Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism

[jmm99]

from Marc
Indeed, I am forced to ask why you consider US ideology and governance as "superior"? Superior for whom in what conditions?

JMM, I believe that you have fallen into what I call the Baskin Robbins Fallacy - 31 flavours of governance and they all taste the same. You are assuming that governance must come from the top; i.e. a systemic form rather than an organic, bottom-up form. Why?

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.

My opinion on US ideology and governance is in the same post, which you ignore:

While the two of us have disagreed on specific points, both of us are in love with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. OK, agreed that we (US) have an excellent ideology. And, I would say we have a good (albeit scarcely perfect) system of governance. A number of other countries could present the same message (albeit somewhat different, as in David's UK).

If I did not believe the first three sentences, I would move to Canada or Finland, both of which would be happy enough to give me landed status.

As to the second point - and your ice cream store, that is refuted by the last sentence of the quote immediately above. 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.

Now, as a final point, I happen to agree with this from you - and would add the bracketed insert:

If an HN system of governance is FUBAR, then it has to be up to them to reconstruct it, unfettered by inane [or superior] systems that will not work for their people.

My question, which I'll repeat again, was rhetorical:

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 ?

My answer is the same as yours - "In short, not much."

For "COIN" to work, the host nation's message must work - not the US message, nor the Canadian message for that matter.

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.

[jmm99]

that the US should have pulled the plug on South Vietnam in 1964 ? That is the impression I got from the six paragraphs of rhetoric.

If that is your conclusion, you'll get no flaming from me. That was one of many opinions concerning the better (note I did not say "best") course of action for the US to take.

The 1964 election decided the nation's course, for better or worse.

[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!

[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.

[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.