Rarely does an article or blog post occupy my thoughts for very long, but Vinod’s exceptional entry regarding an anti-“Islamist” manifesto is such an exception. The manifesto, you will recall, featured several prominent signatories, including Salman Rushdie, and argued in principle that the struggle against Islamism will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field.
When Sajit and I wrote for The Satya Circle, I asked in an essay, “is the war on terror more than a battle between arms and men, but between mentalities and worldviews as well?”
[T]he fact remains there is a large and growing disparity between the American worldview and that of other nations and cultures…. The disparity in understanding between America and other nations and cultures might serve as AmericaÂ’s biggest foe, not any military regime or any set of terrorist groups…. [T]he American worldview must expand in order to understand, yet by no means accept, the ideology and reasoning of the Taliban and others sharing its hatred, even if what the Taliban practices and preaches is beyond any reasonable sense of morality…. Destroying Al Qaeda and punishing those who sponsor, harbor, or otherwise encourage terrorism is not sufficient and cannot make the country truly safer or without real threat…. Unless and until America engages in such serious introspection and in the enterprise of comprehending the subjective worldview of the Islamic fundamentalists and others, America cannot take real long-term, proactive steps towards preventing another attack. [Link]
Now, this was written before the Iraq war. Since then, we have engaged in said war, arguably tortured, humiliated, and denied due process to Muslim detainees — reports of which have had the effect of further aggravating Iraqis and others, and contributing to the will that legitimizes and effectuates acts of terrorism.
Indeed, President Bush himself said yesterday:
[W]e cannot let the fact that America has not been attacked since September the 11th lull us into the illusion that the terrorist threat has disappeared. We still face dangerous enemies. The terrorists haven’t lost the will or the ability to kill innocent folks. [Link]
This extant will has led some to argue that the United States is actually losing the war on terror: killing suspected or prospective terrorists is insufficient and counterproductive, it is said, if doing so further inflames terrorist groups and their supporters. Certain U.S. policy is, in other words, a recruitment device. And it would be a mistake to assume that only fundamentalists or the impoverished are signing up; those interested in harming the United States for its actions include the educated and advantaged (see, e.g., “UNC Attack Suspect Wanted to Punish Gov’t“).
The interesting question is not whether the arms/men vs. will framework is an advantageous one, but how the concept of “winning the war of ideas” can be implemented into tangible policy.There are, I hope, many plausible answers. I’d like to share just one with you today. As a graduate student, I wrote a brief paper arguing that the administration should create a Brain Trust of academics, policy wonks, and others who are intimately knowledgeable of and interested in the welfare, mentality, and condition of Islam and Islamic nations. Any potential American policy related to those people, nations, and the “war on terror” could then be “run by” this group of individuals to determine what, if any, counterproductive effect the policy would have related to the war effort. Rather than have reactions to American policy manifest itself in riots and protests in the streets (or worse), the Brain Trust would serve as an internal advisory panel that could vet not only the spin, but the substance of related American policy to minimize, control, or prevent negative consequences of the policy. If the nation can create a Department of Homeland Security, then why not this group?
To be sure, there are several problems with this idea. The first is a pragmatic one dealing with resources: America has had trouble recruiting translators, let alone talented policy advisors. The second is a more political one: the Republicans were successful in portraying John Kerry and John Edwards as “soft” on war and as inhabitants of a “pre-9/11 world.” The question for American voters, as presented by the GOP, was straightforward: who would you rather have fighting Osama (Needick), Kerry/Edwards (Screech Powers) or Bush/Cheney (A.C. Slater)? Arguing for this Brain Trust or any quasi-diplomatic solution may be thought of as a weak and therefore politically unviable strategy.
In any case, there are encouraging signs, such as the appointment of Karen Hughes to serve as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. But, this appears to be a band-aid on what is otherwise an extremely complex and important part of America’s war effort — one that requires substantive solutions, not just spin.
One can only hope that the nation does more to win the war of ideas….
I’d quibble with this. The position itself is important but Hughes (an idealogue) is a horrible choice in my opinion. The most beneficial thing she brings to this post is the fact that she has the ear of the President.
should create a Brain Trust of academics, policy wonks, and others who are intimately knowledgeable of and interested in the welfare, mentality, and condition of Islam and Islamic nations.
In theory a good idea, in practice a bad one, in addition to the reasons you provide.
Starting from the presumption that these governments and policy wonks know very little about Islam and politics within those communities in the first place, any such club poses two dangers.
Firstly, that very conservative people get invited into these things (because most people are by definition quite conservative). So, in a situation that has become entrenched in the UK, you get politicians and lefties making friends with hardline groups…. like the Muslim Association of Britain (who want more segregation and have little issue with suicide bombings in Israel), Sheikh Qaradawi (of homosexuals should be killed fame)… the list goes on.
Secondly, there is a danger that people move away from treating Muslims (or really any racial/religious minority) as individuals – and instead bunching them as a community supposedly represented by those intellectuals or ‘representatives’.
There are plenty of liberal and highly intelligent Muslims who deeply care about the issue and have the right ideas on how to go about these things…. but usually they prefer not to associate themselves with govts killing Muslims – doesn’t help on the credibility front.
i had to re-read this post several times to make sure i understood what you were saying. i am shocked that you’d take this view…it’s like classic samuel huntington, clash of the civilizations…has edward said taught us nothing? this ain’t a war between islam and the west; islamism ain’t the issue. there aren’t 2 sides and there never were. it’s much more complex than that. it’s about US foreign policy, US imperialism, and neo-liberalism which create the conditions for religious fundies to take power. in other words, the problem is NOT that we need to be more multicultural or culturally aware or whatever. the problem is that there are both structures and discourses which have created the conditions for ‘terrorism’ to flourish (and uh, let’s not forget all the terrorizing that the US gets away with, c’mon now).
do we want to prevent another terrorist attack? we need to start by challenging capitalism, imperialism and orientalism. it starts right here.
and to any CIA agents lurking around: i’m not ‘siding’ with terrorists. i’m just saying, the root of the problem is with ‘us’ and not ‘them’.
i don’t think i’m being super articulate here, but are you getting what i’m saying? does someone want to jump in? or maybe (hopefully) i’ve just mis-read the entire post. so please do correct me if i’m wrong.
i’m just saying, the root of the problem is with ‘us’ and not ‘them’.
not to play PC one-up-menship games, but isn’t that removing non-western people from the field of agency, like they are objects which western culture, nations and people operate upon without any will in the matter?
ok, i really don’t believe that at all, some people are dumb, and from what i have seen/heard i can believe that non-western people are nothing more than cargo-cultists buoyed along by western cultural dynamisn. the reality though i believe is more complex….
my friend at quantum ghosts has been talking about memetic warfare for a while now….
How does this POV then explain the hate for anyone that doesn’t follow Islam? And even the fellow Shiats or Sunnis aren’t spared and the hate isn’t always directed towards the US. It’s happening all over the world.
Are you saying “If the US Foreign Policy would go away all Islamic terrorism will go away.”?
I second sentiments posted above…The more I think about the implications of what you’re suggesting, the more dangerous an idea it seems to me.
First, it smacks of huntingtonian self-fulfillment of prophecy re: clash of civilizations. The clash would seem inevitable, if we think and act as if we think it is inevitable. Its drawing more battle lines in the ground than erasing them…
Second, creating and legitimizing a group of intellectuals who are alleged experts on Islam (who would set up such a group – obviously the administration in power) would only serve to make distinctions between the way the US purportedly would deal with Islamic states and non-Islamic states…what a terrible thing in the making! A legitimately divisive US foreign policy? Not to mention, how would the US deal with states with minority Muslim populations such as, er, lets say, India?
I do think there is a lot to what Rushdie is saying, but seeing as the onus is on the Islamic world to look within themselves, the US too has a responsibility to try to finish what it started in the Middle East and do it legally and responsibly.
Warrior lady, Chomsky and Zinn are two of my favorites but I don’t read them in a vacuum. I appreciate your passion in this issue but I think you’ve isolated yourself from a more balanced and honest perspective to your own detriment.
to respond to:
not to play PC one-up-menship games, but isn’t that removing non-western people from the field of agency, like they are objects which western culture, nations and people operate upon without any will in the matter?
and:
How does this POV then explain the hate for anyone that doesn’t follow Islam? And even the fellow Shiats or Sunnis aren’t spared and the hate isn’t always directed towards the US. It’s happening all over the world.
Are you saying “If the US Foreign Policy would go away all Islamic terrorism will go away.”?
no, i don’t think that i’m denying anyone agency. and i’m not saying that anything will “go away” if we do away with US foreign policy. what i’m saying is, the global balance of power at the moment is tilted towards the west. the west currently occupies a space of domination. this doesn’t mean that resistance is not possible, or that those outside the west are powerless, or that corruption isn’t happening in the east or south or whatever term you want to use. i just think it would be much more fruitful to start at relationships of domination-subordination (which exist in multiple levels, in all sorts of criss-crossing ways…). cuz it’s not an equal playing field.
re: dave’s suggestion, one thing that i think is important for scholars and “pundits” to under is cognitive science. genetics has DNA, chemistry has atoms and physics has particles. a deep understanding of a topic yearns toward a proper bottom-up model. the problem with many generalizations about ‘civilizations’ is that i think people are working from the top-down. instead, you need to work from the bottom up. in regards to the west vs. islamism, the problem is a a subset of muslims. these muslims tend not to be the dispossessed of the world, rather they tend to be healthy, wealthy and rationalistic. the tendency to focus on “power structures” and neo-marxism and post-modernist “discourse” is not totally futile, it is a skeptical bent which acknowledges some of the social realities and warns us against excessive platonic typology. but it tears down without building much of substance, instead of turning away from platonic typologies and determinism and moving toward more nuanced probabilistic models that take into account that each culture inhabits a “parameter space,” a certain crowd has simply danced on the burnt embers of models falsified and thrown up their own simplistries.
You realize that technically everything west of the African continent is considered “the west” so are you going to simply dismiss the west in order to create a more balance of power? China Japan and India are ranked 3,4 & 5 only after the US & the European Union for its GDPs. And isn’t consumerism all over the world already leveling the playing field?
Also the countries (middle east) where “terrorism” generally stems from are countries with the highest level of oppression and happen to be some of the biggest consumers of the “made in USA” mindset.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, considering the current alternatives.
oh, one thing, re: complexity. “warrior lady” asserts that the issue is more complex and textured than the simple platitudes that are promoted by the political class. why, yes, she is very right. but, in her own turn she puts forward a highly simplistic narrative, that western projection of power and culture is the root-of-all-anomie the world over. i don’t think it is that simple either, the most obvious way being that there is to me no clear relationship between colonialism and westernization and anger toward the west. many of the arab nations barely felt the hand of western colonialism, only the loose hand of mandates after the ottomans fell before independence before and after world war ii. of course, just because you are ‘independent’ doesn’t mean they aren’t colonized…but hey, it is a complex tale to tell. just as there are no gods and heroes there are no devils and demons.
Better than a Brain-trust, why not a blue-ribbon panel? In Canada, we could set up a Royal Commission!
Nonetheless, I love the War on Terror/ Saved by the Bell analogy. What I wanna know — who exactly is < href=”http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-05,GGLG:en&q=kelly+kapowski”>Kelly Kapowski in this scenario? Hillary Clinton?
Warrior Lady (10 hugs says you live in the Great White North):
Isn’t it these types of issues the proposed “Brain Trust” would help resolve and avoid? From the post: “to minimize, control, or prevent negative consequences of the policy.”
Having said that, I agree with Sunny, “In theory a good idea…“. An organization under a watchful govt. eye can only be so objective.
who exactly is Kelly Kapowski in this scenario? Hillary Clinton?
i always thought kelly was overrated. chimpmunk cheeks anyone?
Insufficient? Yes. Counterproductive? No.
War is a political, dipolomatic, military, AND economic enterprise. What the President needs is more men like the former Col. John Boyd, whose ideas profoundly influenced the first Gulf War and it’s strategies. This second time around, tactical mistakes have cost the United States dearly, and they’ve primarily been mental mistakes. These are fundamental flaws that guys from Sun-Zu, Mushahashi, Boyd, and Machiavelli have pondered upon.
1) Letting go the Iraqi Army. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies even closer. Seriously, either we could have paid these 400K odd soldiers and developed a network, or just let them fly off into the unknown.
2) “Mission Accomplished” – I hated this. Not only did this signal to our own people and forces that ‘we’re done’, but it removed the mental edge when momentum was ours.
3) Holding back military’s hands (micromanagement of war). Example – Fallujah, the first time around. After the contractors got burnt and mutilitated, the Marine Corps had a plan in place that was low key and relied on small unit tactics to flush insurgents out without laying waste to the town. Political parties wanted otherwise, so they were forced to attack. Just when insurgents were cornered out, cease fire was declared? WTF. So in Nov, we lay waste to the town. We win, but we lost good men, money, resources, and time. The initiative.
4) The 10%ers (Abu Gharaib folks, etc) who smear the good work of other guys. Nice work shitheads. Talk about something unnecessary and how much it hurt. Achilles Heel.
5) The President not taking responsiblity for actions under his command and earning credibility. Own up to it, and people will consider it honorable.
The academic council is a good idea on paper. But I’ll agree with other comments here that it’s impractical. The President has the ability to get advice from a plethora of sources. Creating another ‘council’ only adds layers to the decision loop and creates another group with vested interests and bureaucracy. Also, who says academics are the best choice? Warfare (mental and physical) is won on practical grounds. Look what happened to McNamara and his ‘Whiz Kids’. Practical realities have to be studied and getting the ideological cart ahead of the horse is deadly. Ideas and practical solutions work hand in hand, and implementing strategies has a right time and place. If it ain’t ripe time, you’ll falter.
From what I’ve read and ancecdotal evidence I’ve seen, ground commanders and folks on the frontlines probably have some of the best ideas, its a shame not many filter up in enough time. Human contact will win this war, albeit a part violent, and other exchanging ideas. ALL FRONTS MATTER.
Not that the two wars are similar (Vietnam and Iraq), but one thing is true about both: We’re behind the curve on the psychological warfare aspects at the top levels. Hell, even Rumsfeld is finally owning up to it.
we need to start by challenging capitalism, imperialism and orientalism.
I might be making assumptions for Warrior Lady here, but I don’t think she means we start by over-throwing capitalism. Or atleast I’d hope so. It may however indicate that we at least challenge the presumptions that underline all these -isms, and recognise that forieng policy is partly dictated by these -isms. Halliburton anyone?
Now I’m not a conspiracy theory wonk and will say that generally a fair and competitive market is preferable to state control (although I used to believe otherwise but the bloody ghost of Adam Smith is a persistent bastard)… but that doesn’t mean naked capitalism is without faults. Imperialism and Orientalism are downright despicable, but not necessarily a western tool, IMO.
No, there is no one root of the problem. This is an old Banyan tree. The roots and causes are so intertwined that getting to ‘it’ will get you lost. The problem isn’t with us or with them. Its with everybody or nobody really. People want stuff and are ultimately driven by their selfish desires. Some of those selfish desires include taking care of others and society, other stem from personal need of power and greed.
Neha says:
Shite. you play that game too. I just wait for it to pop in later. raise you another twenty she went to carleton.
Thanks for the comments everyone. I’d like to briefly respond to a few. First, Abhi, I agree that a better choice could have been made for the State Department position, but the existence of the position itself is significant. One could argue that by appointing Hughes, the president is revealing what (little) he thinks of the position (see also, the appointment of John Bolton to serve as UN ambassador). warrior lady, my apologies for any confusion in my post. I believe Neha has accurately described the intent of the Brain Trust: to internally check potentially negative consequences of American policies such that the policies do not contribute to the will to commit acts of terrorism — to the extent that this contribution can or should be corrected given other, competing interests (e.g., entering Afghanistan to pursue bin Laden likely angered some to the point that they may want to harm the United States, but, on balance, it had to be done).
Most importantly, razib_the_atheist, my vote for Kelly is Wafah Dufour Bin Ladin.
Kelly, of course, was one-third of the amazing group, Hot Sundae, which also featured Jessie “I’m so excited…” Spano.
In all seriousness, I was hoping that the Brain Trust idea would be thought-provoking, even though it is admittedly unworkable. (Indeed, while a group of advisors may be able to exert some influence on executive decisions, they would not be able to control the actions of everyone (e.g., interrogators in Abu Ghraib), even though those actions may unnecessarily provoke the enemy.)
i may not agree with you, you bunch of frootie leftie loonies, but still group hug y’all.. have a good weekend
I was hoping that the Brain Trust idea would be thought-provoking, even though it is admittedly unworkable
there is no sin in striving. in all seriousness, i don’t think that most of the guiding hands in foreign policy know anything about the lands they were attempting to conquer. the goals might be controlled by forces unseen and interests unexposed, but the reality is that one can minimize the damage done if we go in knowing what we are doing….
So Impressed
Dhaavak – It’s especially a fun game to play in the SM boards because there are many occasional commentators . No harm intended, of course. Just a bit o sleuthing fun.
I know you’re out there Canucks! I will find you!
I am not sure what good will a council do when the American narrative about the war on terror is a combination of juvenile platitudes like ‘they hate our freedom’,’they hate freedom’, ‘freedom is on the march’.
The US for now is unwilling to do any introspection on its foreign policy and the way business is done with the Arab world. When the war is explained as ‘good versus bad’ ‘freedom v. tyranny’, its a good way to get the support of the masses because the alternative is to talk about serious fundamental policy issues like raising taxes on gas which no one wants to hear.
I dont even think the US has made any attempt to define the enemy. Chechnyan terrorists to Briish Pakistanis to Hizbullah are now all defined as Islamo-fascists. The US should atleast make an attempt to seperate the global jihadists from semi political groups with purely local goals. Outside a few thousand hard core salafists, there is no global islamo-fascist movement. Almost all the global jihadist attacks (that is attacks carried out by men who are not involved in some localized struggle/issue) have been carried out by young to middle aged Muslim men, usually educated and belonging to the Salafi school of thought.
I think we need to make a disctinction between the cartoon protestors, the mad mullahs in Holland who advocate stoning gays, the crazy dude in NC who tries to run over students and start treating them as a part of the problem with political Islam and not confuse it with the murderous salafist enemy. The war on terror is with the global salafist jihadists whose politics is non-negotiable, whose goals are neither identifiable nor firm (they keep changing anyway) and who are now involved in an nihilist war to seek ends which they frankly dont care about achieving, as long as they can inflict pain on their perceived enemies.
The problems with Iran, Hamas, Hizbullah are political problems to which solutions can be found as Iran, Hamas, Hizbullah are atleast semi rational actors who are willing to make compromises. They are not a part of the war on terror and should not be treated as such. The invasion of Iraq has now of course blurred the lines between the Salafists and Baathists and nationalists and for a brief period the Sadr Army in Iraq and new temporary alliances are being formed in Iraq between disparate groups who otherwise might be fighting against each other.
The Iranians and the US have a common enemy in the Al Qaeda types and fanatical Salafists who hate both the US and the Shiites. Lumping Iran with the Salafist globalist jihadists as a part of the war against terror is counterproductive and silly.
On the Brain Trust idea; I’m assuming the Brain Trust is like a JFK kitchen-cabinet thing? I wonder if we’ve moved to a politics that’s simply too cynical for a kitchen cabinet? I would hope not, and actually I think many people yearn for such a more hopeful way to engage in the issues of today
Sunny: bang on. though i wouldn’t mind overthrowing capitalism ;). heh.
Neha: you’re right.10 hugs. though the great white north ain’t all that great.
Dhaavak: you lose the $20. i didn’t go to carleton.
here’s my last comment for the day, in response to others who responded to my other comments: let’s not reduce political issues to ones of ‘culture’. or to something about a few bad apples that we have to deal with…i’m up for strategic policy interventions (cuz yeah, we can theorize to death and never get anywhere), but we need to really think through carefully about the implications, their strategic value (if any) and consider how those interventions may perpetuate or further entrench existing divisions, stereotypes, injustices etc…
…i would have thought it was more a case of rich vs. poor. oppressed vs. oppresors, not so much clash of civilisations.
LSE educated owners of companies in muslim countries are not the ones generally lugging bomb jackets and burning flags, they would have too much to lose. nor is it a vast majority of muslims in asia, africa, and the rest of the world. and seeing as more deaths due to terrorism seem to be occuring in primarily muslim countries (the dead being other muslims) as a result of terrorists, i hardly think it is due to religious differences either.
there will always be a few, who in their hunger for power and passion for controlling others will exploit just about anything, border disputes over wondering cows, religious sensibilities over artwork looking like verses from holy book, or even imaginary insults to the sentiments…
it is very easy to manupulate the poor and impovrished, and make them believe that the source of all their misery is some looming giant, in this case western countries/cultures, rather than the oppresive or tyrinical or uncaring governments and ruling elites.
its psc 101, when there is civil strife, fight with neighbours, and burn a foreign flag, or, bomb a foreign country or start a war on the other side of the world. been going on for 1000’s of years…
So when a Sunni Iraqi terrorist group blows up a Iraqi Shia shrine its not due to religious differences ? Or when night clubs are bombed in more liberal areas of muslim countries its not due to religious differences ?
dudette,
I understand your premise about education and well-being.
However, the killer of Daniel Pearl was
Atta and his group were all very well-educated. It is not simple.
fair enough, but i would say those are philosophical differences within the religion itself in the first instance, if u know a bit about the differences between sunnis and shiates, and why shites came to be in the first place, it had more to do with succession after the prophet died than anything else.
the 2nd example i think backs up my assertion that it is primarily the clash of socio-economics than anything else. poor people do not go to night clubs, the elite and middle classes do. so if u are mr. bomber, and u see ur neighbours and family in poverty and suffering and the other ills of being poor, u hate the buggers that are spending $5 (whatever that is in local currency) on pink martinis and jacked up music, instead of blaming the rich bastards for spending all that money on music and entertainment, instead of,lets say, running water in the slums, u get a bit pissed.
if it was so much religious and cultural differences, why has this thing escalated now? i mean, shites and muslims have been at each others throat since the beginning of the religion. why werent they bombing clubs before? there have always been elite clubs in almost all parts of the world since ages.
u cannot call all violence terrorism, and all motivation behind that violence religious based. this has been made into a religious issue and a clash of civilisation issue in the recent past, the animousity has always been there between the rich and not so rich, whether within a country, or across borders. people have just had enough, so what they are unable to do within the system, they do outside. u are still in much more danger of being hit by terrorist in dhaka or kathmandu or karachi or kabul, than u are in nyc or lhr or anyother european capital.
just my opinion, s’all, maybe my view is tainted by growing up a muslim and having lived in muslim cities in asia and africa as well as non-muslim cities in europe and the u.s.
just cause cnn makes it out to be clash of religions and cultures, and a bunch of phd’s do thesis on it in western countries, dont make it so! most muslims i know, albeit they arent living in the worst of situations, dont think of it this way, and certainly most elites i know sure as hell dont. they get affected by it on a daily basis prolly 300% more than us living cosily here.
dudette,
A while ago, I wrote a piece, “The Terror Bee Equation“. Please do read.
I agree with some of your ideas but it is more complicated, in my mind.
no one, least of all me, is saying it is simple.. what in life is.
and i realise that the profile for the average international terrorist with ideology based on islam, is, college educated, many times in the west, not always, primarily male, from middle, upper middle class families, people who would otherwise be quite successful professionally, and i forget the rest (sorry, cant source this as i dont remember where i got it from, but my brother always goit harassed at heathrow suffice to say.
many, not necesaarily all, of these so called jihadist dont actually have beliefs or ideology based entirely, or legitimately, in the qu’ran. the killing of innocent people for instance. but, though some of the masterminds, and leaders, are as u say, not slum dwelling pissed of poor peoples, the foot soldiers dont have degrees from lse. i mentioned that some people will use ideology, basterdised to fit their own needs, to reach peosonal goals. and if connign a few angry out of work young men helps them meet that goal, they wont stop.
the only way to fight this plague, is, again in my simple opinion based on my own experience in these communities, is to alleviate poverty. people with jobs, proud mothers, ipods in their pocketses, and a future to look forward to in most cases, are unlike to to go to the local shite mosque, or to the macdonalds, or the danish embassy to cause mischief.
if you have visited southasia, specially the big cities, recently, u wil know the amazingly large number of people, many young men, sstanding about doing aquat, cause there is squat to do. and if some of them are educated, they know the owrld out there, the possibilities, and are pissed off squat-doers. idles hands will mischief cause, and idle minds,angry idle minds, can and are easily manipulated…
I wish it was that simple.
A lot of people have said that the whole thing is due to imperialism and poverty. Fair enough – but only to a point. A lot has to do with cultural conditioning.
Day before yesterday, I was talking to woman who was in Iraq for OEF Yr 1 and 2 with the US Army. We discussed that why Iraq is so different from Vietnam (had very brutal French and US intervention, and lot of peverty) and Japan (historians believe that post WW-II Japan as worse as it gets in terms of death and poverty). Vietnam and Japan never had violence against soft targets (that is the basic definition of terrorism). One of the reason for soft targets being used is when one knows that they do not have parity to fight a hard target. Trust me if you read Iraqi blogs, an average Iraqi is very pained. Here, and here.
Our answer was: lack of local leaders that can harness people’s aspirations in a peaceful manner, and frame of mind, dissidence can be expressed in many ways. Basically, a cultural framework. Japanese listened to Emperor Hirohito after WW II and acted accordingly.
One of the reason Gandhi became Gandhi was Jain influences (Ahimsa is the very core of Jainism) in Gujarat and particularly his mother (besides absorbing tenants from Hinduism and Christianity, and thinkers like Emerson, Tolstoy). He was looking outwards.
“A while ago, I wrote a piece, “The Terror Bee Equation”. Please do read.
I agree with some of your ideas but it is more complicated, in my mind.”
linking to your own blog is totally not done… have it link to your name, fine, but to link to an entry, as if your just trying to increase your hits or something.
not cool
well, ur entitled to ur opinion, and again, no one is saying its simple. but to think that ur opinion or perspective is wholly comprehensive or correct is hardly going to get u credibility.
i simply said, based on my own experience, and learning, and the rest of the stuff i read, and the peoples i know, get rid of poverty, and a bleak future, and the world will have a lot less violence. the original premise of the entry was about ‘brain trusts’, and whether the impact it may have… a bunch of people sitting in washington talking about stuff they have only technical or theoritical or personal opinions without realworld on the ground experience, i.e. like soldiers on the ground or u.s. diplomats, or u.s. aid or u.n. personelle, is destined to fail. we dont need ‘think tanks’, we need ‘do tanks’.
ne sutor ultra crepidam
Noli me tangere
jSon,
I’ve been reading Kush’s posts here on SM for a while now and have often corresponded with him here myself. Based on the understanding I have gained of his personality, I think it is pretty unlikely that he would link to a specific article in his own blog purely in order to increase the “hit rate”. The article concerned is actually extremely well-written and makes a number of highly relevant and insightful points concerning the issue we’re discussing.
I would recommend that you check it out too if you haven’t done so already; I certainly found it very interesting reading.
Hear, hear Json. Someone needed to say that. I have been visiting this [great] blog for a few months now. and everytime I turn around, I notice Kushtandon linking, under one pretext or another, to this blog. Very transparent and utterly uncool attempt to increase hits to his blog. Stop piggybacking, kush. Very annoying!
linking to your own blog is totally not done… have it link to your name, fine, but to link to an entry, as if your just trying to increase your hits or something.
WTF were you thinking when Kush said ‘A while ago, I wrote a piece, “The Terror Bee Equation”. Please do read.’
He made it clear enough that he was referring you to something he wrote. He did not trick you into his own blog. He gave you ample warning that the link was to his own writing. Were you under the impression that he was linking you to some Op-ED piece he wrote for the NYT?
it delights me to see canada’s premier cash crop breaking into new markets. from sea to sea, through bc bud or quebec gold, we thank you. come again.
There’s nothing wrong with linking to an individual blog post as long as your post is interesting and relevant.
What’s truly lame is comments like:
Al_Mujahid in comment #24, partially proves that why Dave’s idea of a “Brain Trust” is a good one. Although I do agree with other commentors (as well as Dave) who have said that the politics of such appointment would not result in intended outcomes.
The pro argument of a supposed “Brain Trust” is that they can come up with the definition of the enemy, which is very important. If the US somehow does that, it will also give a clear exit strategy, as opposed to stupid nare-baji (hindi for slogan-eering) like “Nothing less than complete victory”. I think the US military would LOVE that.
If you thought GWB was bad at shooting his mouth off, Ahmadinejad takes the cake. Hell, he’s even turned the Europeans sour. “Wipe Israel off the face of the earth”. Under the previous guy, negotiations were moving along, and Iran still will negotiate a deal. They’re just trying to milk it for what its worth. There is a reason the Russians are still working it. It takes two to tango, and Ahmadinejad is a nut.
Same way “Saddam gased his own people” ….. Yeah lets go to war with Iran.
In the current geopolitical environment, I don’t think anyone is going to war with Iran. Iranians know this, Europeans do, Russians do, and so do the Americans. I’d take Bush over Ahmadinejad or Saddam anyday. Any rational person would.
Iran is one of Japan (and China’s I believe) major oil suppliers. Yea, war with them and you risk screwing over guys who have direct impact on the US economy from the consumer side, which keeps the ball afloat here. Your position is based upon the fact that Bush will go to war with Iran. He doesn’t have support for that ANYWHERE, nor is he looking to go there. I simply isn’t possible for the forseeable future. If the Russians and Europeans are peeved off, let them negotiate Iran down. The US will play bad cop, Russians and Europeans are playing good cop. One has to give Iran for being a tough and smart negotiator.
If their nuclear facilities do go up, I wouldn’t be suprised if Israel took things in its own hands. Again, why does Iran want nukes when its sitting on one of the worlds largest energy reserves? To push Israel AND Saudi around. The Saudis and others aren’t saying much, but they are far more afraid of Iran having nukes than Israel.
Look, the United States would negotiate with Iran if the Iranians were looking to mend fences. They aren’t and Al Quaida isn;t on their priority list.
re: people dumping on kush for linking to his blog: Step Off.
kush is a regular here. we know him. he’s our friend. leave him alone.
thank you.
dudette,
thanks for joining in. you’ve added an important perspective and one i think folks here should listen carefully to. please don’t go away.
brain trusts are a disaster unless proven otherwise. they are a bureaucratic solution, which is to say, not a solution at all. as it is the united states, for all of its “small-government” official rhetoric, has an extremely unwieldy and incovenient bureaucracy. that may be inevitable, in fact, for a country this large; that means that additional bureaucratic burdens are really a bad idea.
in addition, as people here have said, any brain trust is likely to reflect the prejudices of the people in power. bureaucratic brain trusts tell leaders what they want to hear. it’s built in. that’s why there are two other branches of government. it’s up to the legislature and the judiciary to act as countervailing powers to the executive. they should be the ones — within the constitutional scope of their responsibilities — generating ideas, proposals, precedents, interpretations for the executive to respond to.
the absence of in-depth and contextualized knowledge about arab, muslim, etc. societies here in the u.s. is clearly flagrant and wishing to deal with it is a good idea. but wouldn’t it make more sense to do so by, say, training american foreign service personnel, military, college students, high school students, etc., in arabic and urdu and indonesian bahasa and the other relevant languages, literatures and cultures, and sending them out to learn the world as it is, not through the opaque workings of some washington commission?
peace
Al Mujahid is spot on:
Ironically, the same is happening in Islamic countries – ‘Great Satan’ vs ‘Islam’, ‘believers’ vs ‘infidels’. Both ‘civilisations’ are playing upon the fear of the masses, i.e. the fear of something different.
Personally I think Hamas winning the Palestinian election offers the West an excellent opportunity for the ‘struggle against Islamism’. The Mullahs have been profiteering from the rage within the Islamic community regarding Palestine, the symbol of muslim oppression for the past 50 years and so peace between Israel and Palestine via diplomatic talks with Hamas will remove the major grievance of the Islamic world. It is rather simplistic, but the potential is there.
Also, a thorough shake up of the House of Saud would be super. In the history of humankind has there ever been a more hypocritical, short-sighted, lily-livered and two-faced monarchy?
And last but not least, compulsory hormone treatment for those with jihadi tendancies – the inverse of this – high doses of estrogen for the macho male types oozing testosterone.
Well, isn’t that special.
“Military ‘brain trust’ created for Iraq,” United Press International, Feb. 5, 2007.
“Officers With PhDs Advising War Effort,” Washington Post, Feb. 5, 2007.