Shariah is coming! Shariah is coming!

[SteveMetz]

*snark* It has been for decades, hasn't it? *snark*

Perhaps I'm not understanding the thrust of your article. Is it that Islamophobia in the West is the issue, or that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is the issue?

If it's anti-Americanism, I would argue that the problem is quite manageable.

Political majorities in Muslim countries are little different than in America in that they are primarily focused on domestic politics. You will get a lot of people willing to say they don't like America or American foreign policy, but very few people willing to actually vote or demonstrate or apply genuine political pressure based on anti-Americanism. This might shift based on a major media incident or if the U.S. becomes involved in a domestic issue (i.e. American bases or military presence, or U.S. involvement in elections, or U.S. invasion of a neighbor), but most people just don't pay that much attention to foreign issues, and rarely on a sustained basis.

As Ken reminds us, anti-Americanism is quite strong as a cultural undercurrent in many countries, including many that are U.S. allies. This includes South Korea, large swathes of South and Central America, France, Mexico, Germany, etc. I would chalk up places like Indonesia, Malaysia, and India as other countries whose governments often find common ground with the U.S. despite cultural anti-Americanism in many parts of society.

Culture matters to a degree, but in foreign affairs interests matter more, especially in the day to day.

I'm not trying to assign blame. My point was simply that it makes no sense to pretend we can execute a strategy based on partnership when both sides are increasingly hostile to the other. We've deluded ourselves into believing this is all a misunderstanding, and we can fix it if we just get our STRATCOMMs better organized.

And, personally, I think the anti-Americanism is Pakistan is quite a bit different than that in Germany or South Korea.

And here's today's Exhibit #1 to show how outright ignorance and/or deliberate propaganda about Islam is becoming mainstreamed in the U.S. 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.

[tequila]

And, personally, I think the anti-Americanism is Pakistan is quite a bit different than that in Germany or South Korea.

Yes, it's much more intense - probably more intense than anywhere else in the world. However, I'd argue it will be much less so when the drone campaign eventually comes to an end and the American withdrawal from Afghanistan occurs - that is, once American policy stops impinging in the domestic Pakistani political sphere.

Actions matter. Pakistani anti-Americanism was less intense prior to 2001. Indonesian anti-Americanism, OTOH, was arguably much higher. These things can be managed, just as we've been managing them since 1945. The 'clash of civilizations' is a silly construct. Cultures differ, but they aren't going to inevitably clash.

[SteveMetz]

Cultures differ, but they aren't going to inevitably clash.

Huntington's argument is not that cultures inevitably clash because they are different. I'm re-reading the book now.

[Ken White]

...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...

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.

...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.

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:

"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...

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.

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..."

[SteveMetz]

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...

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. 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.

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..."

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. 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"?

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...

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.

[Ken White]

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...

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.

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...

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.

No way to tell, really, we're both stating our perceptions or opinions and should be able to do so without being disagreeable.

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.

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...