Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism

[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.

[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???

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

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 . 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 .

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 : 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...

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.

[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 ).

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).

[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 . 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).

Well, hmmm, does that mean that people who live in Winnipeg are "superior" to you since Winnipeg is "above" the lake ? 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 . 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 .

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 .

[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.