A 'Chinese approach' to the War on Terror: a historical analysis

[William F. Owen]

In what sense? I'd imagine that 'post-1945' Arab Nationalism was 'firmly rooted' in pre-1945 Arab Nationalism, which had been developing since the start of the century. On the one hand, you say that the "creation of Israel [as] the primary source of Pan-Muslim discontent is utter rubbish", but then on the other, you claim that Arab Nationalism is founded in National Socialism, which specifically targeted Jews as a part of its program. I don't imagine the creation of a Jewish homeland in the midst of an awakening 'nationalsocialist' community would be anything but at least a source of discontent.

Arab Nationalism in it's "post 45 iteration" was steeped in National Socialist Language. Hitler had supported the regime in Iraq and various Arab independence movements (pre-1945). Modern Bathism is closely related to National Socialism. Add to this that Muslims in the Middle-East had a major axe to grind with Europeans, with or without the existence of Israel.

I think he is confusing reactions, negative, to Israeli attacks into Lebanon with whole broad topic of anti-semitism.

I am in no way confused about any aspect of anti-semitism, based on long and intimate knowledge, nor have any problem differentiating it from anti-Israeli expressions or even the disguising and evolvement of anti-Semitic activities into new forms questioning Israels' right to exist.

Back in April or May of 2003, I was having lunch with my interpreter at his house. I asked him why he (Arabs) hated Jews so much. He burst out laughing, and he explained that Arab-Muslims don't hate Jews they only hate the state of Israel. Whether that grievance is real or perceived, it is how he thinks.

But Mike, "Arabs" are not one homogeneous group with one opinion. Some have no problem with Jews, but a very substantial proportion have centuries of enmity and hatred towards Jews, for all the same invented reasons, that the Europeans did.

[MikeF]

But Mike, "Arabs" are not one homogeneous group with one opinion. Some have no problem with Jews, but a very substantial proportion have centuries of enmity and hatred towards Jews, for all the same invented reasons, that the Europeans did.

Good point Wilf. I wasn't trying to make any generalizations. It is just a story that I remember and still laugh at at times.

American Pride- I think Wilf answered your initial question. Originally, I stated the Arabs were influenced (not controlled) by Nazi Socialism. Possibly, they used it as a counter to their British/French occupiers.

v/r

Mike

[William F. Owen]

American Pride- I think Wilf answered your initial question. Originally, I stated the Arabs were influenced (not controlled) by Nazi Socialism. Possibly, they used it as a counter to their British/French occupiers.

You are correct, but the origins of the Ba'ath party created in 1940 to opposed Colonialism had a long and well documented connection with the 1920's birth of National Socialism. Thus my statement that the roots of Arab Nationalism, (as a political force) were connected/similar in expression to National Socialism.

[Bob's World]

Bottom line is that its a crazy world out there, and broad generalized categorization of people by their religion or race is an ignorant waste of time.

Fact is that religion is virtually NEVER the causation for populace based warfare. Same for race. They are both, however, extremely powerful, and and therefore oft used, tools of motivation for the same.

Look past the surface (i.e., ignore the media and the politicos) and seek a deeper understanding of both the nature of populace-based conflict and and the conflicts that you seek to understand.

While every culture measures things differently (or values things differently), essence is fairly universal. Some populaces prefer a heavy religious tint to their governance, let them have that. Some prefer a single leader with a great deal of power vested in him/her. Let them have that. When they aren't getting what they want because you in your wisdom have both picked something 'better' for them; and also set up obstacles to them getting what they want, watch out. This all goes to the universal concepts of "goodness" of governane and "legitimacy" of governance."

Resist your American urges/instincts and set "Effectiveness" of governance and "democracy" of governance aside and look at these other populaces through THEIR lens. Seek to understand what is "goodness" for them and you will be a friend. Avoid taking on the role of "legitimizer" of that same governance in the process and you will be a success.

Fact is that Israel has serious "legitimacy" issues in the eyes of their neighbors, and the US is not helping them resolve that by being so biased to their cause. Let them stand clearly on their own two feet (and they can), and things will smooth out over time. (and this does not mean cut and run, nor to force them to give up hard earned terrain like the Golan that provides a strategic risk to the state if surrendered).

The US has serious legitimacy issues in the region as well, in that we have imposed our selves to the degree where we have become the source of legitimacy of many governments that lack "goodness" in the eyes of significant segments of their own populaces. When we target this we begin to back off of the bullseye. By our inane focus on building capacity and democracy we actually fix ourselves to the bullseye and increase our own risk.

Perhaps this is counter-intuitive, but this is where I am right now, and not much I'm seeing out there is moving me from this current position.

[AmericanPride]

Originally, I stated the Arabs were influenced (not controlled) by Nazi Socialism. Possibly, they used it as a counter to their British/French occupiers.

Influenced. Somewhat. Not decisively. The Nazi program was one of expansionism and colonialism (in Europe) -- Arab nationalism sought to remove the yoke of colonialism. And yes, they did use nationalism as an counter-instrument to British and French imperialism. The same way the Vietnamese used communism in Indochina and the Afghans and Pakistanis used religious instruction to resist the expansion of Soviet communism. The National Socialist program did not develop into an Arab 'model' -- the Arab nationalists pursued a relationship with the Germans for very basic and ancient political reasons: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And the Germans found it to their benefit to pursue relations with a people who no longer desired to be ruled by the persistent and old enemy of aspiring continental powers.

On the one hand, Wilf claims that the creation of Israel as a catalyst for Arab hostility is "utter rubbish", but on the other, he claims that the most powerful and ruthless anti-semitic ideology informed the Arab program and that a "very substantial proportion [of Arabs] have centuries of enmity and hatred towards Jews". If Arab nationalism is founded on anti-semitic ideology (which is really the only relevance in arguing of some existential relationship between Arab nationalism and Nazism), and Arabs have some centuries-spanning disgust with Jewish people, how is the creation of a Jewish homeland in the middle of the Arab population NOT a "primary source" of discontent?

[AmericanPride]

Dave,

What you describe, IMO, is just politics. But politics often requires compromise because that is how it is ensured the other party cooperates. But there are a combination of factors that prevent that from occurring in the American narrative: we don't compromise because (1) we're used to winning decisively and overwhelmingly (Indians, Mexico, Spain, Germany, Japan) and (2) all of our enemies just so happen to be (so-called) enemies of freedom, happiness, capitalism, and God. No American politician would be elected if he advocated working through the systems and actors already in place. Some do only because they disguise it as "detente" or something else. It is my opinion that American culture is simply not prepared for COIN in the context of the GWoT. The Romans, British, Persians, Greeks, and even the Mongols were fairly adept at co-opting 'lesser' leaders and nations regardless of their cultural/political/social identity.

[orange dave]

A number of points here.

First, the argument that Israel wasn't real reason for Muslims' discontent. From my (Asian) perspective, my reaction would be that WWII isn't the real reason China hates Japan either. When you press Chinese people on different aspects of the Japan situation, for instance why they don't hate Germany as well, they don't always give the answers that one would expect. They don't really understand that Germany has repented for their crimes, while Japan hasn't nearly as much. Also, I think their hatred of Japan actually predated WWII or the Japanese occupation. So actually I think this point still supports the historical analogy.

Bottom line is that its a crazy world out there, and broad generalized categorization of people by their religion or race is an ignorant waste of time.

If I'm a particularly clever of enemy of the US, and I see that statement, my next thought is going to be how to use religion to organize and exploit this blind spot in western analysis. Bottom line, I don't think it's possible to make that kind of statement on a blanket ideological level. You could try using a regional or historical approach to make your point though.

It is my opinion that American culture is simply not prepared for COIN in the context of the GWoT.

I agree, and I think one of the most effective uses for this historical analogy could be harnessing the fear many people have towards China's rise in a productive capacity. If you overstate China's capabilities, most people will believe it, and then by extension they will be more willing to defer to authority on issues related to Muslim relations.

[Ken White]

It is my opinion that American culture is simply not prepared for COIN in the context of the GWoT.

and say that the US is not prepared for nor adept enough for COIN operations as they are now envisioned. We do not do it all well, we're too impatient.

Ergo, we should not do it. There are other ways...

[William F. Owen]

On the one hand, Wilf claims that the creation of Israel as a catalyst for Arab hostility is "utter rubbish",

I made no such claim. I just rejected the notion that the creation of the modern state of Israel is the primary source of discontent. Each Arab nation had it's own agenda and post-colonial problems, plus tensions with neighbours. To claim it's all about Israel is to be grossly ignorant of modern middle east.

he claims that the most powerful and ruthless anti-semitic ideology informed the Arab program and that a "very substantial proportion [of Arabs] have centuries of enmity and hatred towards Jews".
If Arab nationalism is founded on anti-semitic ideology (which is really the only relevance in arguing of some existential relationship between Arab nationalism and Nazism), and Arabs have some centuries-spanning disgust with Jewish people, how is the creation of a Jewish homeland in the middle of the Arab population NOT a "primary source" of discontent?

Hitler backed Arab anti-colonial movements. Arabs nationalist themselves adopted Ba'athism, which clearly has it's roots in National Socialism and European proto-fascism.
Arab nationalists viewed all their problems as being ones created by colonial occupation - something inherent to their expressions of National Socialism.
There has been centuries of Arab-Jewish tension in the middle-east - the same as there was in Europe.

So to blandly state that the "primary source" of discontent in the Middle-East, starting in 1948, is the creation of Israel is to be simplistic beyond belief. Is it a source of discontent. Yes. But to put it beyond that, is the hoary old argument of "wouldn't the Mid-East be at peace if it wasn't for the Jews."

I reject simplistic and inaccurate history and made the same observations in regard to China - strangely something none of you are arguing about!