When questioned as to why there were no actual Muslims on the group or consulted for the report, Patrick Poole used archetypical talk radio logic: 1) call the questioner a liberal; 2) create a nonsensical straw man and demolish it.
When questioned as to why there were no actual Muslims on the group or consulted for the report, Patrick Poole used archetypical talk radio logic: 1) call the questioner a liberal; 2) create a nonsensical straw man and demolish it.
The Liberals Are Coming! The Liberals Are Coming!
Originally Posted by SteveMetz
Eureka! Shariah is really a liberal plot for a totalitarian regime! Brilliant!
Can a I have Guiness, please?
I mean if that's still allowed before Shariah takes over...
Last edited by Tom Odom; 09-22-2010 at 05:55 PM.
Interesting discussion on:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2...i-sharia_m.php
It's very sad that Boykin and Soyster were part of this. Some people are just hard wired for fear and hate. They've been lost without a mission since the demise of the Soviet Union. In the absence of a real demon, they concoct one out of whatever raw material is available.
Last edited by SteveMetz; 09-23-2010 at 11:03 AM.
The basis of U.S. Grand Strategy since at least 1945 has been rooted in the defeat, denial or containment of some threat. Without a threat to fill the role of opponent, U.S. Grand Strategy falls apart.
We have been struggling since the collapse of the Soviets to find some bogeyman who is ready, willing and able to fill this role. We've interviewed and tried several reluctant candidates, but none really work the way the Soviets did. Oh for the good old days...
At a conference at Duke last year on Grand Strategy I enjoyed hearing the thoughts of some of our brightest minds on this topic. Finally I asked Dr. Gaddis of Yale, "Does a Grand Strategy requires some threat to counter, or can it be cast in positive terms to promote something instead"? I could hear the wheels turning all around this room full of PhDs; but no one really had an answer. It was almost like no one had ever considered the possibility of such a thing.
Of late we have been attempting to shoehorn "Islam" in various ways into this role of opponent. Personally, I think it is time to decide what it is we are for, and promote that. This is more likely to build us the alliances we need to counter real threats once they emerge. Emerge they will, but our current approach is not the best way to prepare for them.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
The danger is that whacko stuff like this report numbs our ability to identify real and serious threats from extremism and hence makes us less safe.
Last edited by SteveMetz; 09-23-2010 at 12:08 PM.
What is "Extremism" though? If denied legal venues to address legitimate grievances, then one is forced to take "extreme" measures to create change. Certainly when populaces are held in conditions of poor governance there will be many with less than noble goals who step forward to exploit such situations for their own ends; but they are more "opportunists" than "extremists."
Governments create these conditions, not those who emerge to exploit them. When we promote and protect those same governments, we redirect focus at ourselves. I suspect most populaces would prefer employing effective legal means of promoting change, but such means are pretty scarce in the countries where so many of these "extremists" come from. Simple Cause and Effect, and until we stop labeling the effect (extremism) as the cause (governance), we will continue to be one significant step behind on this one.
The extremism that concerns me is the version that sits in power over much of the Middle East. We know its wrong to promote governments so contrary to our national principles and ethos, yet we also know we cannot simply walk away from relationships that help secure critical LOCs and resources. We need to find a new balance point. First step is to identify the extremists we need to focus the most on; and those are primarily the current governments of that region. I think we can out compete AQ as the champion of the oppressed, that we have more to offer through enabling legal and peaceful evolution of governance than he does through violent revolution of governance.
We'll see. Current focus appears to be to reinforce the status quo, and build their military capacity to more effectively suppress their populaces. Then conduct "nation building" to presumably buy off these same populace so that they will stop complaining and lending their support to these extremists organizations. "Denial" is not just the name of the river running through the heart of much of this...
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Steve
Great to see you posting! Agree on the impacts of agenda driven thinks tanks; maybe I will someday get a chance to sit down with you and relate the series of visitors through MND-B in 2009, all of whom came with a solution looking for supporting "facts".
Bob,
Playing the role of Mr. Obvious, I would add that the void you remark on is exacerbated by the 4 to 8 year cycle of electoral posturing with regards to foreign policy. In the interest of fairness, one can make the case that our own makes us lack of clarity makes us damn near impossible to fully understand. Whether that is a good thing is of course equally debatable.
Best
Tom
There are actually several countries with such grand strategies. Their grand strategies are consistent and robust, but not extremely obvious because some of their choices appear to be passive.
I think France's grand strategy needs no bogeyman (although they are occasionally in violent conflict with some smallish powers).
Germany's and Japan's grand strategies need no bogeyman either.
Saudi Arabia, UAE and Turkey: same.
Pakistan, USA, North Korea, Syria and Iran depend heavily on their ability to point at an external threat (for domestic stability and in the case of the USA also for maintaining their international networks).
As posted in another thread.....would a Pakistan/India(and possibly China) Conflict offer both a threat that must be contained from spreading(outside of just maximizing the political/economic/military attrition of combatants) as well as the opportunity to promote(and dictate) the global recovery?
Is their an excessive focus on Islam and Iran as a threat...when it could quite possibly come(and rather quickly) from a less expected direction?
Since it seems appropriate to this discussion, below is a draft of an essay that will appear in the next JFQ. Since this is just a draft, don't quote it. This is actually a very toned down version. The original took direct aim at those exploiting public hostility toward Islam, including political leaders like Palin and Gingrich, and the Islamophobia industry represented by people like Pamela Geller, Patrick Poole, and Daniel Pipes.
Islam, Domestic Politics, and the Crumbling of American Strategy
In the early years of the Cold War, Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg, the powerful chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, urged that politics stop "at the water's edge." When facing a major threat--as the United States was at the time--Americans should set aside partisanship, at least in foreign policy and national security strategy. This was sage advice but seldom heeded. The norm was for foreign policy and national security strategy to be used as partisan ammunition, particularly against whoever happened to be president and, by association, other members of the president's party. The reasons for this lie deep within the American strategic culture and political system. As a general rule, Americans are not deferential to public policy experts. The public believes that it should play an important role in formulating policy even on issues where it is not particularly well informed. Expertise is deprecated with the assumption that common sense can substitute. Simplicity is lionized and complexity disdained. Clearly the populist instinct runs deep in American political culture, its ideas advanced by the media in their never-ending quest for a larger audience and politicians in pursuit of votes.
This is good to a degree--it is part of what makes the United States and Americans special. But the intersection of public opinion, domestic politics, foreign policy, and national security strategy is treacherous. Since most Americans have little knowledge of, interest in, or understanding of world affairs, they are vulnerable to exploitation by pundits and politicians looking for a cudgel to use against a sitting administration. To resonate with a mass audience, issues are simplified to the point of caricature. This not only hinders serious policy discussions, but also confuses and antagonizes foreigners, whether allies or enemies (or those trying to decide whether to be allies or enemies). Any domestic consensus which does emerge from this tumult is fleeting and fragile. It may form during a major conflict or crisis, but quickly crumbles as the perception of danger declines. One has only to look at the precipitous decline in the approval rating of George H.W. Bush soon after the 1991 war with Iraq. America loved him but only briefly. Historically, rip-roaring partisanship rather than consensus is the American norm. And today, the United States is once again in a crescendo of this phenomenon. This has a very dark side: growing domestic hostility toward Islam is undercutting the foundation of America's global strategy.
(continued)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks