I think you confuse "motivation" for "causation"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J Wolfsberger
Which agenda, to bring this back to the original post, is their own, radical version of Sharia.
There have been a lot of good points raised on this thread, but one that should be added is that Nations (in the capital letter sense) have interests. They also have culturally determined morals and ethics to govern how those interests are pursued. For all the talk of "international community," there is absolutely no consensus on what those morals and ethics should be. (which is why I've always thought talk of "international community" a useless form of intellectual [self satisfaction].)
Whether we like it, or want to acknowledge it, or not, there are:
a. Groups of radical, violent ideologues who draw inspiration, or at least political cover, from a specific religion they have be interpreted as requiring intrusion into all aspects of life. (Not my interpretation, it's theirs.) These groups completely and absolutely reject any notion of internationally accepted morals and ethics in any dimension of human experience.
b. A significant number of people have adopted this radical interpretation as a way of explaining their circumstances in life, whether that be the unpopular American teenager or the impoverished and brutalized Yemeni peasant.
c. There are Nation states that find it in their interest to promote and even encourage these groups as a tool in advancing what they have determined to be their national interest. That interest may be establishing a regional hegemony (Iran) or a tool for redirecting domestic frustrations (Saudi Arabia).
I agree, it's not time to push any panic button over some grand international conspiracy to impose Sharia on the world. But I think it might be short sighted not to recognize that that is a major motivator to many of the people drawn to the violent movements.
The Pied Piper is a fairy tale. Bin Laden is not leading the children of Islam to their doom with some magic flute of ideology. He is waging UW and his purposes, while twisted, are political. If the Muslim populaces of the Middle East in large, and Muslim populaces of the West in part, did not reasonably perceive that they were held in conditions of poor governance by the West, their would be little support to AQ.
It is easier to blame Islam and label it as evil than to take hard looks at our own approaches to foreign policy in the Middle East. I get it. That doesn't mean I condone it, and I certainly won't just push of responsibility for my own actions onto some convenient foil.
Radical Islam is no more and no less the problem for western governments today than Radical Christianity was 500 years ago. Sometimes governments bring these problems on themselves through their actions. It isn't about religion, it is about politics.
I think you're both correct...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SteveMetz
...We've deluded ourselves into believing this is all a misunderstanding, and we can fix it if we just get our STRATCOMMs better organized.
I'm unsure who "we" are but personally, I don't think most Americans subscribe to that. If you meant the Washington power structure; those are people who prove on an hourly basis that they are out of touch with virtually everyone except themselves. That means they are dangerously deluded -- but then, we knew that... :rolleyes:
Quote:
And, personally, I think the anti-Americanism is Pakistan is quite a bit different than that in Germany or South Korea.
Totally true but all three pose their own sets of problems due to their latent anti-Americanism and of the three, which could be potentially the more dangerous...
Not to mention that the difference in functional dislikes is in part driven by those nation's own culture, in part by previous US actions and will possibly affect our future in quite different ways. The various dislikes will manifest themselves in both overt and less obvious ways -- as has already occurred in the latter two Nations you mention.
Quote:
...The op-ed begins with a demonstrably false assertion and then builds on it. But looking at all the whoopin' support in the commentary section.
Look also at the location of the Op-Ed and said comments. Just as the Center for Security Policy is a fringe element, so is that paper and so is the author of the Op-Ed. I think it was Entropy who wisely said "Never read the comment sections in Newspapers..."
As you say, the fact that most Americans will virtually ignore all three is eclipsed by the fact that it plays into the arms of those anti-US types -- worldwide, to include here in this nation, and of all stripes -- yet, on balance, I agree with Tequila. Actually, I agree with him on both points and I agree with you; I suspect the actualities are somewhere in between, muddled, as is the American way. :wry:
That's not okay in many aspects -- but I doubt much can be done about it.:(
As Tequila said: "The 'clash of civilizations' is a silly construct. Cultures differ, but they aren't going to inevitably clash." Even though there are fringe elements on both sides of any potential conflict who actively want that clash, most people are really pretty pragmatic and do not...
All that said, I agree with your premise on several counts:
Quote:
"Albert Einstein once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Whatever the context of his statement, he might well have been commenting on current U.S. strategy..."
Too true...
Quote:
Reality now calls. If a clash with Islam is inevitable, then current U.S. strategy is paralyzingly flawed. A new strategy must reflect the inherent antagonism.
While I doubt that such a clash is inevitable, I do think our current policies -- they are not a strategy -- are not helpful and that they could bring about the very clash that we should wish to avoid.
Quote:
This would represent the greatest shift in American strategy since the emergence of the Cold War... Americans have ignored the fissures and dissonance in their global strategy for nearly a decade now. Now that time has passed. Dangerous times lie ahead.
True on the first bit, though I'd say it's in excess of two decades...
I strongly agree the time has past. We have literally frittered away 20 years and the fault -- it is emphatically a fault -- can be attributed to four successive US Administrations and to four SecDefs from Cheney forward (I give Rumsfeld a minor break because he got stuck in a war he did not want and Gates is not yet gone). Congress is equally responsible. As I said up top about the DC crowd; "That means they are dangerously deluded -- but then, we knew that..." :mad:
My, my. Was it something I said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SteveMetz
Personally I don't know too many Americans, whether "the Washington power structure" or the Sarah Palin crowd, who accept the idea that people in the Islamic world understand us pretty well, but just don't like us and what we stand for.
I guess it's all in who you meet and where. I don't know too many Americans who do not realize that most natives of other Nations do not understand us at all well -- and that includes their intelligentsia -- and that many in those nations do not like us for various reasons, valid and not. Nor do I meet, talk with or know many who do not accept that we are not well liked -- or who fret much about that fact.
Most of them, unwashed though they be, seem to grasp that the 'Islamic' problem with us revolves around several factors, that we are at fault in some ways and agree that the cultural disconnects are pervasive and difficult to reconcile. However, they really aren't interested in us changing -- and they can do math...:cool:
That means they wish there was no disconnect but aren't inclined to try to change the attitudes of others. That latter sort of effort seems to be a Beltway habitue shtick.
Quote:
There are dozens and dozens of official statements from both the Bush and Obama administration contending that "public diplomacy" will make for better understanding and less hostility. After nine years in which this hasn't happened, we cling to it.
Apparently you missed the bit where I said I agreed with you -- and faulted several other Administrations...
Quote:
First of all, I don't think that's true. I'm a South Carolinian and I can tell you that Nugent's essay very much represents the majority perspective in much of "red" America.
We can disagree on that, the definition of "much," I mean. I'm a Kentuckian, have lived all over the South, to include two years in Charleston and fishing in Lake Moultrie. I now live on the Redneck Riviera, just got back from a trip to Jawja. I know and talk to many people (including relatives all over the South *) who would certainly agree with the Nugent perspective. I know a good many more who would not (Including more of the above *). Also know a bunch who would and do withhold judgment due to inadequate information (including most of the above *). That's three thirds, two of 'em likely do not agree with or support the Gaffney / Nugent view. :wry:
No way to tell, really, we're both stating our perceptions or opinions and should be able to do so without being disagreeable.
Quote:
But in any case, when people in Pakistan read that essay, do you think they'll say, "Oh that's just a fringe publication, so we should disregard it"?
Uh, no -- that's why I said above:
"As you say, the fact that most Americans will virtually ignore all three is eclipsed by the fact that it plays into the arms of those anti-US types -- worldwide, to include here in this nation, and of all stripes..."
You seem to have missed the fact that I agree with you.:confused:
Quote:
I'd be happy to discuss the merits and shortcomings of Huntington's "clash of civilizations" theory but don't see much value in debating a caricature version of it.
Huntington's Clash is IMO a caricature in itself. People are more complex than that and times change. I did not attack that book or idea on its or their merits, what I did say was: "While I doubt that such a clash is inevitable, I do think our current policies -- they are not a strategy -- are not helpful and that they could bring about the very clash that we should wish to avoid."
I'd say have a nice day but you seem to have made other plans...;)
Democracy is a lot like sex...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Global Scout
Interesting observation, and while it probably shouldn't drive our strategy it should cool our jets on our effort to "push" democracy around the world.
Its great when its voluntary, but it's rape when one party forces it on another "for their own good" or otherwise.
I remain a big proponent for self-determination. Besides, I have a theory that we really got away from promoting self-determination in the Cold War when so many populaces were self-determining that communism was the best way to throw off the heavy yoke of western colonialism. Our national ethos got in the way of our mission to contain the Soviets, so we compromised a little and changed our product to "democracy."
Personally I think we should go back. You may not like what you get with self-determination, but at least it's never rape...
Picking the wrong horse...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
To proclaim that U.S. interests and US values are "universal" as we do in our National Security Strategy though,blows me away. The hubris is off the chart, or maybe it's just ignorance, I don't know which. Glenn Beck has been ranting about how we are out to form a world government; I guess if you think everyone shares your interests and values, why not? Worrisome stuff, that. People need to chart their own path; extremes of behavior don't fare well in the light of day, and there are fewer and fewer dark corners in the globe every day.
I agree with this. One thing that has been interesting for me to see in CGSC is the degree to which we mirror image... even folks who have just come from working wonders COIN-wise in foreign cultures still have a hard time seeing things outside the "American" perspective- especially strategically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Our current doctrine for COIN presumes keeping the current government in power. I am no fan of regime change, but I think we approach the troubled states where AQ has so much sway more effectively when we do not just grant the government a guarantee that we will help them maintain the status quo. We become more effective when we don't take sides and don't project our interests and values onto others. To wage this kind of diplomacy is nothing that our "state" department is trained, organized or inclined to do. We need to tune our own government and policies up to be more effective in the emerging world, and then go out to engage it.
Definitely agree with this... Karzai being one good example, the current Iraqi political structure being another, and Pakistan being a potential third.
The problem is, how do you prevent the replacement from being worse than the status quo?
If you look at the trajectory of democratization and economic progress, the folks who developed economically first and politically second did better than those who tried the other route. South Korea is a great example of this... I think the economic part is probably the most important piece- you gain so much traction if people's lives are better.
Is there a middle ground, where you can encourage change but not chaos? Seems like a tough balance. I think our current policies may be too hypocritical to work - it's great to be for liberty but that kind of seems false when you support dictatorships.
I guess the other question is will anti-Americanism fade if people's economic and political conditions improve?
V/R,
Cliff