporting much less imposing. Not a very imposing record of imposing... :wry:

As an aside, re: the financial system FUBAR, I only note with some glee that the same precise thing happened in all those well governed Parliamentary Social Democracies 3,000 miles or so to the east of us. ;)

Marc can properly take pride in the fact that Canada almost alone in the world did not loosen its rules on banking as did the US, most all of Europe and much of the rest of the globe.

I will forego commenting that the principal precipitators of said FUBAR here were certain northeastern Congroids who insisted on loosening the rules the system had provided and did so by pulling an end run on said system. That would be off thread and I never go there. :D :cool:

[jmm99]

from Marc
First, you are assuming that the US ideology and system of governance is not FUBAR. That may be a valid assumption, but it is still an assumption.

it is an empirical observation of the facts that I have seen and lived with over my lifetime. Although my experience with Canada is not as close, I also can say as an empirical observation that its ideology and system of governance are not FUBAR. Neither governance system is perfect; but both are legitimate (accepted as such by their respective Peoples) and both generally work.

Thus, both are superior to those in country X, where both ideology and system of governance are FUBAR (not working in their country of origin). It is entirely possible (for any of many possible reasons) that neither the US nor Canadian constructs will work in country X. That does not mean that country X's construct is equal to those of the US and Canada.

If you elect to read "superior" as being used in an absolute sense as "implied by my original usage", there is nothing I can do about that because you elect not to consider my other statements that provide the context.

All of this is just a micro example of why polls and their questions must be taken with a grain of salt - the answers reflect what the pollee interpreted, construed, assumed, etc. the question to mean. That is particularly so where somewhat abstract questions are being asked - as in ideology.

For example, I tried to define what I consider US ideology here (based on two documents - which is at least somewhat finite):


... we are in love with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. OK, agreed that we (US) have an excellent ideology.

but you said:


The "US ideology" (there are actually competing ones including at least one that is technically Fascist, i.e. the older Fordist model) ....

I know not the older Fordist model nor the newer Fordist model - but I am sure you will tell me about that and the other competing models. I short, I am but a simple man; and if the pollster asked if I agreed with US ideology as defined by the older Fordist model, I'd say "I dunno".

You also said:


... at least in the romanticized form Bob's World talks about (and that is the one that has galvanized world notice from the French Revolution on), bears little resemblance to the forms of governance either practiced currently in the US or exported via "reconstruction" efforts.

and there is validity to this on two fronts. One is that Bob and I are probably idealists and perhaps romaticists. The other is that there is a difference between the principle and its reduction to practice - a theme which I have often hammered on. If the reduction to practice (e.g., governance) does not truly (a loaded word) reflect the principle, then there may something wrong with the practice.

Or what seems to be a bad reflection of the principle may simply be confusion as to what the principle means. E.g., "all men are created equal". True in a theological sense; but if that principle is morphed into "all persons are equal", it is an obvious fallacy. There are many people who are better pool players than I - and yes, they are superior to me - which gives me something to aspire to. :)

Again, a problem for the pollster and the results of the poll.

As to your ending question:


Let me ask you a question: if an ideology and system of governance is imposed, is this bottom up or top down?

top down, based on my understanding that the word "imposed" means without the consent of the governed. That I have to add because both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were authored by elites, but accepted in the end by those who remained in the colonies. Those who held to the British theories (which, as I have also remarked more than once in posts, corresponded to the mainstream of English constitutional history) departed for such places as Toronto.

A real kick would be to go back in time and poll the pre-1776 colonists on what they thought the Magna Carta meant, amongst other abstractions derived from finite documents.

PS: Since Marc elected to discuss financial FUBARs, here are exchange rates from the beginning of the market collapse (Oct 2007, when I thought about switching some assets to the Bank of Montreal; but decided not to) to the present:

10 Oct 2007 1.02 USD

24 Feb 2009 0.80 USD

Better than the US stock market, for sure; but a hit on the CAD.

[Bob's World]

One is that Bob and I are probably idealists and perhaps romaticists.

:)

[marct]

All of this is just a micro example of why polls and their questions must be taken with a grain of salt - the answers reflect what the pollee interpreted, construed, assumed, etc. the question to mean. That is particularly so where somewhat abstract questions are being asked - as in ideology.

Absolutely, JMM. I think this is really the crux of our differences here and - barring the availability of several hours in a convivial atmosphere, I am quite content to leave it as an agree to disagree.


For example, I tried to define what I consider US ideology here (based on two documents - which is at least somewhat finite):

but you said:

I know not the older Fordist model nor the newer Fordist model - but I am sure you will tell me about that and the other competing models.

Again, probably a topic for a much longer discussion.

What I was trying to get at and, obviously, failing to do so ;), was that there is an "ideal" and then interpretations of the ideal (then we get into your implementations; I would just argue that the implementations are of the interpretations, not the ideal itself). As such, I find it hard to distinguish "a" US ideology (or any other group for that matter!). I view ideologies as deriving from interpretations of ideas rather than from the ideals themselves.


One is that Bob and I are probably idealists and perhaps romaticists. The other is that there is a difference between the principle and its reduction to practice - a theme which I have often hammered on. If the reduction to practice (e.g., governance) does not truly (a loaded word) reflect the principle, then there may something wrong with the practice.

Or what seems to be a bad reflection of the principle may simply be confusion as to what the principle means. E.g., "all men are created equal". True in a theological sense; but if that principle is morphed into "all persons are equal", it is an obvious fallacy.

Again, I think we actually agree and are quite close (ask Stan :D).


There are many people who are better pool players than I - and yes, they are superior to me - which gives me something to aspire to. :)

And that's exactly where I have the problem with the word "superior" - it isn't specific enough. Are they superior to you? Yes, at pool. You are superior to me in knowledge of the law (no questions there ;)) and I am superior to you in Anthropology. Does this make either of us "superior" without the qualifier?


As to your ending question:

top down, based on my understanding that the word "imposed" means without the consent of the governed. That I have to add because both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were authored by elites, but accepted in the end by those who remained in the colonies. Those who held to the British theories (which, as I have also remarked more than once in posts, corresponded to the mainstream of English constitutional history) departed for such places as Toronto.

A real kick would be to go back in time and poll the pre-1776 colonists on what they thought the Magna Carta meant, amongst other abstractions derived from finite documents.

I think the key point, for me at least, is that there is a time element to this. It was imposed at one time but became accepted over a period of time. And I agree, finding out how the Magna Carta and, especially the right to call the Crown to account on pain of revolt, would be fascinating. Too bad we can't time travel.

[jmm99]

from Marc
there is an "ideal" and then interpretations of the ideal (then we get into your implementations; I would just argue that the implementations are of the interpretations, not the ideal itself). As such, I find it hard to distinguish "a" US ideology (or any other group for that matter!). I view ideologies as deriving from interpretations of ideas rather than from the ideals themselves.

Principle (ideal) > interpretation of ideal > implementation of interpretation.

Concept 1 (expressed in words) > Concept 2 (expressed in words) > Actions to implement Concept 2. "Ye shall know them by their deeds"

You look at ideology toward a different proof point than I. Not a problem so long as we can agree on a common operating definition. That is often lacking in polls.

I won't say which is superior - although since I live on Lake Superior, I have to claim superiority (as do all Yoopers in their heart of hearts). :D

[marct]

You look at ideology toward a different proof point than I. Not a problem so long as we can agree on a common operating definition. That is often lacking in polls.

Yup. I've noticed that it is usually much easier for people to discover this when equipped with beer :D. And you are definitely right about it being a problem with polls / surveys!


I won't say which is superior - although since I live on Lake Superior, I have to claim superiority (as do all Yoopers in their heart of hearts). :D

Well, hmmm, does that mean that people who live in Winnipeg are "superior" to you since Winnipeg is "above" the lake :eek:? Ye Gods, time for a break!!!!!!

[jmm99]

Got to thinking about this:


Principle (ideal) > interpretation of ideal > implementation of interpretation.

Concept 1 (expressed in words) > Concept 2 (expressed in words) > Actions to implement Concept 2. "Ye shall know them by their deeds"

in the context of post #28 - Moderate Islam and UBL Critique - in this thread; and in the context of Galula's comments on "Tactical Manipulation of the Cause" (his example is Mao's switches in messages to the masses).

Folks tell you what they think you want to hear (evading an argument); or tell you what they think you should hear (propaganda) - none of which may have anything directly to do with their "ideology", whether you measure that at step 1, 2, 3 or take all into account.

Just thinking out loud about ideology and polling.

[marct]

Folks tell you what they think you want to hear (evading an argument); or tell you what they think you should hear (propaganda) - none of which may have anything directly to do with their "ideology", whether you measure that at step 1, 2, 3 or take all into account.

Just thinking out loud about ideology and polling.

It's a good point to keep in mind :wry:. It's also one of the reasons why there is always a lot of conflict (usually joking) between qualitative and quantitative researchers. Even on the qual side, you see the same problems, i.e. with focus groups (there's also a small group role factor working). It's much less of a problem with good ethnographic fieldwork but, the flip side, is that you end up with a really tiny sample :confused:.

Honestly, I have never really liked the term 'ideology" as an analytic term. Systems of governance you can at least measure even if your measurements may not "mean" that much. Ideology? Sheesh! Talk about tricky!

BTW, the reason why I tend to place it in that sort of stage 2 Interpretation area is because when you try and get at what most people believe it is often a pastiche of different things, situationally defined (usually by what role they are in at that point in time) and rarely coherent. Most often, at least when I have been trying to get at it, what I find is an underlying basic epistemology (well, a cross between an epistemology and a cosmology) that seems to influence the likelihood of any particular meme "sticking" in a personal "ideology".

I know, sounds pomo :o.

[jmm99]

As an example (where we know most of the facts from hindsight), I was thinking about application of stage 2 Interpretation analysis to Mao, during the phase where he was stressing land reform. Based on that evidence, one could reasonably conclude that Mao was an agrarian reformer. And as I recall, ca. 1950, many had been calling him just that during and after WWII.

The reality was that the real goal was not land reform, but collective farming. The folks in the ChiCom inner circles were well aware that stage 2 Interpretation was itself made up of two stages:

1. Stage 2a - interpretation of ChiCom doctrine (end justifies means) to allow a message (land reform) apparently inconsistent with that doctrine (collective farming).

2. Stage 2b - verbalization of a land reform program that would appeal to the greatest number of peasants - which allowed the agrarian reformer label and something of a National Liberation Front.

In South Vietnam, Ho's government (technically, of a united Vietnam) went beyond Stages 2a and 2b to Stage 3 to implement a land reform program, which continued in VM-controlled areas from 1946-1955. When Diem's government employed ARVN to get back the lands (and back-rents) for the landlords, he was left with a horde of very disgruntled peasants. The latter were not unhappy when "their" VM cadres returned a few years later, and the SVN NLF was formed.

The point is that getting back to the actual ideology, in the absence of internal documents, can take a reasonable person down side paths to the wrong conclusions. Agreed that this is a tough area for the researcher or intel officer - lots of chances for errors.

[George L. Singleton]

Having completed and mailed in today our new Alabama National Veterans Cemetery Support Committee first federal tax return (I am the Treasurer), belatedly I return to shotgun back some points to several on this thread who spoke about Israel, the Middle East, etc. earlier today.

I think it was MarcT who commented in particular that my remarks about religion (Islam) in terms of mind set/psychology of the Middle Eastern troops/military was mistaken as there are no "Mulsim" armies there. Words to that effect.

With Jimmy Carter's (he still deserves great credit for this in my book, and I am a Republican) Peace Treaty between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, he/we quieted down two armys which are "essentially" made up of mostly troops of the Muslim faith (Syria,Jordan, and a thrid, now willing to talk "about" Isreal peacefully, Saudi Arabia are in mind), with Egypt having a more secular style of government (Sadat of course later on assassinated) and Jordan having then and now an Islamic Monarchy. ***I was a guest in the Rose Garden audience at the White House signing of the Israel, Egypt, Jordan Peace Accord (or Treaty), courteousy of my distant cousin, Jody Powell, who was Carter's Press Secretary.

Then I recall from earlier today another poster coming down on Israel and castigating President Truman who I personally found to be one of our greatest ever Presidents, exept for Ike, who I liked the most of all our Presidents.

Since 1947 many Arab and other Islamic nations, to include even back then the new nation of Pakistan, opposed the founding by UN Resolution of Israel, together with same Resolution, the founding of a new Palestinian State, which these obstreperous Arab and other Muslim nations flatly rejected and refused to support.

Israel is a brave little nation and a exempliary beacon of democracy, for those who sincerely want to see more democracy in the Middle East, your working example remains one of one, Israel.

I suspect these few remarks will stimulate counter remarks so will shut down for now.

[JJackson]

I saw a link to the meeting but not the survey. If this is a duplicate post, sorry and please delete. It is what you would expect.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

[JJackson]

This is better. Just data.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_quaire.pdf