Bloodshed and war for democracy - democracy = just bloodshed and war

[natedogg]

If you're going to invade a country and force democracy down it's throat, you should at least do it right.

What you should NOT do is let a bunch of uneducated, tribal-minded superstitious racists formulate their own constitution after all the bloodshed and expense you went through to bring them enlightenment.

We destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, we killed thousands of people, we spent billions of dollars, the least we could do is actually make good on the promise of enlightenment and GIVE THEM SOME ENLIGHTENMENT!

If I'm not mistaken that's what happened with Japan in '45. We said, "listen up you psychotic fascists, here's your new constitution and you'll like it". I imagine there was some input on the matter but final say was up to the USA. I don't even think we had them ratify it. We just put it in place for them. I could be wrong but I think that's what happened.

But we have allowed Iraq to set up a nation where

" Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation" and "(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
"

And that's just the warmup.

They have preserved freedom of expression... " as long as it does not violate public order and morality:"

WTF!

And " freedom of assembly and peaceful protest will be organized by law" Yeah, the government will organize your protests for you, as long as it conforms to the laws of Islam and you do not violate public order and morality.

And then of course there is an article that guarantees freedom to own property only if the owner does not "threaten a demographic change". I'm pretty sure that just means Jews and Kurds can't buy property or businesses in neighborhoods where people don't want them.

And there's also large sections of bizarre socialist utopia nonsense like "The state shall guarantee the protection of motherhood, childhood and old age and shall take care of juveniles and youths and provide them with agreeable conditions to develop their capabilities. "

and

"parents have the right to respect and care from their children,"

Ummmm.... ok. You guys get right on those.

WTF How did we let these backwards fools do this to themselves? I thought we were there to shove some liberal democracy right up Iraq's ASS.

Instead we blew the place up and sat back while they laid out the foundations for oppression and possibly civil war.

I was not in favor of the war, but I wasn't as incensed as most of the detractors. I think I may be reaching that point
though.

natedogg

[lehighguy]

We've failed. I really should have seen it comming. I got so wrapped up in thinking it was possible, I never really thought about whether it was probable.

Looking back, given the political conditions of the US and the incompetence of it's political leaders this outcome was inevitable. Could an intelligent, driven, well studied leader with unlimited political capital have accomplished it, perhaps. That was really what I was thinking about in the whole run up. However, we don't have a benevolent dictator. We have an incompetent president, two incompetent political parties, and an impatient and uneducated voting population. Looking back, failure was a forgone conclusion.

This constitution really proved it to me. The whole reason I wanted to go into Iraq was to help those people. That maybe there was a solution to terrorism that didn't involve sitting around waiting for another attack. We could help others, make up for past mistakes in the ME, and even help ourselves in the long run. This constitution is a sign of complete failure. Iraq will descend into civil war the second we leave, or at the very least become a police state.

[whiskeytown]

yep....

I always get nervous anyways when democracy is forced down people's throat anyways - I always thought when someone was ready for democracy, they'd just take it for themselves - passing it out under threat of death is a bad habit that evidently doesn't always work -

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
This constitution really proved it to me. The whole reason I wanted to go into Iraq was to help those people. That maybe there was a solution to terrorism that didn't involve sitting around waiting for another attack. We could help others, make up for past mistakes in the ME, and even help ourselves in the long run. This constitution is a sign of complete failure. Iraq will descend into civil war the second we leave, or at the very least become a police state.

[/ QUOTE ]

We shoulda kept Saddam in his box and went into Iran first.

Stu

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought we were there to shove some liberal democracy right up Iraq's ASS

[/ QUOTE ]

You thought wrong

[cadillac1234]

[ QUOTE ]
We've failed. I really should have seen it comming. I got so wrapped up in thinking it was possible, I never really thought about whether it was probable.

Looking back, given the political conditions of the US and the incompetence of it's political leaders this outcome was inevitable. Could an intelligent, driven, well studied leader with unlimited political capital have accomplished it, perhaps. That was really what I was thinking about in the whole run up. However, we don't have a benevolent dictator. We have an incompetent president, two incompetent political parties, and an impatient and uneducated voting population. Looking back, failure was a forgone conclusion.

This constitution really proved it to me. The whole reason I wanted to go into Iraq was to help those people. That maybe there was a solution to terrorism that didn't involve sitting around waiting for another attack. We could help others, make up for past mistakes in the ME, and even help ourselves in the long run. This constitution is a sign of complete failure. Iraq will descend into civil war the second we leave, or at the very least become a police state.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's been a long history of strife and an unwillingness to cooperate between the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. Saddam got into power because he was a ruthless tyrant that beat the populous into submission and the poplous was a willing victim. They made their own luck and choices throughout the centuries and ended up reaping what they sowed for so many years.

The first level thinking of this entire war by the Bush Admin set us up for failure before the first US troop put a foot on the ground.

What do we do now? A pull out means Iraq turns into Iran II and we've doubled the headaches in the region. Stay and we dump more money and lives putting off the inevitable scenario 1.

Saddam was an a-hole but at least he was a very contained threat after Gulf War 1. The correct play was not to get involved in a completely -EV situation in the first place.

We had a lot bigger fish to fry than Saddam in 2003 and now we've completely lost our way, a lot of lives and a lot of our money.

Yep. using the nukes would have been a whole lot easier. Plus we could have had the Iraq oil fields in full production by now.

Wait a minute. My latest book is "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer


/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

You are worried that the Iraqis will choose some kind of theocracy, if left to their own devices? Only two days ago, poster PVN was saying this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3343701&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1) :

[ QUOTE ]
The free market is more than just the buying and selling of goods in mundane, day-to-day trade. It is the whole of individual interactions of all types when those individuals are unhindered by government dictatation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys need to get your act together! Either go for the freedom aproach (and let the Iraqis learn freedom by engaging in free choices) or go for the dictatorial approach (and dictate to the Iraqis their constitutions, their laws and their culture).

When the initial set of "premises" (America invades and occupies Iraq in order to give the Iraqis the opportunity to fix their country themselves) yields unwanted results (America wants democracy in Iraq -- but is about to get instead some kind of theocracy), the average Joe will stick to 'em "premises" for reasons of pride or patriotism or false math, whatever, but the smart guy will revisit the premises.

Here, let me cede the floor to an expert (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3276010&page=&view=&s b=5&o=) who does not frequent this page as often as he should:

[ QUOTE ]
The unacceptability of coming to a conclusion that can't be reached from your initial premises (while its negation can) does not mean that you have to abandon that conclusion. If in your heart that conclusion feels like it must be true, all you have to do to remain consistent, is appropriately alter you initial premise or axiom.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Of course by doing that you may wind up having to alter OTHER conclusions that stemmed from the original, but now altered premise. But if the conclusion that forced this alteration is especially clearcut or important to your values, you have no choice.
<font color="white"> . </font>
This whole procedure is second nature to world class scientists but takes some getting used to by your average Joe.

[/ QUOTE ]

[lehighguy]

Other countries in just as bad straits managed to make the transition to democracy. I still think it was possible with effective leadership and resources.

However, whether effective leadership and resources was in place is another story, and in getting tied up in that first question I didn't really think about the second. It was a grave error.

Our best bet is to install another brutal dictator. I thought those days were behind us, but perhaps the advocates of that policy were smarter then I thought.

[FishHooks]

Very good post. Some people seem to think we want to turn Iraq into a mini America, which is not the case. Let them decide, they were elected into office by the Iraqi people. Yea...lets force a constutition on them...create greater tentions and a chance of a real civil war breaking out...yea lets do that...

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
You are worried that the Iraqis will choose some kind of theocracy, if left to their own devices? Only two days ago, poster PVN was saying this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=3343701&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;s b=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) :

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you think is demonstrated by putting my words in his mouth.

[lehighguy]

The civil war will break out anyway because they've chosen a bad form of government. Just because people vote for something doesn't mean it's good for them (current American government can be an example).

I think all those cold war strategist I despised may have been right. Perhaps dictatorship is the only way to keep order in the ME. Some dictators seem to be alot more tolerant and liberal than the populations they rule over.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to invade a country and force democracy down it's throat, you should at least do it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you missed the part where the Iraqi people welcomed the idea of democracy and the overthrow of their tyrant. Or do you measure a country by the criminal elements who are trying to take it over, instead of the everyday citizens?

[lehighguy]

It's everyday citizens voted for theocracy. Everyday citizens make horrible political decisions all of the time. Hitler was elected. So will whatever clerical tyrants that end up in charge of Iraq.

[FishHooks]

No, but the transition has to be gradual. When we first drafted our constution, white males were the only part of the population with real rights. I dont think you can just drop a dictatorship and then force an american style govt on the population. They will ease into it, as they get more freedoms they will want more and progress will be made. The whole religion thing doesn't really bother me, I mean Iraq isn't and will not be a place (even if it becomes really democratic, the location sucks)for immigration so they dont have to worry about a diversified religious culture in the near future.

IF the U.S. gave rights to blacks in the original constution, there proboly would of been such a uproard on the white males because they just couldn't handle all that at once. But as society progressed, changes that were necessary were made.

[vulturesrow]

You guys are looking too hard for problems. The Constitution they wrote is a great example of democratic compromise. The religion "clauses" are clearly a sop to the more hardline Islamists. Notice that it refers to "undisputed" tenets of Islam. There are actually very few tenets that fit this description. As far as the public morality thing, I think that is just something you are going to have to accept in a region that is as culturally conservative as the Middle East. They can have a democracy without being a clone of America. I am optimistic, but only time will tell. What we shouldnt do is force our version of democracy on them.

[superleeds]

You can. I doubt the people who devised, planned and control this war have, or indeed feel it necessary.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
If the U.S. gave rights to blacks in the original constution, there probably would of been such an uproar on the white males because they just couldn't handle all that at once. But as society progressed, changes that were necessary were made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and it only took 200 years...

[lehighguy]

I just don't think that Democracy is possible without certain basic principles. When religous hardliners start trying to dictate peoples lives to them the whole system is going to come shattering down.

[tek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of that sounds like UN dogma.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't think that Democracy is possible without certain basic principles. When religous hardliners start trying to dictate peoples lives to them the whole system is going to come shattering down.

[/ QUOTE ]

[vulturesrow]

What basic priciples do you think are missing from the draft Constitution?

[lehighguy]

Natedog went over it in his OP. But for review.

Seperation of Church and State
Freedom of Assembly and Speech
Property Rights
Protection for Minorities

Are all lacking in the constitution.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It's everyday citizens voted for theocracy. Everyday citizens make horrible political decisions all of the time. Hitler was elected. So will whatever clerical tyrants that end up in charge of Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

You recognize this, yet you still argue that government is better than no government?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
yep....

I always get nervous anyways when democracy is forced down people's throat anyways - I always thought when someone was ready for democracy, they'd just take it for themselves - passing it out under threat of death is a bad habit that evidently doesn't always work -

[/ QUOTE ]

It worked great in Japan and Germany, but there we put the hammer down a lot harder, and were committed to stay many, many years as necessary.

Maybe we just didn't have enough troops or political will for this in the first place.

I thought we should have been much tougher in our military engagements and posture both in Afghanistan and Iraq. We gave them too many breaks. We let tons of al-Qaeda including bin-Laden escape Tora Bora when they were trapped in there, because we wanted to appear as "good guys" and foolishly left them a potential escape hatch during days of negotiations. We screwed up in Iraq by not completely clobbering insurgency early on. We should have flattened any mosque used to attack us. We should have treated the insurgents and foreign fighters like we were fighting the Nazis until they capitulated or were killed. And if that meant taking over 10 Fallujahs by complete force so be it.

I think our troops did an awesomely fantastic job given their directives and resources. However I think our directives should have been much, much tougher and less "Mr. Nice Guy". We worried too much about alienating the Muslim world and therefore the bad ones got too much leeway and boy did they ever use it.

[MMMMMM]

I agree on a lot of points.

The Iraqi Constitution is a POS, and that junk document is NOT what we went there for. If they're supposed to have a democratic republic out of all of this, well then give 'em one, dammit! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I think Bush had the right idea initially but did not follow through with enough force and will. Also, there was too much attempted appeasement of public opinion and of Arab/Muslim opinion.

I actually think Bush was, in some strange way, too soft for this. Or maybe he listened to too many advisers who placed too much stock in public perception. Heck even going to the U.N. well before the war turned out to be a terrible mistake.

I'll bet Reagan would have done it right, though.

[lehighguy]

Law and order is desperately needed in Iraq. More then anything. As long as roaming bands of thugs can kill people on the street at random for whatever reason they want the country will be a living hellhole. Every citizen of Iraq would be better off if the government was able to maintain law and order and protect its citizens.

An examination of the role of government is not an either/or approach. Each function of society must be evaluated to determine what is the best way to provide value to its citizens. Just as you would interview several employees to do a job, government interviews for the right to provide certain services. Through analysis one has to determine if government is best at providing that service or if another is method is best.

Providing law and order, police, military, and independent courts are fairly cheap services that provide huge value to citizens. Free market alternatives don't provide nearly the same value in my analysis. Does that mean I have to endorse a relationship between church and state, of course not. An analysis of that option yields the conclusion that it would not be best for citizens, and therefore should be rejected.

My rejection of social programs, moral regimens, or big government hinges not on a belief that people have inalliable rights that can't be taken away. Rather it is based on an analysis of each of those policy options and a conslusion that each is bad for society.

Rather then dealing in absolutes, one must examine the different options our society has in ordering itself and weigh the pros and cons. Taking this route I think you'll find government can provide superior value when it comes to matters of law, order, police protection, and independent courts.

[CORed]

I'm not sure how to interpret that "undisputed". Does it mean, as you interpret it, that only those tenets that all Muslims agree on? Or is it an assertion that the tenets of Islam are undisputed?

[FishHooks]

Apparently you dont know when the constitution was written.

[FishHooks]

We didn't have all that untill our Bill of Rights was established.

[FishHooks]

Haha, funny post, its so wrong it could be satirical if you read it right.

[lehighguy]

Is Iraq planning to estabish a bill of rights.

Is a bill of rights incorporating those things even possible given the contents of thier constitution.

[MMMMMM]

I'm actually mostly serious. Fighting wars with less than a full commitment to completely win is generally a mistake.

I'm not arguing here whether we should have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq in the first place. That's really a different argument. But given that we did enter these two wars, I think we didn't prosecute them forcefully enough.

Also contrast the administration's approach to the sensitivities of our adversaries, with Reagan's approach of demonizing the USSR's government (and rightfully so). Bush was on the right track when he called Iran, North Korea and Syria an "axis of evil" but he lacked the wherewithal to follow through both logistically and in political capital. Reagan however got much more support and less criticism when he called the USSR an "evil empire" (although he got some criticism).

Bush also made a mistake taking the approach of calling Islam a "religion of peace". Better to just say that all totalitarian government is evil whether due to religious rule or not. If he had instead denounced clerical rule and Middle Eastern totalitarianism, he would at least have drawn the true line in the sand. You might notice that in the wake of the London attacks, Blair is more willing to identify our true adversaries and to call a spade a spade. We are at war with Islamic extremism, with Jihadism, and we should make no bones about it.

Sure we might make more enemies amongst those who are our enemies already, by such an approach; but we would gain more allies amongst our friends and neutral parties for having the courage and moral clarity to speak the truth plainly.

Every person has a moral or spiritual birthright to the simple freedoms of: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Political systems which deny these rights should be identified as affronts to all humanity, whether they are secular or religious at their base.

I think Reagan, were he President in Bush's stead, would have garnered more political support by correctly and publicly identifying our true enemies, and the inherently repugnant aspects of their philosophies, instead of attempting to be "politically correct".

If we had more recently had had the manpower in the military we had when Reagan was in office, pacifying Iraq would have been a far easier matter (Clinton severely reduced our military manpower). Basically we would have kicked the insurgents' butts and had plenty of tropps and MPs to really OCCUPY the country instead of merely camping out in it.

Take Tora Bora, too. I believe we should have kept bombing the trapped al-Qaedans and Taliban with the intention of killing them all. Had we done so, bin-Laden, Mullah Omar, and many others would never have escaped. But we failed in Tora Bora due to trying to be too much "good guys", due to overconcern for public opinion. That's already bitten us in the butt, and who knows how much worse things will get because we didn't kill their top leadership all at once when we had the chance.

[FishHooks]

Personally I dont know, I haven't read the entire Iraq constitution.

[FishHooks]

I strongly dissagree with your assumption that we need more manpower in the military. I would agree to that if we wanted to invade Iran while in Iraq. But to take on Iraq on its own, I think we have more than enough forces, the technology is making up for the lack of manpower.

Regarding you talk about the leaders of terrorist organizations, the Clinton administration had many opprutinites, one of which he called off just days before after they had practiced the operation for countless months. Also he tipped the Pakastan govt off when telling about about his air strikes which caused him to miss Bin laden by about 2 hours. There is no also hard evidence that Bin Laden was in the Torra Borra mountains from the example you gave.

Your talk about Bush trying to be politically correct, in talking about our enemies, I couldn't dissagree more, he could care less about politically correctivness, if he did he wouldn't of taken on this major project of Iraq.

I agree Reagan was a great president, he's my favorite modern day president. However I dont agree with your ideology in your first couple paragraphs, about the view of islam, religion in general, and non-secularism vs secularism.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not saying we necessarily need more manpower in the military. If we are going to be invading countries such as Iraq, though, I believe we do need more manpower. I think some top generals took this view as well, although Rumsfeld didn't.

Regarding Islam: I am opposed to any system which denies human rights and imposes totalitarianism. To the degree that Islam, or any other ideology does this, consider me opposed. And if Islam itself does not inherently do this, as some may argue, then Islamic law (also known as Shari'a) most certainly does.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush also made a mistake taking the approach of calling Islam a "religion of peace". Better to just say that all totalitarian government is evil whether due to religious rule or not. If he had instead denounced clerical rule and Middle Eastern totalitarianism, he would at least have drawn the true line in the sand. You might notice that in the wake of the London attacks, Blair is more willing to identify our true adversaries and to call a spade a spade. We are at war with Islamic extremism, with Jihadism, and we should make no bones about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You see how the bolded text is contradictory, right?

Is it better to say were at war with totalitarian ideologies (and leave religion out of it all together, as you first state) - or is it better to claim we're at war, specifically, with Islamic extremism/Jihadism (as you later claimed)?

[lehighguy]

I think his claim is that religous extremism = totalitarianism.

Hitler was a religous fanatic if you call his idealogy a religion.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think his claim is that religous extremism = totalitarianism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can't really be true; totalitarianism is word used almost exclusively to describe state control - that is, it relates to having power, and weilding it abusively. We could correctly call these guys (http://www.godhatesfags.com) religious extremists - but we couldn't correctly call them totalitarian.

[ QUOTE ]
Hitler was a religous fanatic if you call his idealogy a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like an awfully liberal meaning of religion; I don't think MMMMMM's use of the word religion was meant this malleably, but I'll let him speak to that. But when I hear we're 'fighting religious extremism' - I don't think that we're merely fighting some set of beliefs that adherents pursue with zeal, but something much more narrowly defined as a religion - Islam, for instance.

[FishHooks]

I think these people should read 1984 to get an idea of what real totalitarianism is, and that you dont need religion to have that kind of state.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think these people should read 1984 to get an idea of what real totalitarianism is

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, given that 1984 is a work of fiction, that might not be the best example of what real totalitarianism is.

[Triumph36]

The problem is that it's very easy to say you're at war with Islamic extremism in your own country - much more difficult to proclaim it to a country that is largely Islam. People are naturally suspicious when someone makes the claim "I'm acting in your best interest", and the United States has made this claim throughout the conflict to the Iraqi people. Adding to that fire by claiming that the enemy is Islamic extremism - now you've got the real possibility of the populace turning against you.

Your obvious retort to this is that Bush and the Administration is living in a dreamworld if they think they can smash Islamic extremism by using this passive approach. My response to that is that they were living a dreamworld invading a country under the guise of acting in the Iraqis' best interest.

[lehighguy]

Anything belief system based on absolutist morality on God given right/wrong is inherintly intolerant. As such Hitler's idealogy falls in. When religous leaders gain political power totalitarianism is a logical result of that intolerance.

The more specific laws laid out in holy books (things that can't be questioned) the more intolerant the religion. Since Islam is the most law ridden of the three main western religions it is the most intolerant (not that they all aren't ugly idealogies). Seperation of church and state is an important step in building a better society (there and here).

This is not to say religion has to be a force for evil. As a force for bringing togethor community, doing good works, and studying different ways of live it has done amazing things for society. However, as long as it clings to absolutist morality it will remain archiac and dangerous.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Anything belief system based on absolutist morality on God given right/wrong is inherintly intolerant. As such Hitler's idealogy falls in. When religous leaders gain political power totalitarianism is a logical result of that intolerance.

The more specific laws laid out in holy books (things that can't be questioned) the more intolerant the religion. Since Islam is the most law ridden of the three main western religions it is the most intolerant (not that they all aren't ugly idealogies). Seperation of church and state is an important step in building a better society (there and here).

This is not to say religion has to be a force for evil. As a force for bringing togethor community, doing good works, and studying different ways of live it has done amazing things for society. However, as long as it clings to absolutist morality it will remain archiac and dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't seem to answer the question: should we say we're fighting totalitarianism (a religiously blind battle - keep in mind what Mx6 said: "Better to just say that all totalitarian government is evil whether due to religious rule or not.") --- or should we say we're fighting Islamic extremism? MMMMMM seems to want to say both. I say, that sounds contradictory to me.

Saying all religious extremists are just powerless totalitarians (or saying all religious extremists are would-be totalitarians) seems something like saying: I'm a billionaire, I just don't have a billion dollars.

[lehighguy]

Religous extremists are totalitarians without power.

You try your best to set up a system that keeps religous extremist (potential totalitarians) out of power or limits thier power when they do gain some control over government.

The best way to do this is twofold. First, you need a well forumlated constitution and seperation of powers to prevent the worst kinds of totalitarian rule. Next you have to slowly educate the populace, convincing them that electing religous extremists and other totalitarians is bad. The second takes much longer, and is in many ways beyond our scope.

However, the first is necessary for the second to even be possible, and is really the primary mission. Hopefully the second will follow over decades and centuries.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]

Religous extremists are totalitarians without power.

You try your best to set up a system that keeps religous extremist (potential totalitarians) out of power or limits thier power when they do gain some control over government.

The best way to do this is twofold. First, you need a well forumlated constitution and seperation of powers to prevent the worst kinds of totalitarian rule. Next you have to slowly educate the populace, convincing them that electing religous extremists and other totalitarians is bad. The second takes much longer, and is in many ways beyond our scope.

However, the first is necessary for the second to even be possible, and is really the primary mission. Hopefully the second will follow over decades and centuries.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Powerless totalitarians is a contradiction in terms. Without power, you can't be a totalitarian.
2) What does any of this have to do with what Mx6 is saying? I'm not saying we should support Islamic extremism, or any kind of religious extremism; only that, it seems rather silly to be critical of how the President's selling of the War on Terrorism in the manner Mx6 is.

He wants President Bush to come out and overtly say we're hunting down Islamo-fascists, wherever they are; he wants the War on Terror to be described in the most explicit terms possible - this war is against Islamic extremism; okay, fine. That's debatable.

Yet he also wants the President to come out and say we're fighting a religiously blind war, and that our only goal is to thwart totalitarians everywhere, irrespective of religion; that it's 'better' to sell the war in this fashion. Again, a fair point to be sure; but one that doesn't seem to square with his former point.

[lehighguy]

I've diverged from 6M, just speaking for myself here.

Religion itself doesn't necessarily have to be an enemy, but literal and intolerant interpretations of it must (I'm going to be brief on this point for expediency).

Totalitarians don't just appear out of thin air, they are the product of societies that desire what they claim to provide. If you topple a tyrant, but don't present a alternative governance system to the population, you end up with another tyrant (like in Iraq).

One of the driving forces behind why religous tyrants can gain power is religous intolerance, and fighting it is part of the process of fighting totalitarianism. The first step in fighting religous extremism is establishing a seperation of church and state. This allows citizens to experiment with different lifestyles and ideas, ultimately the greatest weapon against religous extremism.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
.

Totalitarians don't just appear out of thin air, they are the product of societies that desire what they claim to provide. If you topple a tyrant, but don't present a alternative governance system to the population, you end up with another tyrant (like in Iraq).

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam was a very secularist ruler, so I dont think this example applies to Iraq. It also shows that religion is not the cause of totalitarianism, but it can be.

[Boris]

Good post. Highly disturbing that the effing mullahs got their way.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]

...given that we did enter these two wars, I think we didn't prosecute them forcefully enough.

Also contrast the administration's approach to the sensitivities of our adversaries...

Bush also made a mistake taking the approach of calling Islam a "religion of peace". Better to just say that all totalitarian government is evil whether due to religious rule or not. If he had instead denounced clerical rule and Middle Eastern totalitarianism, he would at least have drawn the true line in the sand. We are at war with Islamic extremism, with Jihadism, and we should make no bones about it.

Sure we might make more enemies amongst those who are our enemies already, by such an approach; but we would gain more allies amongst our friends and neutral parties for having the courage and moral clarity to speak the truth plainly.



[/ QUOTE ]

A couple thoughts M:

1) The Iraqi insurgency against the US occupation in Iraq seems to be fueled and united (mainly) by two perceptions: a) The US is engaged in a war against Islam and b) The US does not intend to relinquish true control of Iraq, our troops will not leave, and the new Iraqi governemnt will be subordinate to the US economically and militarily.

One could argue that there is nothing that we do could to significantly shake these misperceptions. However, Bush's refusal to tie clear goals with troop withdrawl and a timeline and repeated claims that we will "stay until the job is finished no matter how long" hurt us significantly in the battle of perceptions of this occupation.

Bush (strategically correctly!) calling Islam "a religion of peace" helps define our struggle against the fanatics and not the whole of Islam, if he said "Islam is our enemy in Iraq and the ME" than the propaganda that we are in a war against Islam which helps drive the insurgency would actually be true!

2) It is beyond rediculous to suggest that "drawing a harder line" than Bush in would get us more allies in Europe or anywhere in the War in Iraq. Have any way to back this up? However, you are correct that our enemies would multiply and fuel will be added to the fire of Islamic terrorism.

3) I think you are certainly right that we did not have enough troops to pacify and secure Iraq initially. Fishhooks is certainly wrong on this matter. Generals on the groups have needed more troops throughout the whole occupation, despite the administrations denials. Generals will stay in line with Rummy (who has failed miserably in leading Iraq as SoD) and not speak out publically, but my congressman talked to the guys on the ground and the truth cames out: we need more help. Of course, blaming Clinton for the failure of bringing enough troops to Iraq is basically rhetoric. Please.

[ QUOTE ]

If we had more recently had had the manpower in the military we had when Reagan was in office, pacifying Iraq would have been a far easier matter (Clinton severely reduced our military manpower). Basically we would have kicked the insurgents' butts and had plenty of tropps and MPs to really OCCUPY the country instead of merely camping out in it.



[/ QUOTE ]

[lehighguy]

Religion, if practiced a certain way, easily leads to totalitarianism. Just as say racism or any other form of intolerance does. Religion is prone to this because of its believe in absolutist morality and principles, which are by definition intolerant.

[FishHooks]

Your trying to imply that it's the only way.

[Triumph36]

Religiosity in some totalitarian states has been shifted to the State rather than a religion, but that seems to be unsuccessful without a serious propaganda machine and the infrastructure with which to get out that message. Hussein kept control of the country, but his soldiers weren't exactly ultra-loyal on the battlefield, either.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't seem to answer the question: should we say we're fighting totalitarianism (a religiously blind battle - keep in mind what Mx6 said: "Better to just say that all totalitarian government is evil whether due to religious rule or not.") --- or should we say we're fighting Islamic extremism? MMMMMM seems to want to say both. I say, that sounds contradictory to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not contradictory; here's why:

All totalitarian governments are essentially opposed to human rights and freedoms and therefore are our ideological adversaries in that respect. However, Islamic extremism, or Jihadism, is what has been attacking the West recently and therefore Islamic extremism is our especial enemy right now.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple thoughts M:

1) The Iraqi insurgency against the US occupation in Iraq seems to be fueled and united (mainly) by two perceptions: a) The US is engaged in a war against Islam and b) The US does not intend to relinquish true control of Iraq, our troops will not leave, and the new Iraqi governemnt will be subordinate to the US economically and militarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is also fueled by Saddam's old guard and favored, hoping to return to power; and by Iranian-backed foreign fighters. Iran's mullahs have a huge stake in the future of Iraq.


[ QUOTE ]
One could argue that there is nothing that we do could to significantly shake these misperceptions. However, Bush's refusal to tie clear goals with troop withdrawl and a timeline and repeated claims that we will "stay until the job is finished no matter how long" hurt us significantly in the battle of perceptions of this occupation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think those two perceptions are the chief causes or primary fuels of the insurrecton. As above.


[ QUOTE ]
Bush (strategically correctly!) calling Islam "a religion of peace" helps define our struggle against the fanatics and not the whole of Islam, if he said "Islam is our enemy in Iraq and the ME" than the propaganda that we are in a war against Islam which helps drive the insurgency would actually be true!

[/ QUOTE ]

That is only one side of the coin. The other side is that strength and clarity tend to gain respect, even if at times that respect is given grudgingly. Also, it is just not true that Islam is "a religion of peace." Its philosophy and history are clearly much more heavily weighted towards religious totalitarianism and spreading Islam by the sword.

We should be telling Muslims what aspects of religion and religious rule are unacceptable to the rest of the world: make it clear, bring it out in the open. Unacceptable is trying to force others to live under Islamic law or Islamic rule. Unacceptable is trying to spread Islam by the sword (as is occurring right now in Sudan; and is the ultimate aim of jihadists everywhere). The Jihadists are very much trying to forcibly spread Shari'a. We and all the rest of the free world should be telling them loudly and clearly: "No dice."

Anyway, I suspect the ideological confrontation between Islam and the West is just in its childhood. The philosophies of the Enlightenment and the philosophy of Islam are like the North and South Poles apart. Tragic but true.


[ QUOTE ]
2) It is beyond rediculous to suggest that "drawing a harder line" than Bush in would get us more allies in Europe or anywhere in the War in Iraq. Have any way to back this up? However, you are correct that our enemies would multiply and fuel will be added to the fire of Islamic terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see it as ridiculous. Reagan seemed to do quite well in his long run results with his "peace through strength" and "focus of evil" messages.

Also notice what happened with the Iranian hostage crisis under Carter. A soon as Reagan appeared to take the helm, the hostages were released. Entirely a coincidence? I think not. The Middle East has a long history of respecting power and strength, and I strongly suspect the mullahs feared Reagan whereas they considered Carter a pushover.


[ QUOTE ]
3) I think you are certainly right that we did not have enough troops to pacify and secure Iraq initially. Fishhooks is certainly wrong on this matter. Generals on the groups have needed more troops throughout the whole occupation, despite the administrations denials. Generals will stay in line with Rummy (who has failed miserably in leading Iraq as SoD) and not speak out publically, but my congressman talked to the guys on the ground and the truth cames out: we need more help. Of course, blaming Clinton for the failure of bringing enough troops to Iraq is basically rhetoric. Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

General Shinseki, for one, said we needed more troops overall; and at least one other General stated we needed more tropps in Iraq.

Clinton obviously did not know what would transpire after his term, so I'm not blaming him for "not bringing troops to Iraq", but I do fault him for cutting our military so severely. If that hadn't been done that we would indeed now have had more troops available for Iraq--and for Iran if necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

[twowords]

Thanks for a thoughtful response.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A couple thoughts M:

1) The Iraqi insurgency against the US occupation in Iraq seems to be fueled and united (mainly) by two perceptions: a) The US is engaged in a war against Islam and b) The US does not intend to relinquish true control of Iraq, our troops will not leave, and the new Iraqi governemnt will be subordinate to the US economically and militarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is also fueled by Saddam's old guard and favored, hoping to return to power; and by Iranian-backed foreign fighters. Iran's mullahs have a huge stake in the future of Iraq.


[ QUOTE ]
One could argue that there is nothing that we do could to significantly shake these misperceptions. However, Bush's refusal to tie clear goals with troop withdrawl and a timeline and repeated claims that we will "stay until the job is finished no matter how long" hurt us significantly in the battle of perceptions of this occupation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think those two perceptions are the chief causes or primary fuels of the insurrecton. As above.



[/ QUOTE ]

I am one hundred percent convinced that we would have a much easier time if we faced an insurgency primarily fueled and comprised by foreign fighters and Saddam loyalists. Foreign fighters = 10% of insurgency. We are fighting many, many different groups over there (many allies only in their hatred for the US); it is a rebellion first, not a coupe by a homogenous entity.


[ QUOTE ]
...strength and clarity tend to gain respect, even if at times that respect is given grudgingly...We should be telling Muslims what aspects of religion and religious rule are unacceptable to the rest of the world: make it clear, bring it out in the open. Unacceptable is trying to force others to live under Islamic law or Islamic rule. Unacceptable is trying to spread Islam by the sword (as is occurring right now in Sudan; and is the ultimate aim of jihadists everywhere). The Jihadists are very much trying to forcibly spread Shari'a. We and all the rest of the free world should be telling them loudly and clearly: "No dice."

Reagan seemed to do quite well in his long run results with his "peace through strength" and "focus of evil" messages.

Also notice what happened with the Iranian hostage crisis under Carter. A soon as Reagan appeared to take the helm, the hostages were released. Entirely a coincidence? I think not. The Middle East has a long history of respecting power and strength, and I strongly suspect the mullahs feared Reagan whereas they considered Carter a pushover.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I can't agree with you. I am not in your mindset. Hard line foreign policy and "moral clarity" is just NA here, when it would just give us too many battles to fight alone. I can't see any support coming our way; instead, I see us furthur ignoring allies and international consensus. Considering the costs (see later), I cannot bring myself to fight for the cause of freedom in the ME. So then, how can I support it, asking another American to go in my place?

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, I suspect the ideological confrontation between Islam and the West is just in its childhood. The philosophies of the Enlightenment and the philosophy of Islam are like the North and South Poles apart. Tragic but true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just musing...anyone consider this too fatalistic? We're so different that we can't accept them and they can't accept us, so there must be military conflict. Call me a realist, but the necessity of war/preemption/conversion/occupation in regards to the ME has never rang true for me. I'd rather run with a Balance of Power/Containment/International/War of Ideas/soft power(Joe Nye) sort of solution, especially considering the real costs involved with our current path (blood, treasure, allies, enemies multiplying); who is with me?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
It is also fueled by Saddam's old guard and favored, hoping to return to power; and by Iranian-backed foreign fighters. Iran's mullahs have a huge stake in the future of Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

seems to me that the iranian mullahs are winning the war in iraq, why are they fueling the insurgency? The Shia's are pretty much in control of the political process in Iraq at the moment. The constitution proposed pretty much guarantees a very strong role to the mullahs.

The insurgency is fueled by the fears of the sunni's that the secular nature of the old Iraq is gone for good along with the sunni power and the fear that the oil wealth will end up in Kurd and Shia hands. It is an old fashioned fight for property, coupled with a strong nationalist streak in trying to get the foreign fighters (the US army) out of the country.

The fight in Iraq is not about Islam anymore. Neither the insurgents nor the Americans are fighting for Islam. In Iraq Islam has essentially won the war -- Bush et al handed it to them on a silver platter by getting rid of the enemy of Islam. Bad news for women, and non-islamic minorities including the Iraqi christians. No doubt they will write tales about the good old days of Saddam.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Bad news for women, and non-islamic minorities including the Iraqi christians. No doubt they will write tales about the good old days of Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]
"[Sigh] Remember the "good old days" of Saddam, when we could be yanked from our bed, raped in front of our families, executed, and then our families taxed for the bullets?"

[ACPlayer]

You might want to take this up with, for example the 1 million or so christians in Iraq who long enjoyed freedom of religion.

Or with the women who are now being forced to everyday cover their heads/faces.

It will get worse for these minorities.

Yes, those who criticized Saddam will be safer -- mostly because they will be busy suppressing those who dont agree with them.

[bholdr]

NATEDOGG!!!

great post. i aggree almost completly. In the morning (when i am sober enough to post a cogent resopnse) i will reply in detail. for now: right on! this is what i've been saying would happen for (holy crap) three years.

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
Its philosophy and history are clearly much more heavily weighted towards religious totalitarianism and spreading Islam by the sword.


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought all religion was spread by the sword:

The Crusades (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm)

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
It worked great in Japan and Germany, but there we put the hammer down a lot harder, and were committed to stay many, many years as necessary.

Maybe we just didn't have enough troops or political will for this in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

How come you guys keep comparing Iraq to Japan and Germany? A more apt comparison is Vietnam. We fight a half-assed war for half-assed reasons and get a half-assed result.

The countries of Japan and Germany had declared war against us, attacked us on our soil, and were thoroughly beaten. I would imagine that after the war, half the population of Japan was considering suicide and the other half was too ashamed and scared (being the recipient of an atomic bomb will do that) to do anything but what we told them to do. We had unquestioned moral and military supremacy to do what we wanted with Japan and Germany, but we have neither in Iraq.

Iraq's greatest sin against us was maybe harboring a few terrorists and some empty rhetoric from Saddam. When only a few denizens of a country are threatening you, you meet that threat using covert operatives and ninjas. A war should only be as big in scope as is the threat. Here, a small, covert war against the actual terrorists themselves was needed.

Furthermore, political will, or "politcal capital" as you guys call it, does not arise out of thin air. For this war, the political will came initially from the desire to get back at somebody for 9/11. Since Bin Laden -- and not Iraq -- was responsible and since there were no WMDs in Iraq, that political will evaporated.

If this Constitution helps us get out of Iraq, I'm all for it. Iraq's new form of government may be worse than the old and the people of Iraq are screwed, but we need to get out of there and start fighting the actual terrorists as opposed to countries that might be harboring them.

[tolbiny]

No- i believe he is trying to show that it is the most likely way.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, political will, or "politcal capital" as you guys call it, does not arise out of thin air. For this war, the political will came initially from the desire to get back at somebody for 9/11. Since Bin Laden -- and not Iraq -- was responsible and since there were no WMDs in Iraq, that political will evaporated.


[/ QUOTE ]

political will = something akin to courage; that is, political will is typically described as having the courage to do something you KNOW is right, even though it could be politically unpopular. More or less, it's deciding the course of action that's best, despite whatever political ramifications (losing an election, for instance) may occur because of it

political capital = what you build in democracies (or any kind of entity, even in a business) to legitimize your actions through consensus; good politicians typically have much political capital - you build it through negotiations, good communications, compromise, etc. - for instance, President Bush might be able to build political capital within his constituent base by giving them what they want; for instance, he's built political capital among Christians by supporting a social policy platform they demand. We might expect devout Christians to bristle at pre-emptive wars; yet he’s been able to garner their support by building political capital with them. The idea of political capital should be rather intuitive, but it's not the same as political will.

I think Mx6 is arguing (and I would agree) that this President is highly interested in political capital; that is, despite some narratives to the contrary (President Bush is a great leader, doesn't look at polls when he acts, is driven only by a strong moral compass, etc.) - this White House seems to frequently act with preserving/acquiring political capital in mind.

This actually doesn't sound like a bad thing, to me; remember how the President has been elected. The first time, he won a highly contentious election (where he lost the popular vote) that's legitimacy continues to be questioned; even his re-election, despite what you might hear about landslides and conservative majorities, was one of the closest Presidential elections in history - a 120.000 vote swing in Ohio and Senator Kerry is President right now. The country is closely divided, and (for various reasons, access to education and information not the least among them) political intensity is very high. So I don't blame the President in the least for being very concerned with politics.

Amd I think Mx6 agrees (if I read him correctly) that this President (like all politicians) is highly concerned with politics.

In fact, I think, if I read Mx6 correctly, he believes the White House is overly concerned with politics, and should, for the purposes of the War on Terror, adopt a 'come-what-may' attitude towards the political consequences of fighting terrorists, and do whatever is necessary to kill terrorists/prevent terrorism, even if those actions cost the President much in domestic political support/popularity.

Perhaps I've misstated what Mx6 is getting at (as, in his own mind, it seems as if no one has ever correctly quoted Mx6) - but even if I have misquoted him, I think the attitude I just described is probably rather prevalent among many Americans.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
All totalitarian governments are essentially opposed to human rights and freedoms and therefore are our ideological adversaries in that respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

You left out the part where you said that we should sell our foreign policy as being against totalitarianism "whether due to religious rule or not".

[ QUOTE ]
However, Islamic extremism, or Jihadism, is what has been attacking the West recently and therefore Islamic extremism is our especial enemy right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this seems contradictory with the former; will we be fighting all totalitarian governments (regardless of their religion) - or will we be fighting Islamic totalitarians only? If you want President Bush to describe our foreign policy as the latter (we're fighting Jihadists), the former (we're fighting totalitarians everywhere, regardless of religion) has no traction.

If you want our foreign policy to be the former (we're fighting totalitarians everywhere, regardless of religion) as you said this was "better" - there's no need for our rhetoric to single out Islamic totalitarians; right?

[MMMMMM]

I think you are mis-applying the word "contradictory."

And yes, there is a need to especially single out those who are attacking us.

[MMMMMM]

The following article may be enlightening.

"Apologize for the Crusades? Never!

by Robert Spencer
Posted Mar 25, 2005

As part of its effort to portray the West as the guilty party in today's global jihad, Al-Azhar (the most respected Sunni Muslim authority in the world), has asked the Vatican for an apology for the Crusades. Sheikh Fawzi Zafzaf, President of the Interfaith Dialogue Committee of Al-Azhar, explained that "Al-Azhar is only asking for a similar treatment" following Vatican apologies to other groups. According to the Vatican ambassador to Egypt, the Holy See is thinking it over.

This is just the latest indication that the Crusades have grown into a myth that little resembles reality, and remain politically charged over three years after President Bush was roundly criticized for labeling the war on terror a "Crusade." Former President Bill Clinton even explained 9/11 as fallout from the Crusades: "Indeed, in the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple mound…. I can tell you that that story is still being told to today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it."

The West has questioned the Crusades -- something probably not possible if the shoe were on the Islamic foot -- almost since they took place. Virtually all Westerners have learned to apologize for the Crusades, but less noted is the fact that the Crusades have an Islamic counterpart for which no one is apologizing and of which few are even aware. I am working on a new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, which will out from Regnery Publishing in a few months. In it, I am clearing away propaganda and telling what really happened.

Islam originated in Arabia in the seventh century. At that time Egypt, Libya, and all of North Africa were Christian, and had been so for hundreds of years. So were Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Asia Minor. But then Muhammad and his Muslim armies arose out of the desert, and -- as most modern textbooks would put it -- these lands became Muslim. But in fact the transition was cataclysmic. Muslims won these lands by conquest and, in obedience to the words of the Koran and the Prophet, put to the sword the infidels therein who refused to submit to the new Islamic regime. Those who remained alive lived in humiliating second-class status.

Clinton may be right that Muslims still seethe about the sack of Jerusalem, but he and they are strangely silent about similar behavior on the Muslim side. In those days, invading armies were considered to be entitled to sack cities that resisted them. On May 29, 1453, Constantinople, the jewel of Christendom, finally fell to an overwhelming Muslim force after weeks of resistance by a small band of valiant Greeks. According to the great historian of the Crusades Steven Runciman, the Muslim soldiers "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit."

The first Crusade was called because Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were being molested by Muslims and prevented from reaching the holy places. Some were killed. "The Crusade," noted the historian Bernard Lewis, "was a delayed response to the jihad, the holy war for Islam, and its purpose was to recover by war what had been lost by war -- to free the holy places of Christendom and open them once again, without impediment, to Christian pilgrimage."

Thus if Al-Azhar really wants to demand that the Vatican apologize for the Crusades, it should be ready to apologize for the Islamic conquests of the Middle East and North Africa. But the most disturbing element of this sorry exercise of historical revision is that their "request" may well be granted by the Vatican. And if it is, it would be just one more link on a long chain of double standards by which Western authorities seem ready to bend over backwards to grant concessions to the Islamic world, while asking for and receiving nothing in return. For example, Al-Azhar itself has praised suicide bombers as martyrs and declared that Islamic states have a religious obligation to acquire nuclear weapons. Yet no one in the West is demanding an apology from them for these approvals of very contemporary menaces. It figures.

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company) and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter). [/b]"



http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6959