America has Lost the War on Terror

[tabs]

The United States has a failed foreign policy in the ME. But before U Democrats jump for joy, the American failure has nothing to do with either political party. It is a systemic failure which neither party can get ahold of and grasp.

For over 50 years each succeding administration has kept the lid on the ME and Central Asia. The West has done it through supporting represive regimes, turning a blind eye to the violation of human rights. As a result of this policy there has risen a religious fundlementalism to opose this represion. This fundlmentalism holds no nation state or material goods as it's rallying point but a religious belief. This religious belief is intangible in nature you can't touch it you ccan't count it . Yet people are willing to die in it's cause.

In the United States we are a society of the quantifable. Our military and intelligence agencies all have been programed to fight wars where materialy achievable goals could be used as a measure of success. If you take and hold that hill, he have had a success, and if you take enough hills you have won the war. The Vietnamese war was the first time the US encountered a war of the ideological vs the quantifiable. Yet even in Vietnam the fight was about territory and consequently Nationalism and self determination. The war against terrorism knows no boundaries and operates on a global scale. It is much more a will of wisp thing a war of the intangiable.

The problem facing the USA in prosecuting the war against terrorism is how do you fight a war of intangibles when your programed to fight a war of the material. How do you measure success, how do you budget for for fighting the intangible of religious belief. . The US invasion of Iraq was an attempt to fight terrorism on a material level and gave short shift to the intangible aspects. while the US may hold the ground, put a government in place that may last 100 years. In the eyes of the Muslims through out the world it has caused any sympathy for the US cause to dwindle. It has caused the more moderate in the Muslim world who were willing to give America the benfit of the doubt to now look upon America in the pejorative. So where the US may have captured 10 terrorists there were a 1000 to follow, now after Iraq 10,000 to follow. This has become the reality of 2001. An ungoing festering wound, which will sap the lives, treasure and possibly in time the will of America to resist.

[Moneyguy1]

There you go...being objective and rational.

Like I said, all the precision bombs we can build will not make any difference. It is a mindset that has to be changed, and it has to change HERE. Whether we can find the leadership to grasp this concept, I do not know. It is too easy for Washington to say what they think the people want to hear.

"We are winning" and "We are better off" ring as hollow now as they did under Johnson and Nixon.

[tabs]

The one big question I have to ask is WHY is a fiscal Conserative like Bush willing to run such hugh deficeits? The answer is simple the Government of the USA is SCARED. They saw the abyss open up on 911. The economy of the world took an enormous hit on 911, a psychological hit right on the jaw that rocked the world. The only remedy to stabilize the situation was to pump capital into the system not only to stabilize the economy but to pursue a war on terrorism. Also the US saw a hugh fall off of tax revenue due to a decrease in the economy. Since it is well established that the Governments best course of action is to stimulate the economy by increased spending the government couldn't very well cut spending to match a revcenue fall off.

One thing that is not readily apparent is the fact that if the US didn't pursue 911 on a military level there would be a vote of NO CONFIDENCE in the US. This would be reflected by the economy, and there is no telling how grave the consequences would have been.

Can your government come out and tell you all this? The answer to the question is no, your government does everything it can to keep anything that would scare the American people from them. After all the people of the US account for 66% of the economy and if scared they don't spend.

[tabs]

Hey Money Guy...this new objectivity and rationality is drivng Mother crazy she just doesn't know what to make of it....it's just such a disconnect from the image she has of me....I just love it...

[Porsche-O-Phile]

We lost the last war the conservatives tried to get us into as well - remember the so-called "war on drugs" that was a cornerstone of Reagan & Bush senior's administrations? Well, if all the money wasted on THAT were directed at homeland security and we simply legalized and taxed the crap, it'd solve both problems pretty quick IMO. Problem is the pseudo-religious "holier-than-thou" types that back the Republican party would never stand for it, so they're stuck with the corner they've painted themselves into.

[Mule]

Tabs said:
"In the eyes of the Muslims through out the world it has caused any sympathy for the US cause to dwindle. It has caused the more moderate in the Muslim world who were willing to give America the benfit of the doubt to now look upon America in the pejorative."

This sounds good but has no basis in fact. The reality is that the number of Muslims world-wide who were ever willing to give us the benefit of the doubt was roughly equivelent to the number of old sickly billionaires that Anna Nicole wouldn't sleep with. Consider this quote from the preface of the 911 report:

"The enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world
by demanding redress of political grievances, but its hostility toward us and our values is limitless. Its purpose is to rid the world of religious and political pluralism, the plebiscite, and equal rights for women. It makes no distinction between military and civilian targets. Collateral damage is not in its lexicon."

Now remember, this is a bi-partisan, plitically correct operation of the govt. For them to say "broad support in the Arab and Muslim world," it had to be very broad indeed.

To all the folks who think this war is so horrible & wrong, ask yourself two questions 1. If a guy is willing to strap dynamite to his 8 yr old boy to go blow up people he doesn't even know, how does one explain to this guy that this is wrong? 2. If it turns out that your understanding of these people is wrong & they have no interest in peace, except under muslim rule, are you prepared to fight them here in our streets instead of their streets?

[widebody911]

But I was told they hate us for our freedom, and they hate us for our way of life! Did the NeoCons lie to me?

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by widebody911
But I was told they hate us for our freedom, and they hate us for our way of life! Did the NeoCons lie to me?

it's more about resentment than hate

[bryanthompson]

You know what, i don't give a damn what their reasoning for wanting to kill us might be. All I know is that there are people out there who want to kill us, and they must be destroyed. That's all there is to it. No rationalizing, no happy feel-good policy changes, just kill the enemy.

[Superman]

Respectfully, it is my position that Mule is spewing canned, false and useless ****. First of all, and I recognize this as the conservative "party line," I wonder how in the world we liberals are being painted as pessimists when the conservatives are basically saying there are no Mulsims who might be reasonable. That trying to create or salvage international relations, and trying to actually fix this problem, is a waste of time. That'd be convenient if it were true, and if the spewers just wanted to be at war. But it's not true. And it's not the answer. The only way this can be true, and be the answer to the problem, is if we are prepared to exercise genocide. And this seems to be our foreighn policy. Now, if anyone in the ME notices, as I have, that this "administration" seems to regard our relations with the Muslim world as insalvagable, and that the US is treating this as a fight to the death, then what do you suppose their reaction is going to be. Let me put it another way. What if Iraq was THE world power, and the US was a third-world country floating on a lake of oil, and we were getting bombed with no discernible diplomatic efforts to improve relations? What if you got the idea that the World Bully was coming after you, with the presumption that this is a fight to the death? One of us will survive but not both. So, that's the foregin policy, the world view, that you're buying when you cast your vicious, hatred, scared and desperate vote for Dubya in November.

Now, tell me again about Dubya's optimism, and his "leadership" skills. We're entering into an era where the most powerful person in the world is "taking it personal" (a Dubya quote I've heard twice already this morning) and exacting revenge, pure and simple, upon a group of people because their faces are the same color as some terrorists. And he smiles proudly and shakes his sabre in the air, showing the blood of people he tells us are "enemies." And millions of you are shouting chants of "Yeah, go get 'em, George," and "Kill them all, teach them a lesson." If you think this is good, or even potentially effective foreign policy in the long run, then "gubmint" for you must be similar to pro wrestling, and less complex than NASCAR.

Again, Mule, I say this respectfully. I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but Dubya seems to be telling American citizens exactly what you're saying, and that is FAR more frightening than the terrorist threat itself.

And by the way, it is hard enough to exterminate all the crane flies in someone's yard. It will be FAR more difficult to exterminate all Muslims. Some will survive. And what is Dubya's plan then? I guess his followers assume that the survivors will be so stunned and intimidated by our great military power that they will just commit suicide? Or go to work at convenience stores and forget who killed the other members of their families and their race.

Now, some of you are going to accuse me of exaggerating. but I notice that Dubya seems COMPLETELY incompetent at foreign relations, or at least the kind that is not handled by the military, and I see remarks like above that clearly suggest "the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim." C'mon guys. My twelve year-old daughter knows better than this. Do you think we could use a president who can read? Who can pronounce words? Who can consider alternatives? Who can quit scaring the **** out of the American people? Yeah, I'm pissed off about the 9/11 thing. But I'm nto so ignorant as to believe that the solution is simple. Some of you think that, but I don't.

[Mule]

Superman, I appreciate your respectful tone. I don't know what your age is but many people who lean to the left, especially young ones, want to see only the best in people and hold to the belief that most people are basicly good at heart.

First, I didn't say that there are no reasonable muslims. I do know based on facts that are easily supported that there are an apparently substantial number of them that are not! IMHO Bush has not dealt with the issue strongly enough. That is one of my knocks against him.

Thom said:
"But I was told they hate us for our freedom, and they hate us for our way of life! Did the NeoCons lie to me?"

I don't know who told you either of those and I can't comment on wether they were lying or ill informed, but they were both wrong. If you do a little studying you will find that they hate us for one reason only, we are not muslim & therefore infidels. According to the religion they are willing to sacrifice their children for, we as non-muslims can have one of only 3 fates. First as a memeber of the dhimitude, non-muslims who are allowed to exist under muslim rule by being subservient & paying a tax. 2. as a soon to be convert. 3. as a soon to be victim of decapitation. That's it!

Muslims are supposed to give their highest allegiance to Islam, not to their country and not even to their family. The goal is not as much to convert the world into Islam but to dominate the world and to establish the law of Sharia. This is why you saw very little issue with 9/11 throughout the muslim world.

Whatever the reason you decide for why they hate us, consider this, Muslims hate jews with a white hot intensity. Muslims hate Christians enough to kill them as needed. They hate the Hindus in India bad enough to have slaughtered millions (check your history). They hate the Bhudists enough to bomb them regularly. And they hate the tribal Africans with a similar fervor.

Now it could be that they are righteous & just & all these other people have done such horrors to the muslims that this is their only way to exact justice or it could be that these people are infused with hate from the time they are on momma's breast and bear good will to none. Do some research & make your own decision.

[Moneyguy1]

Um..Christians and Jews are not considered "infidels" in the Quoran, but are considered "brothers of the book" in that they believe in (some) of the same prophets and the same God. It is the interpretation of the Quoran that makes for the problem since true believers insist that the words cannot be translated from the original Arabic without losing some of their meaning.

www.islam101.com/religions/infidels.htm



For example: There is a debate as to whether Muslim women must wear a veil in public. Some scholars say the words refer to a "belt" or "sash" rather than a veil. Even the scholars cannot agree on the meaning of many passages. Such can be said about other Holy Books as well such as the OT and the NT.
Many of the words used in the Quoran are from other languages of the time and locale, making understanding even more difficult. The word used to describe "virgins" can, in another language of the time and area, be used to describe "white grapes". Some of the terrorists may be a bit disappointed.

So, the problem is that intellectuals in the Islamic world have been, over the years, outshouted by the fundamentalists and not much progress has been made to bring Islam into the modern world. With such a dichotomy of civilization and beliefs, it is not difficult to understand why there is such a "clash of cultures". Add to that a history of European domination over the centuries and it becomes a clearly difficult and complex problem, not easily or quickly resolved. The primary problem with our involvement is ignorance of the culture and now an urgent need to "catch up".

Ain't gonna be easy. As Colin Powell said to Bush senior re: the first gulf war and whether we should go into Bagdhad: If you break it, you own it.

If any writer can make the writings general enough, those writings are open to interpretation, which leds to misunderstanding.

[tabs]

Originally posted by Mule
.

First, I didn't say that there are no reasonable muslims.

Looks like I don't need to rebute.

The thrust of my argument was that:

1. The West is set up to fight wars against foes who have armies and control territory.

2. The war against terrorism is a war against an ideology that has no army or territory

3.The very way that the west fights wars is anthectical to winning a war against an ideology. The West has a 50/50 chanch of making the situation...war worse with every mo
ve it makes trying to fight a war it's way.

4. The way the west fights wars against the material...is ineffective against the ideology...thus it has no way of winning the war...it will drag on indefinately.

5. At some point in time the idological warrior may deliver a death blow to the west with a WMD or a series of WMD attacks. There will be no victory parades by the enemy through NYC, but a gradual wearing away of the will to resist. It may take 100 years or more to accomplish the goal.

6. If the West is gradually worn down by terroism, it will resemble the decline of a once good neighborhood into disrepair. Economic activity will slow, the technological revloution will grind to a stop and the world will fall into a new dark ages. As the ideological warrior is not a progressive force but a regressive one.

[Mule]

Tabs, surely you jest? Was WWII against an ideology? Was the cold war against an ideology? Surely You don't believe what you said. Every modern major war was won by killing civilians, sad but true. Sherman fought few rebel troops on his march to the sea. He fought & killed & burned & stole the posessions of civilians. When we & the Russians blasted Berlin into submission many more civillians died than did military, as also happened in most of the allied bombing if Germany. In Hiroshima & Nagasaki relatively few military were killed, again civilians paid the toll.

If you really believe what you said then our only hope is to surrender & convert. I believe that the USA can defeat any force on earth once sufficiently motivated. When we make it hurt bad enough, as was done in the Civil War, WWII Europe & WWII Japan, trust me, they will succumb. It's all a matter of will.

[turbocarrera]

So you think the only way to win is to exterminate muslim civilians.. gotcha.

[tabs]

WW2 was fought against a material enemy...once you took Berlin the war was over...the evil Dictator was dead. YOu could measure victory by objective means...

The ideological warrior knows no homeland, he can operate anywhere on the globe at any time. So the taking of Bagdad is meaningless, the death of Osma is meaninless, he will become a martyr and another Jihady will take his place.

Your solution suggests that if you kill and burn everything in Muslim lands a veritble scorched earth policy we will destroy their will to resist. One question, which Muslim land will be first. How will you sort out the good from the bad, or will you just let Gawd sort them out... Now a second question if the Jihady is allready hiding in the midst of your society of good guys....how do you weed them out? One blast fits all?

[Superman]

Thanks, Mule, for not taking offense. I'm nearly 47.

Yes, this is an ideological struggle. Not a military one. Except in Dubya's mind, anyway. And military action will not solve the problem (though it seems to be pleasing to blood-thirsty American "Christians"). Military action actually is moving a solution farther away.

It is my understanding that a plain read of the Koran would leave the reader with the impression that Islam is a peaceful, mature faith. According to my sources, certain Islamic leaders have interpreted it to require violence. Perhaps for political power reasons. (shock, surprize) So, the solution must be in the areas of education, communication, relationships and political power.

When we're done having fun pummeling them with our badass weapons, that is.

[Mule]

Superman, thats what they sell it as. Go buy Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic. Let me know what you think.

Tabs & Turbo, head for B Dalton, pick up a koran, stop at kmart & get a white pillow case & prepare to surrender. Viva la surrendeur!

[tabs]

Originally posted by Superman


Yes, this is an ideological struggle. Not a military one. Except in Dubya's mind, anyway. And military action will not solve the problem (though it seems to be pleasing to blood-thirsty American "Christians").

Don't be stupid Superman....It is a systemic failure NOT BUSH's or a Democrats Prez's for that matter.. ....This is how our GOvernment fights wars, it is the only way they know how to, it's the American mind set. You think the administration is running the show....Bush can only use the tools that are given to him to solve a problem. ...the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, NSA and a host of others are hugh Bureacracies that are completely unwieldy. They have to measure success by some tangible yardstick..like how many Terrorists they have captured...then there is a yardstick they can use to justify their budget....Get the idea....

[turbocarrera]

Mule, there's alot of Muslims in your home town, some white, some black, some arab.. what are even doing on this board? Shouldn't you be out there? cleansing?