Robert--- this sentence if compared to the released US main four points of policy for the ME does not bode well for the US through well for AQ for the various targeted populations of the ME.
"It all comes down to a question of "how do the people feel, and who do they blame." Here is where ideology comes into play, as ideology is the tool to intensify these feelings and to direct blame in some particular direction."
So when does the national level get off the slippery slope--or do they even see the slippery slope?
Or can they even get off of the slippery slope when the national political debate is divided and one side is ready to accuse the other for being weak in foreign policy or even worse.
Another point that spins out of your concept is one that is not mentioned if mentioned at all---with the speed of social media and other communication sources--- conversations that occur in the public political domain which is for say US internal consumption will be interpreted by the target population sometimes in ways that we did/do not anticipate and which will often reinforce their feelings and who they blame.
A second spin out of the concept is how does a target population take actions committed by individuals in another population that is viewed as provoking to their culture---this just reinforces the perceptions of the targeted population.
So in fact your concept does apply well to the actions of one population provoking another and reinforcing the messaging of AQ---we have seen this occur now repeatedly.
So are the actions of an individual who knows that he is specifically provoking a targeted populated in support of national level decision makers or an attempt to force decision makers in a particular direction if that person does not believe the national level is not "hard" enough?
Bookmarks