Recently the war in Afghanistan reached a grisly milestone as the number of US deaths surpassed 2000. It was just under 11 years ago, months after the attack on this date, September 11, 2001, that the US launched what was euphemistically called Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
But now after 11 years, we are still fighting there. In fact, it was only in 2010 when the death toll surpassed 1000. Two years later the figure has doubled.
As Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said a few weeks ago, “I thought it was important to remind the American people that there is a war going on in Afghanistan, and that young men and women are dying in order to try to protect this country.”
But are they dying in order to protect this country?
The death toll in Iraq is now nearly 4500. That means nearly 6500 Americans killed in the two combats in the 11 years following the early morning attack eleven years ago.
I will never forget that day in September of 2001. It was the first time in my life I felt real fear. I was at the gym when my then fiancé called. Cecilia and I would not be married until the next summer.
I remember taking her call at the front desk, for in those days, I did not have a cell phone. I remember looking up at the screen as she told me we were being attacked. I remember trying to figure out what I was seeing on the screen and it taking a few seconds to connect the images with what Cecilia was telling me over the phone.
I watched in horror as images showed the building collapse. I went through my workout but came back to the front of the gym, fearful of the world I would see.
Not only was I fearful, I was angry. I was ready, in my late 20s to go off to war myself and teach them a lesson.
As angry as I was on that date, when we actually launched the attack on Afghanistan a few months later, I believed it was a mistake. And I thought it was a mistake a few months later, when we made the even less defensible move, based on erroneous information, to attack Iraq which had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or the war on terror.
So now here we are, Bin Laden is dead – though amazingly a poll “by Public Policy Polling (PPP) of Ohio Republican voters contains a rather surprising statistic: roughly one in seven Republicans in the state believes that Romney was responsible for killing Osama Bin Laden.”
I am not sure what to make of that, since I recall when I was in high school, there was a poll that showed some percentage of people believe that the earth revolves around the sun – and a surprising percentage of people believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
For me the biggest lesson of 9/11 is not the one that many people derive. We could have, in fact should have, been more prepared.
Kurt Eichenwald in the New York Times yesterday detailed the missed opportunities including an August 6, 2001 classified view that President George Bush received reviewing the threats posted by Bin Laden and his terror network.
But even he concludes, “Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.”
Brown University researchers calculated the costs of just Afghanistan and Iraq at $4 trillion – an amount that has been financed through debt. Debt that many are now blaming for negatively impacting the US economy.
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the Bush tax cuts, will account for almost half of the projected $20 trillion debt in 2019.
And then there is a civil liberties impact of 9/11. One of my biggest fears in the days following 9/11 was the overreaction would in essence allow the terrorists to win by making us change our culture; sadly our leadership – by both parties – has not disappointed.
As the ACLU wrote last year: “Our choice is not, as some would have it, between safety and freedom. Just the opposite is true. As President Obama recognized in a 2009 speech, “Our values have been our best national security asset – in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval. Yet, our government’s policies and practices during the past decade have too often betrayed our values and undermined our security.”
The legacy we can look back to is not just the neverending “war on terror” but also the Bush administration’s torture policy that Obama failed to make right, racial and religious profiling, and a massive surveillance by the government that has seeped into other realms – such as monitoring the Occupy Movement – and which has been unchecked by the normal distribution of checks and balances.
Wrote the ACLU: “All of these policies have been sold to us under the guise of ‘necessary security measures’ — but all of them have led to unacceptable rollbacks of our rights and liberties and the transparency of the government over the past decade.”
Last year’s report concluded: “We look to our leaders and our institutions, our courts and our Congress, to guide us towards a better way, and it is now up to the American people to demand that our leaders respond to national security challenges with our values, our unity – and yes, our courage – intact.”
The biggest lesson then of 9/11 is the danger of giving into fear. Giving into fear has a huge cost in terms of lives (far more people died after 9/11 than during it on both sides of the conflict). It has a huge cost in terms of fiscal policy. And it has a huge cost in terms of our freedom.
A few days ago I saw a comment on another site thanking a friend for serving in Afghanistan fighting for our freedom. I couldn’t help thinking that we are fighting in the wrong place, because we have simply abrogated our freedoms one-by-one without so much as a fight.
We didn’t burn the books, we just removed them.
Some people will look at the fact that Bin Laden is dead and the terror networks are scrambled and depleted, and at the absence of attacks on American soil these last 11 years, and say we won.
I can only say that is a high price to pay for what has been a normal condition. From 2002 to 2010 we lost 360,000 people to traffic accidents. There were 2000 US Troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001, but more than 5000 during that same time have been killed in Chicago alone by gunfire.
FDR, following his election to presidency, told the public during his first inaugural address that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Fear is a powerful motivator, but it is dangerous and often not based on logic.
The lesson following 9/11 is that we gave into fear, we overestimated the threat, and underestimated the costs of dealing with that threat.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
And don’t forget: President Obama has expanded the covert war that George W Bush started using drones. We have virtually no information on this war, it appears to have little to no oversight, and the President himself appears to make strike decisions. This war includes at least one extra-judicial killing of a US citizen and the death of 474-881 civilians in Pakistan, 60-169 in Yemen and 11-57 in Somalia according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
[url]http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/09/10/a-picture-of-war-the-cias-drone-strikes-in-pakistan/[/url]
It would seem to me that no one has the “high ground” on this. There is an inherent problem in my mind in deciding that it is somehow moral to “protect American lives” by the indiscriminate killing of non combatants in other countries. I am at a loss as to how our justified outrage at the attack on innocents on 9/11 became a justification for our attacks on similar innocents abroad. If the underlying principle is that it is wrong to attack innocent civilians, why should that apply only to innocent American civilians? To me it does not matter whether the underlying action is lying to the American people to gain support to initiate a war, or covert actions to maintain a war, these policies are morally bankrupt regardless of which administration is initiating or perpetrating them.
I agree madwoman. My statement was not intended to be partisan in any way but to simply make the point you make: no one in US leadership has the high ground on this. Apologies if this came across as a partisan argument. I wanted to make the point that you articulated so well. Thanks.
Hmm… Well then Rob and medwoman, what are your preferred options to prevent another 9-11? Do you consider episodes of 9-11 to be just something we need to endure?
[quote]There is an inherent problem in my mind in deciding that it is somehow moral to “protect American lives” by the indiscriminate killing of non combatants in other countries.[/quote]
I agree. Good thing we aren’t doing that.
Jeff: My view is that 9-11 was a perfect storm of opportunity meets holes in the system and incompetence. We have spent a tremendous amount of money and its not clear to me that we are really safer than we were. Sure Al Qaeda is largely in ruins, but someone else could step in their place. We have plugged some of the holes that led to their specific operation, but the knowledge of 9/11 itself was probably enough to prevent a recurrence.
Why? Well because the standard way of dealing with hijackers previously was to cooperate and hope they would set the passengers and crew free. Once they used the plane itself as a weapon, all bets are off. The passengers will respond as they did in the fourth flight and preclude a recurrence.
Fine. But if a terrorist wanted to strike, there is little that we could do to prevent a car loaded with explosives or a group of cars from heading to a crowded area and detonating.
Bottom line however is its not clear to me that a terrorist attack is the the threat or public safety risk that it seemed on 9/11/01
Obvious: I think the word “indiscriminate” meaning “not being based on careful distinctions” “random” “haphazard” “Confused” and “chaotic” is probably not the exact description of what has occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not far enough off from an accurate description to make the glib remark you did.
[i]”The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, [b]together with the Bush tax cuts[/b], will account for almost half of the projected $20 trillion debt in 2019.”[/i]
Arg! Tax cuts are not a “cost”. Damn I hate reading left propoganda trying to be stats.
If we had not cut defense spending so much over the last several decades and replaced it with so much non-defense spending, we would not have the level of debt from these two wars.
Nevertheless, let’s compare the costs of all military wars America has fought to the cost of the wars on poverty and hunger. Also, let’s consider that the US has actually won most of its military wars. Apparently from what I hear from my friends on the left we are losing the war on poverty and hunger even though it accounts for 70% of our federal budget and most of our national debt.
[i]”That means nearly 6500 Americans killed in the two combats in the 11 years following the early morning attack eleven years ago.”[/i]
Certainly not good; but let’s put it in non-emotive context. Over 5,000 people have been killed by gunfire in Chicago during that same time frame. That is only ONE American city. Most of the people killed are the same age as our American soldiers.
This will blow your mind…
[quote]The ratio of deaths to person-years lived, .00392 or 3.92 per 1000, is the death rate of military personnel in Iraq. Thus, the chance of death is approximately one in 255 per year. How does this death rate compare to those in other populations? One obvious comparison is to the civilian population of the United States, a standard with which many are familiar. The death rate of the civilian population of the United States in 2003 was 8.42 per 1000 (National Center for Health Statistics, 2006a). Thus, the annual risk of death for a member of the military in Iraq is less than half of that for a randomly-chosen American citizen.[/quote]
So, if we want to help improve the safety of Americans, we should train them and send them to fight in our wars.
Here is the source of my previous quote:
[url]http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=psc_working_papers[/url]
Oh, and I forgot to add the 3,000 innocent people murdered on 9-11. Let’s remember to add that to our tears we are sheding for the terrorists we kill.
JFK’s tax cuts have cost our country trillions upon trillions in lost revenue.
I think that David, medwoman and some other commenters have missed the lesson of 9/11.
Sometimes lessons have to be given several times before they sink in. I’m afraid these lessons will be repeated in the near future.
“This will blow your mind… “
That’s a horrible misuse of statistics which appears to statistically adjust to account for the population age of military personnel while comparing to all persons.
JR: It would be more interesting for you to present your own version rather than merely say ours is wrong.
[i]Jeff: My view is that 9-11 was a perfect storm of opportunity meets holes in the system and incompetence. We have spent a tremendous amount of money and its not clear to me that we are really safer than we were.[/i]
David, I’m still not sure what changes you are advocating.
I don’t think you are in favor of greater Patriot Act laws and actions by our intelligence and law enforcement services.
We are already tremendously impacted by the terrorism-risk security changes to air travel.
I don’t think you are in favor of tougher border security.
What specifically do you think we should do to reduce the threat of another 9-11?
Also, when you write that you don’t think we are any safer, what are you basing that on?
Jeff: “what are your preferred options to prevent another 9-11?”
I’d say, continue pretty much what we’ve been doing.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foiled_Islamic_terrorist_plots_in_the_post-9/11_United_States[/url]
In view of recent events, a little more focus on domestic terrorists might be in order.
The war in Afghanistan could have been finished by the administration that started it had they kept the mission clear and provided adequate resources. We had the world’s support for that war at the outset. We have accomplished much of what we set out to do there. But we got sidetracked by the war in Iraq, and our objectives in the Mideast became hegemonic (in the literal, not pejorative, sense of that word). It was clear several years into the Bush administration that we were never intending to leave Iraq and that mission creep had muddied what we were doing in Afghanistan.
War is not an effective way to prevent terrorism, and it always has unintended consequences.
Jeff: I’m not advocating changes other than getting rid of the infringements on civil liberties and allowance of torture.
I agree with Don’s comment: “War is not an effective way to prevent terrorism, and it always has unintended consequences. “
And I believe with the existing tools in 2001, the attacks could have been prevented.
Don, I agree with both your points: keep doing what we have been doing, and focus more attention to domestic terrorism.
There is a related question here about how the war in Afghanistan and Iraq might have contributed to the lack of successful terrorist events in the US post 9-11.
These wars leveraged the fact that Islamists have wet dreams about killing Americans… especially American soldiers. Their motivation is both from their twisted theology, and part of the strategic goal to exploit the tendency of the American media to sensationalize death, and for a percent of Americans to respond to these media reports in irrational ways and demand we extract ourselves from the land Islamists want to claim and rule by caliphate.
These wars also tapped the limited resources available to these terrorist networks to fund any large plot like the 9-11 attacks.
If you go back and re-read the transcripts from the post 9-11 Presidential speeches, you will start to understand that this was part of the justification for both wars. This was not a message that could be taken directly to the American public because the American public is largely incapable of understanding strategic defense and foreign policy. We do not manage our defense through direct democracy for a very good reason.
The US sent our warriors to wage battle in the back yards of these twisted and murderous thugs. The goal was to kill as many as possible, to strangle their resources…. AND, to prevent them from pursuing their dreams of murdering innocent Americans on American soil while screaming “Allahu Akbar”!
Those that argue “war is not the answer” are being overly simplistic in my view. It is an empty-arm-chair quarterback argument… one that provides a person an undeserved moral high ground. Who the hell likes war? Who the hell likes American soldiers dying?
From my perspective, the anti-war crowd lacks true understanding of the global human condition and what feeds the murderous hatred within the minds of Islamists. The dancing in the streets glee that happened throughout the Mid-East on and after 9-11 should have been part of the wakeup call that we are hated.
And when I say “we”, the left has developed this weird deflection that it refers to American colonialism and imperialism (the latter which has never really existed). Certainly there is this… although it has been economic expansion and then moves by our state department and defense department to protect GLOBAL economic interests. However, what is missing in the left explanation is acknowledgement that munch of what is hated by terrorists is the export of American culture… a culture that is increasingly secular and non-traditional… and this comes from the march of modern American liberalism.
This brings me to my final point about the left-view of our post 9-11 world. If war is not the answer, and we still are not safe, maybe another idea is to put the brakes on our anything-goes cultural march and adopt more conservative values. This will certainly reduce the tension between the theology and the theocracies of Islam and contribute to or greater safety.
If we had not cut defense spending so much over the last several decades and replaced it with so much non-defense spending, we would not have the level of debt from these two wars.
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_88el-NliO0k/S_EknnXpxNI/AAAAAAAAAKc/pT6lMpW020c/s1600/800px-U_S__Defense_Spending_Trends.png[/img]
We have been cuitting defense spending? Obama is spending more than $2.2 billion per week on Afghanistan alone ([url]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html[/url]). When GW Bush left office, we were spending 36.4% as much on the Afghan War. Combining the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama and Bush are more-less even. The difference is just that Obama has taken the billions we were pouring down a rat hole in Iraq and pouring that down the Afghan rat hole. And while the left was completely wrong to think that we went into Iraq to steal its oil–we took none–at least you can argue that because of oil Iraq is an important country to our national interest. There is no such argument today for our wasting money and lives in Afghanistan.
Note: the statement above (11:19 AM post), “If we had not cut defense spending so much over the last several decades …” is a quote from Jeff Boone. My bad for errantly not putting it in quotes.
Rich, I wrote “several decades” for a reason. If our defense spending had stayed around 6-8% of GDP where it had been, we would not have had to ramp it up so much to fund these wars.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/GovSpend2.jpg[/img]
DON: [i]”The war in Afghanistan could have been finished by the administration that started it had they kept the mission clear and provided adequate resources.”[/i]
I thought the Bush mission was clear (to kick the Taliban out of power) and I thought they provided the resources. I think the notion that Iraq interfered with that is wrong. The problem was that we did not pick up and leave once the Taliban fell. The problem under Bush was mission creep: To build up a new quasi-democratic government. The problem under Obama has been even worse. Obama thinks Afghanistan’s stability is central to America’s national interest and that Iraq is not. Obama (if he believes what he has said) is delusional in that respect.
[i]”If our defense spending had stayed around 6-8% of GDP …”[/i]
What makes you think spending 6-8% of GDP is reasonable in peace time? And why if the economy/GDP is growing steadily, why should defense as a share of GDP not fall?
We spend far more than any other country as it is. And by so much that we could cut back by 80% and still have the largest military spending of any country.
[img]http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/files/2008/07/wa_japan_milexp_graph_new.gif[/img]
[i]And while the left was completely wrong to think that we went into Iraq to steal its oil–we took none–.[/i]
Yes, and for all those that screamed this claim, I will continue to rub their noses in it until they pass.
[i]at least you can argue that because of oil Iraq is an important country to our national interest[/i]
Change that to [i]Global Interest[/i]
Frankly, that is the difference with America and almost all other nations. We protect global interests. And yes those generally support our national interests, but not always. For example, the Marshall Plan helped Europe and Japan who then became industrial mights and economic competition for the US. If the US only cared about national interests, why then do we fight some of the wars we fight when it is clear that our national interest would be damaged by it?
The primary national interest is our safety and freedom. How is fighting to preserve those two things worthy of scorn… especially when the US does so much other good for the global population? For example, where would Africa be related to the Aids epidemic without the US and President Bush?
“the left was completely wrong to think that we went into Iraq to steal its oil”
I think this is a misstatement of the left’s view and an overgeneralization of the left itself. There are undoubtedly some who believed this to be the case. I think others like me, believed we ran the war itself to make it possible for us to continue to extract oil out of the region. If the war in Iraq added to that supply great, but the main goal was to preserve what we had.
[i]What makes you think spending 6-8% of GDP is reasonable in peace time?[/i]
Rich, I think that might be a primar root of our difference in opinion on this. I don’t think we are in peace time. I don’t think we have been in peace time. I’m not sure we should ever consider we are in peace time.
Your graph demonstrates at least two arguments to be made:
1. The US is spending too much on defense relative to this other nations.
2. These other nations are not spending enough on defense, and so the US is picking up the slack.
If you think we are really in peace time, then argument #1 seems more reasonable.
However, if you believe we are NOT in peace time, then #2 is going to be the more reaonable argument… and also support the argument that we need to spend more on our defense because it is global defense.
I would be fine with the US reducing our defense budget if other Western allies would shoulder a heavier load providing the defense.
Rifkin: [i]I thought the Bush mission was clear . . .[/i]
The mission was clear, but it had absolutely *nothing* to do with ‘the Taliban’:
[i]SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.–That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.[/i]
[quote]In 2000, British Intelligence reported that the ISI was taking an active role in several Al Qaeda training camps.[84] The ISI helped with the construction of training camps for both the Taliban and Al Qaeda.[84][85][86] From 1996 to 2001 the Al Qaeda of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri became a state within the Taliban state.[87] Bin Laden sent Arab and Central Asian Al-Qaeda militants to join the fight against the United Front among them his Brigade 055[/quote]
Neutral, I think it is common knowledge that the Al Qaeda was operating from within Taliban support. To say that the war authroization or Al Qaeda had absolutely noting to do with the Taliban is incorrect, IMO.
OEF includes/included several other regions than just OEF-Afghanistan. Some are completed, some such as the Philippines are likely to be ongoing for years.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom[/url]
In my opinion we are more likely to be successful when we cooperate, rather than lead, and when we have support from at least a handful of other nations.
Vanguard: [i]So now here we are, Bin Laden is dead – though amazingly a poll “by Public Policy Polling (PPP) of Ohio Republican voters contains a rather surprising statistic: roughly one in seven Republicans in the state believes that Romney was responsible for killing Osama Bin Laden.”
I am not sure what to make of that, since I recall when I was in high school, [b]there was a poll that showed some percentage of people believe that the earth revolves around the sun[/b] – and a surprising percentage of people believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.[/i]
I’m curious to know what percentage of people believed that the earth revolves around the sun. I hope it was a very high percentage. The higher the percentage, the more reassuring. 😉
A link to Kurt Eichenwald’s op-ed piece ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=1[/url]) mentioned in the article above. It’s disturbing.
wdf1: Does the left and left media not recognize the irony and hypocrisy for this template of Bush not being able to accurately assess the size and scope of the Al Qaeda problem, while they give excuses for Obama for failing to access the size and scope of our economic problems? How many reports did Obama get that explained all the economic indicators are still depressed and out of whack?
Geeze, you people are quite aggravating in your myopia.
Armchair quarterbacks are not impressive. What Bush knew or did not know is irrelevant at this point, because it is clear that his administration did NOT GET the real risk. Neither did any other UN Security Council national leader for that matter. There is no purpose to keep bringing this up unless your point is that old and tired 9-11 conspiracy theory that Bush had some type of project with Israel to allow these murderous whack jobs to attack as an excuse to go to war. And the left calls the Birthers nuts? Talk about disturbing.
Don, to your point re: Operation Enduring Freedom…
Previously I opined that we should absorb the US Peace Corps into the mission of the US military. My point here was that I would like to see us expand the role of our US military as “peace makers” as subordinate to our mission of defenders of global freedom and prosperity.
To use a medwoman analogy, we are called on to remove a cancer from a body of some global region. In the process we unavoidably will destroy good tissue where the cancer lives. Even though the overall health of the patient has been saved, the patient is angry about the collateral damage.
So, I think we need to be doing more preventative medicine and also more rehabilitation. I think we should expand the size and scope of the military to do so. Here is how we fund it… Instead of sending dollars to all these foreign countries, I think we need to be spending it to expand the mission of our military… sending our military personnel and contracted civilian labor trained in a list of services. However, these new military personnel also need to be trained to fight if necessary.
That way we have a larger ready military and a more comprehensive mission.
Some friends have a daughter joining the Peace Corps, and we were comparing notes with our son joining the Army. There was a realization that the Peace Corps job came with some greater risks and much less support than my son would have in the Army. This started me thinking about the need for our young men and women working to extend help to people in other countries to have better support.
I had always thought the word “homeland” for our new US security adminstration was a nice compromise or union, as it were, between the terms ‘”fatherland” and it’s Nazi fascist associations, and “motherland” with its Russian communist associations.
But now that we have same-sex households (gay/lesbian) raising children; what are we to make of the term “homeland”?
Jeff wrote:
> To use a medwoman analogy, we are called on to
> remove a cancer from a body of some global region.
> In the process we unavoidably will destroy good
> tissue where the cancer lives. Even though the
> overall health of the patient has been saved,
> the patient is angry about the collateral damage.
I think that we need to ask the question do we (as a country) have the right to go to any region of the world and kill what the military describes as “cancer” as well as a bunch of other people the military calls “collateral damage”?
As Rich points out we spend far more on “defense” than any other country in the world and it is my view that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 is that people we were killing got pissed off and decided to strike back. When I hear that they “hate out way of life” I have to laugh since the Muslims don’t seem to have any problem with most Northern European countries that are far more liberal (and give women as many or more rights) than we are.
For anyone that wonders why the US was attacked think if the city of Davis sent a lot of money and weapons to a Korean neighborhood in South Central Los Angeles for years to fight crime. The city of Davis was also funding drone strikes in to black neighborhoods killing criminals as well as woman and children. How long do you think it would take for someone to get so mad that they drive up to Davis to blow something up?
P.S. Let’s try and be honest and end the games of projecting numbers in to the future (when no one knows what the real numbers will be so you can make up any number to prove your point) and stating things as a percentage of GDP (when you can do the math and show the real numbers not try and fool people in to thinking something was cut when actual spending increased)…
David: [i]”I think others like me, believed we ran the war itself to make it possible for us to continue to extract oil out of the region.”[/i]
For us to extract oil? What does that mean? The US government does not extract oil.
Some multinational oil companies, a majority of whose stock is owned by Americans, extract oil in foreign countries. But notably, your belief about Iraq notwithstanding, not one of those oil companies is extracting a single drop of Iraqi oil. The only US major which is now doing business in Iraq is ExxonMobil, and they are refurbishing an old field. They are not extracting oil.
And while there are some US companies (notably Haliburton, Weatherford and Baker Hughes) which are servicing other oil companies in Iraq, they won their current contracts in open bids. American presence in Iraqi oil is small compared with the Russian presence (Lukoil is very large in Iraq now). Even Chinese companies (esp. China National Petroleum) are larger in Iraq than the US companies doing business there.
So the facts seem to disprove your belief, if facts matter to you.
[i]”Instead of sending dollars to all these foreign countries, I think we need to be spending it to expand the mission of our military… sending our military personnel and contracted civilian labor trained in a list of services. However, these new military personnel also need to be trained to fight if necessary.”
[/i]
I think NGO’s are better suited to what you’re describing for a variety of reasons, most important of which is the perception of the military as an occupier. And I don’t think the culture of the military lends itself to the sort of tasks you’re describing.
[quote]Hmm… Well then Rob and medwoman, what are your preferred options to prevent another 9-11? Do you consider episodes of 9-11 to be just something we need to endure?[/quote]
I have no experience in foreign policy, but I can state what I believe.
1) We are not likely to prevent another 9-11 by continuing to attempt to force our way of life on others.
Spreading our style of democracy to people who are not seeking it and do not want it is not conducive to
decreasing hatred of the United States.
2) Our claims of superiority are not endearing and are rightfully seen by many as extreme arrogance and
ignorance.
3) When we impose our will on others by use of military force, it is an open invitation to those who believe
differently to fight back with any means available to them.
4) When we describe others as “cancers” that we are worthy of excising, again we invite attack, not admiration.
So what would I recommend:
1) Better intelligence as mentioned by Don.
2) Focus on domestic terrorism also per Don
3) Instead of sending or military around the world to protect “global interests” as defined by us, send economic
aid, health care professionals, teachers, engineers…..
4) Stop attempting to spread our beliefs and culture and start being supportive of people developing their own
resources and potential in ways that are meaningful to them, not dictated by us.
jimt: [i]But now that we have same-sex households (gay/lesbian) raising children; what are we to make of the term “homeland”?[/i]
Ha!
Jeff,
I was in a whimsical mood earlier. But I am interested in what people think about new words in the lexicon, such as ‘homeland’, and the recent and ongoing encroachment of security measures into american civilian life. What are the trade-offs in increased surveillance?
Rich Rifkin,
I would hope the US had some influence in the drafting of the new Iraqi constitution, and in their policy with regard to marketing of oil and their role in OPEC. Otherwise it would seem that the invasion of Iraq was a colossal waste of resources and US lives (not to mention the million or more Iraqi civilian lives and the degradation of their cultural history, e.g. with the looting of their National Museum, etc.); we would have been much better off sending in James Bond to eliminate Saddam and used bribes and extortion to bring the new government into line with favorable oil trading policies (much less damage done than warfare). You don’t suppose the enormous US embassy and presence of US bases in Iraq has any influence on their policy; any more than a gun visible in the holster would have any influence to a player in black-market back-alley business negotiations?
SouthofDavis: [i]I think that we need to ask the question do we (as a country) have the right to go to any region of the world and kill what the military describes as “cancer” as well as a bunch of other people the military calls “collateral damage”? [/i]
Not “any region”… only those that have a cancer that will materially harm us.
[i]As Rich points out we spend far more on “defense” than any other country in the world and it is my view that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 is that people we were killing got pissed off and decided to strike back. When I hear that they “hate out way of life” I have to laugh since the Muslims don’t seem to have any problem with most Northern European countries that are far more liberal…[/i]
I think you need to read up on what is really going on in Northern Europe. The Netherlands for example are dealing with some very profound divisions between these clashing cultures of Islam and European secularism. I think you are wrong about what is driving Islamic extremists to want to kill us. Certainly the leaders of extreme Islam have enflamed anger over US involvement in the political affairs of Middle East nations, but much of that is just a proxy for directing their dislike of Western secularism and their hateful envy over the growing dominance of Western civilization. Their aggression is a response to the constant message that their old-style theocratic culture sucks and needs to change if they want to catch up and keep up. People really hate it when other people tell them to change their culture.
I suppose one could make the argument that we should just leave them alone to do their medieval thing; but that thing includes a tendency to attack their neighbor and plunder his wealth. Do we let that happen? Is it about oil… the oil that these primarily backwards herdsmen didn’t even know how to extract out of the ground before the West came to help them? So if we just ignore that and the price of gas and heating oil grows $10/gallon and the global econoy stalls and many people die from hunger and cold and heat… do we just ignore that too? Do we let them destroy cultural artifacts, do honor killings, oppress and kill women, gays and non-Muslims? What about this “think global, act local” bumper sticker next to all the Greenpeace and Save the Eath stickers. How can we be a good global citizen if we shrink back to isolationist and just mind our own business… just like we tried to do before Japan bombed Pear Harbor and we all got our head out of our ass that isolationism does not work.
Tonight I am watching the news reports of Islamists attacking the US embassy in Lybia and killing one US State Department employee, and Islamists burning an American flag in Egypt over a movie that offended Islam. So, what do you recommend… just ignore it? Let them wipe Israel off the map?
Obama was elected. He was going to talk to these people. Sit accross the table and work out our differences. He has directed NASA to reach out and help give those nations of Islam a boost of self confidence for all their historical contributions to math and science. He is slowing down our space progress and asking them to be part of it so they can share in our pride of accomplishment. That is not a surprising tactic since it is basically what he is doing domenstically… slowing down those alpha achievers so the rest can catch up! How do you think all that will work?
You may be right, I may be wrong. But at this point I see the world as much more dangerous and volatile thanks to the cancer of extremism that is pulsing within the nation of Islam. We cannot reverse the march of globalism. We cannot artifically prop up cultures that cannot get with the modern program. We can’t go isolationist. We can’t let them war and plunder. We can’t stop protecting Israel. We should not reduce defense spending now. We should increase it.
[i]We should not reduce defense spending now. We should increase it. [/i]
Balderdash, and – being kind – a ‘misinformed’ statement. Begin your education here: [url]Gates Unveils Strategy to Cut Costs, Boost Efficiency, (AFPS, 14 Sep 2010) [/url] .
I suppose you are aware that DoD is unmanageable, and most importantly [i]unauditable[/i]? That the GAO, CBO, and DoD itself has come to the same conclusion for [i][url]decades[/url][/i]? No? Didn’t think so.
[quote]To use a medwoman analogy, we are called on to
> remove a cancer from a body of some global region. [/quote]
I find myself very deeply troubled by the use of my alias in an analogy so foreign to my way of thinking. However, I do think that is very aptly frames the differences in our ways of thinking about our place in the world.
I find it part of the problem, not part of the solution that anyone would label another group of people as “a cancer” that needs to be removed. It is this kind of black and white, them vs us, good vs evil thinking that underlies all of the hatred we are seeing, from either side. Do you not suppose that these are the exact mirror image of what the extremists feel about the United States, and about Israel ? That Israel is, and the United States is “a cancer” to be removed ? Are we so blind and self righteous that we cannot understand that had any of us been born into a radical Islamist family, we would feel the same way ?
The problem for me is that humans arbitrarily, and yes, emotionally, like to divide the world into our side (good)
and their side (bad) and then take that further step to rationalize our actions. Since “they are bad”, we have the right, or even the duty, to force them to do what we want. Even if this involves killing thousands of “their” innocents. What neither side will acknowledge is that the actions, the killing, are exactly the same regardless of whether we label our side as “brave warriors” and their side as “murderous thugs”. The innocent dead remain as innocent, and as dead. Jeff says as much when he makes statements about the universality of tribalism. The problem is that this ignores that as rational humans, we have a choice. The knowledge of our tendency to demonize “the other” is what could give us the power to choose another course. We could choose instead to understand that our way is only better to us. There are others who do not see a relentless tendency to want want more and more commercial goods, to have a “freer and freer” society if that means surrender of their moral principles.
Would we, as Americans, not fight with every means available if some outside power,were to come to our shores and enforce Sharia law upon us? This is exactly the same situation that the civilian populations of Afganistan and Iraq were facing…..from their point of view. Why would we expect that these actions would make us anything but feared and hated? For me, no country, not even the United States, should expect a free pass for invading another country under the name of “promoting democracy” which is just another way of saying ” forcing them to do things our way”.
I have stated my proposals for ways to engage with other countries that do not involving the killing of innocents I would like to hear from others, their ideas for promoting better relations that do not involve the killing of innocents or the labeling of other humans as “a cancer”.
jimt: [i]”I would hope the US had some influence in the drafting of the new Iraqi constitution …”[/i]
We did.
[i]”… and in their policy with regard to marketing of oil and their role in OPEC.”[/i]
I don’t think we have had any say in that.
More importantly, we have no say with regard to Iraq’s good relations now with Teheran. And we apparently cannot stop the Iraqis from helping the Iranians arm the savage Assdad regime in Syria ([url]http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20120907/OPINION01/709079983/-1/opinion[/url]) at present.
[i]”Otherwise it would seem that the invasion of Iraq was a colossal waste of resources and US lives …”[/i]
I believe it was, even though it came with the certain benefit of ending the evil dictatorship and regional menace of Saddam Hussein.
[i]”… (not to mention the million or more Iraqi civilian lives …”[/i]
If the alternative for the Iraqis was to continue to live under Saddam, where even the “peace groups” in the West were saying that a million or more Iraqis were dying every year due to the sanctions, and everyone agreed that Saddam’s rule was horrible for Iraqis and all of his neighbors lived in fear of another invasion and bloody war, it seems to me on balance the loss of Iraqi lives–not American lives–was worth the benefits of ridding the place of Saddam.
[i]”… and the degradation of their cultural history, e.g. with the looting of their National Museum, etc.)”[/i]
That looting was unfortunate. But most of the cultural artifacts were recovered. That museum has been reopened ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/world/middleeast/24museum.html[/url]).
Meds: [i]”I can state what I believe. We are not likely to prevent another 9-11 by continuing to attempt [b]to force our way of life[/b] on others.”[/i]
This is a strange statement. Where is one example where we have ever “forced our way of life on others”? Even when we occupied and helped democratize Germany post-Hitler and Japan post-Hirohito we never “forced our way of life” on Germany or Japan or on anyone else for that matter.
It is true that many, many countries–in fact, most democratic countries–which today are democracies are so because of US benevolence. That is certainly true in almost all of Latin America and Asia, where they have benign regimes. But even in those places, we never “forced our way of life” on them.
[i]”Spreading our style of democracy to people who are not seeking it and do not want it is not conducive to decreasing hatred of the United States.”[/i]
There are dozens of poor countries which are not ready for real democracy. However, it is patronizing in the worst way to suggest that people living in undemocratic societies, say Iran for example, prefer to have a dictatorship over a democratic state. You are just flat out wrong to think people in poor countries do not want basic human rights, civil rights and representative governance.
[i]”2) Our claims of superiority are not endearing and are rightfully seen by many as extreme arrogance and ignorance.”[/i]
In what respect has the United States ever falsely claimed itself to be “superior.” We are not a race or a single ethnicity or a single faith–so in those respects our country has not done what you claim. But insofar as we are the oldest and most stable major democracy in the world and it has helped to produce our great economic fortune and domestic tranquility for most of our history, even as we have become more racially and ethnically diverse than any country in the history of the world, it is nearly impossible to argue that our form of governance is not in many respects a superior one. Certainly there is no country which has a better Constitution than we have, even though we can all see flaws in ours and it has had to be amended at times in the past.
[i]”3) When we impose our will on others by use of military force, it is an open invitation to those who believe differently to fight back with any means available to them.”[/i]
Of course. That is why Hitler fought us. That is why the Imperial Japanese would not surrender until a second atomic bomb was dropped. That is why Saddam kept up his fight until he was dragged out of his rat hole. But because others are willing to defend what they think is rightfully theirs does not make the causes they are fighting for right or honorable.
[i]”4) When we describe others as ‘cancers’ that we are worthy of excising, again we invite attack, not admiration.”[/i]
A very strange comment coming from a doctor. If you are literally addressing cancer in one of your patients, would it not be strange to not call that disease a cancer? And thus, if an enemy of ours is metaphorically a cancer–such as Saddam clearly was; Ghadhafi was; the Iranians are; most Communist regimes are and were–why would we not call them cancers?
[i]”So what would I recommend: 1) Better intelligence as mentioned by Don.”[/i]
We have the best CIA money can buy right now.
[i]”2) Focus on domestic terrorism also per Don.”[/i]
Given the lack of attacks here in the US since 9-11-01, it seems we have done that part well, despite your seeming ignorance of it.
[i]”3) Instead of sending or military around the world to protect “global interests” as defined by us, send economic aid, health care professionals, teachers, engineers …” [/i]
We are doing all that. The question with regard to our military choices is are we clearly distinguishing between core and vital needs from peripheral and less vital interests.
[i]”4) Stop attempting to spread our beliefs and culture and start being supportive of people developing their own resources and potential in ways that are meaningful to them, not dictated by us.”[/i]
Again, what ‘beliefs’ are we spreading which are so wrong to spread?
[i]I find myself very deeply troubled by the use of my alias in an analogy so foreign to my way of thinking. However, I do think that is very aptly frames the differences in our ways of thinking about our place in the world.[/i]
Medwoman, On reflection, I apologize for using your alias. My intent wasn’t to link you to my opinion – since I know you would be completely against it.
I will never get the sensitivity toward murderous criminals and murderous thugs and leaders that incite murderous violence over something like a movie that insults their religion… or to kill innocent Americans to get media attention to further their cause. I think those that gravitate toward that “these people are victims” line of thinking are a bit foolish, and in demanding their “the US is to blame and we should just seek cooperation” template, are pursuing yet another direction that contributes to a bigger mess for our children and their children.
One thing is becoming more and more painfully clear. The US has supported the Arab uprising at our own peril. In the near future I think we will come to regret that we did support more Mid-East and African dictators keeping a lid on the fanatic children of Islam. Just consider recent events in Libya and Egypt. The Palestinian/Muslim Extremist-sympathizer argument has been that we interfered with other country’s ability to govern themselves. We propped up despot leaders of our choice and the atrocities they committed were the source of the boiling Mid-East rage. Well, here we are with a new President with ties to Islam and a new foreign policy approach more in line with what American liberals expect will make us safer. We have supported the so-called victims. We have supported the so-called march to Arab democracy. Look what it has rewarded us with in Libya and Egypt. Syria is next.
So let’s play out how many on the left think we should deal with this problem. We should pull out all Americans from areas that Muslims consider their holy land. We should remove all economic interests. We should stop exporting our culture. We should support the advance of orthodox practices of Islam including Sharia Law. We should force the people of Israel to leave their country and concede it back to the Palestinians… or maybe just let the 2 billion Arab-Persian-Muslims around them wipe them off the face of the earth. Then after we do this, there will be peace on earth and good will toward us.
Right.
[i]The US has supported the Arab uprising at our own peril. In the near future I think we will come to regret that we did support more Mid-East and African dictators keeping a lid on the fanatic children of Islam. [/i]
Assuming you meant ‘that we did [b]not[/b] support’.
That would have been unbelievably stupid.
We did not “support” the uprisings in the Arab world. We dealt with them. When a human tragedy was about to unfold in Libya, and our allies — the French and the British — wanted to prevent genocide, we provided support for their intervention. Even still, conservatives criticized the US for ‘leading from behind’.
I realize there were some con’s and neo-con’s who advocated continued US support to failing dictatorships across the region, even as they were failing, and criticized the Obama administration for not supporting those failing dictatorships. They were stupid. Had we done as they advocated, we would have been waaaaaaay on the wrong side of history. Unfortunately, some of those incredibly stupid advisers are in the Romney camp now.
[i]”So let’s play out how many on the left think we should deal with this problem.”[/i]
Your series of straw-man arguments doesn’t reflect the views of any analyst I’m aware of. I don’t know of a single person “on the left” who shares those views. I don’t know of anyone in government who advocates such policies. What I do know is that every time Mitt Romney opens his mouth on foreign policy he further disqualifies himself from the presidency.
Don, I am confused by your post. Do you think the US supported the Arab uprising, or did not support the Arab uprising?
So, what then do you suggest for dealing with the problems? I will post evidence that my “strawman arguments” are in fact the demands of the left. But in the meantime, I would be nice to hear from those that have an opinion for what they would do other than just blaming American.
The US did not support or oppose the Arab uprising. We dealt with it as it happened.
What do I suggest for dealing with [i]which[/i] problems?
Everything in the Middle East and North Africa is way too complex for simple answers.
[i]In what respect has the United States ever falsely claimed itself to be “superior.” We are not a race or a single ethnicity or a single faith–so in those respects our country has not done what you claim. But insofar as we are the oldest and most stable major democracy in the world and it has helped to produce our great economic fortune and domestic tranquility for most of our history, even as we have become more racially and ethnically diverse than any country in the history of the world, it is nearly impossible to argue that our form of governance is not in many respects a superior one. Certainly there is no country which has a better Constitution than we have, even though we can all see flaws in ours and it has had to be amended at times in the past.[/i]
Very, very well said Rich.
[i]Everything in the Middle East and North Africa is way too complex for simple answers.[/i]
…but not too complex for you to criticize the solutions proposed by others?
Every problem has a solution Don, if only we are smart enough to understand the problem, honest enough to accept the problem, and brave enough to implement the fix.
I still don’t understand your view that the US did NOT support the Arab uprising. I see plenty of evidence that they US DID support it. I think you might find that an inconvenient truth and so are picking some nuanced deflection to prop up the “America is to blame” canard. Please educate me on this point: that the US “dealt with it”, but did not support it. Frankly, I don’t even really know what the difference is.
[i]”The US did not support or oppose the Arab uprising.”[/i]
In Libya, we actively supported the uprising. Even before we got dragged into the air war (by the British), we had CIA on the ground arming Libyans ([url]http://wonkette.com/441876/cia-running-around-libya-obama-authorizes-arming-libya-rebels[/url]).
In Bahrain, we largely opposed the uprising ([url]http://wonkette.com/441876/cia-running-around-libya-obama-authorizes-arming-libya-rebels[/url]), due to the fact that Iran was arming and organizing the regime’s opponents.
In the other countries, as you say, we just reacted as events unfolded. I think that was largely appropriate.
FWIW, my view is that even though most of the rebels in most Arab countries will not be friendly to us, we are better off having them in power as long as they hold reasonably free and fair elections in future years. Some of them likely will want to impose Islamic fascims on their countries. That will fail, as it has everywhere it has been tried. But if they have free and fair elections after a spell of Islamism, the people will choose a better governing philosophy in time. And once they do, our interests will be best served by that.
Of course, the big risk is that once in office, the Islamists will never again hold a free and fair election. The Iranians certainly would never allow their people to choose their government freely. But ultimately failure has a way of killing off a regime and a philosophy in time.
“… to impose Islamic [b]fascims[/b] on their countries.”
Fascism.
Maybe this question belongs here: Anyone know if Ambassador Chris Stevens, who grew up in Davis, was the son or relative of Judge Jim Stevens?
[i]The Iranians certainly would never allow their people to choose their government freely. But ultimately failure has a way of killing off a regime and a philosophy in time.[/i]
Rich, you have a more positive outlook on this than I do. I have a few hundred years of evidence to back my opinion that things will not improve much for these populations governing themselves given the lack of education and a culture that rejects modernism. In their cultural theocracy they don’t even support having a banking system.
My concern is that their continued failure will expand the powder keg and our children will have to deal with it.
A neighbor of the Stevens family has confirmed it: Yes, Ambassador Chris Stevens was the son of Judge Jim Stevens, former Davis City Councilman. When I was a child, they lived about 6 houses from my family home. I think Judge Stevens now lives in far southeast Davis near Willowbank.
Apparently some of our children are already having to deal with it.
My heart goes out to Jim Stevens and his family.
[i]” In their cultural theocracy they don’t even support having a banking system.”[/i]
They have banking. They just don’t allow interest. Keep in mind that Christianity and Judaism used to prohibit interest as well. Jews ended that when, while living as a minority in Europe, they had very few choices but to become bankers, where Jewish law in time allowed them to charge interest, but only to gentiles. It was not until the Reformation that Christians allowed charging interest.
But while Islam still prohibits interest, they get around that. For instance, here is how a car loan works under Islamic banking rules. Say a new car costs $20,000 if you pay cash now. But say you don’t have that much money and want to make payments over 10 years to buy the car. In that case, the dealer will sell you the car for $25,200. You then make a monthly payment of $210 for 120 months. When you make the final payment, you get title to your car. The added $5,200 is not “interest”. It is profit, and Islam allows profit. Now, to you and me, the buyer simply bought the car for $20,000 and got a 10-year loan at 4.78% APR. But under Islamic banking laws, no interest was charged or received.
[i]”.. given the lack of education and a culture that rejects modernism.”
[/i]
Iran has a very modern culture and a very educated population.
[i]”Every problem has a solution Don, if only we are smart enough to understand the problem, honest enough to accept the problem, and brave enough to implement the fix.”
[/i]
No, Jeff, every problem does not have a solution. Especially not in the Middle East. More to the point, I expect we would disagree as to the nature, causes, and extent of most of what you see as problems.
We need a non-ideological, pragmatic, bipartisan foreign policy with focus on diplomatic answers to problems first and foremost and military ‘solutions’ reserved for rare and otherwise insoluble problems.
We largely have that foreign policy approach now. We largely had it in the last couple of years of the Bush administration. Were John McCain president, we would not have that. Based on his utterances, we would not have it with Mitt Romney. But as I have said before, it is impossible to know what he believes or whether he means anything he says. Just look at his statements over the last couple of days about Afghanistan.
I accept Rich Rifkin’s correction of my analysis re: Libya and Bahrain.
“But as I have said before, it is impossible to know what he believes or whether he means anything he says.”
Are you talking about Obama who was against same sex marriage before he was for it, who was going to close down Gitmo in his first year as president, promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first/(only) term, increase transparency, televise the healthcare debate, cut unemployment to 6% by this year, etc…..I could go on for a long, long time.
[b]But ultimately failure has a way of killing off a regime and a philosophy in time. [/b]
[i]”Rich, you have a more positive outlook on this than I do.”[/i]
Only time will tell. Yet I look at the inherent problems of Communism and how it has largely died off* due mostly to its own faults, and I see the same outcome for Islamism, as long as it means the suppression of free commerce, the suppression of women, and the lack of free elections.
*I am now reading a book about a North Korean defector, Escape From Camp 14. Among other things, it gives you an idea of what life is like in N. Korea for those who live in its Gulags. It is every bit as bad as Russia was under Stalin. I might point to N. Korea as a counter-example of where Communism has yet to die off (or to reform by adopting capitalism, as happened in China and Vietnam). Yet even in this horror story, there are hints that the N. Korean state is now on the verge of collapse, and that since the famines of the 1990s, the regime’s ability to rule as it always did is failing more and more every day, notwithstanding the continued and very serious abuse of human rights.
[img]http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/4212-review.jpg/12172448-1-eng-US/4212-review.jpg_full_600.jpg[/img]
“
Are you talking about Obama who was against same sex marriage before he was for it”
Are you suggesting that people cannot shift their opinions over time?
“Are you suggesting that people cannot shift their opinions over time?”
David, you might want to address that question to Don Shor?
Quite a long list of “conservatives” favored the pro-choice view on abortion ([url]http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/12/122118.shtml[/url]) (including Reagan, Bush I, and Mitt Romney) before they changed their belief on that issue. Reagan, when governor of California, in fact signed a very liberal abortion law. Bush I and Romney were active supporters of Planned Parenthood. I don’t know about Ann Romney, but Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush seemed to have never endorsed the change in views of their presidential husbands.
[i]They have banking. They just don’t allow interest[/i]
So how are they going to integrate their financial system with the rest of the free world?
I agree that they have found ways around the restriction of interest, but how will they create an economy that sustains them and allows them to catch and keep up with the rest of the industrialized world?
Jeff, predominantly-Islamic countries have found it quite easy to work with the rest of the world’s financial system.
[i]Only time will tell. Yet I look at the inherent problems of Communism and how it has largely died off* due mostly to its own faults, and I see the same outcome for Islamism, as long as it means the suppression of free commerce, the suppression of women, and the lack of free elections.[/i]
There is a profound difference in demographics. There are over 2 billion Muslims. There is a very larger percentage of that population that are poor and uneducated… except for their understanding of the Koran and their theocracy. The changes you mention above have never happened organically to any country or culture without conflict. Look at North Korea for example. When they are beginning to fail, they will lash out. Their leaders will blame others and enflame anger over those they blame. America is and will continue to be the primary target for that.
I see things getting worse for these countries before it ever gets better. Without dictators to control the seething mobs and the corrupt murderous extremists, I think we will see more conflict and more death and destruction. A younger generation might emerge to demand more rights and freedoms, but they won’t have jobs and they won’t have enough education.
Christianity and Judaism, as well as other great religious – despite what historical conflicts existed – are largely at peace with the principles of free market capitalism and the global economy. Islam is not. Can it change to adopt and integrate? Not without a lot of conflict, IMO. My thinking is that we need to strengthen our defense and foreign policy to contain that conflict while we continue to march forward in our economic, scientific and social progress. We owe no people any apology for our success. They only need to adopt much of our model to do the same. See China for an example.
[i]Jeff, predominantly-Islamic countries have found it quite easy to work with the rest of the world’s financial system.[/i]
Don, Uh, no. Not really.
[quote]Nothing short of taking the current operational understanding of Islamic finance, as it is practiced today, and extending it to develop a much deeper system theory of Islamic finance and economics is the need of the hour. Achieving this worthy goal will require tremendous intellectual power, individuals with deep and sympathetic understanding of both Shariah and the fields of economics and finance, and a sincere desire to marry these together so that the product is more than the sum of the parts.
This massive theoretical and intellectual project must be undertaken in a proactive rather than a reactive mode. That is, the underlying skeleton and structure of an Islamic economic system must be conceived not as a reaction or a critique to capitalism or socialism, as has often been done in the past, but as a standalone economic framework built from scratch from undisputed principles of Muslim commercial law.
What this enterprise really needs today – and has seriously lacked thus far – are the Adam Smiths, Maynard Keynes, and Irving Fishers of Islamic Economics – individuals of deep understanding and grand visions who could interpret economics under a different set of underlying principles, axioms, and institutional structures. What is also needed is that this theoretical project be complimented with serious empirical work to further understand and develop the field on solid empirical footing.
Today, the twin fields of Islamic economics and finance are still in their infancy. They have, however, now reached a point where questions of validity and authenticity are raised with increased seriousness. Almost simultaneously, though, these fields also stand at an inflexion point in their historical development that may lead to unprecedented future opportunity. Proper application, aided by a robust theory, could lead Islamic finance to new heights. The converse may lead to disillusionment and even demise.
The jury is still out on whether Islamic finance and economics can bring anything new to the world of traditional modern finance or will merely remain a replication of the latter. The ambitious intellectual agenda described above may bring some much needed answers.[/quote]
Jeff: again, predominantly-Islamic countries have no problem integrating their financial systems with the rest of the world. Just look at Indonesia. For that matter, look at this list:[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim-majority_countries#List_of_countries[/url]
Mr Boone wrote: “Christianity and Judaism, as well as other great religious – despite what historical conflicts existed – are largely at peace with the principles of free market capitalism and the global economy. Islam is not.”
I do not understand this statement at all. I have lived and worked in Islamic countries around the world and I can assure you that free market capitalism thrives in all of them. Islamic nations are fully integrated into the global economy. Here are some predominantly Muslim countries in the WTO (for example): Bahrain, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Mauritania, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Pakistan.
Much of what you have said about Islam in your posts over the past few days is troubling to me and much of it is flat wrong and a distortion of reality. You clearly know very little of Islamic theology and practice around the world. Many of the statements you make about Islam refer to a small group of cultists. I am not denying that these cultists (Al Qaeda among them) are not dangerous. They are. But to suggest that they represent the views of the 2 billion adherents of Islam is like saying that American Christians are overwhelmingly in agreement with the “Christian” views of the KKK. I am happy to meet with you talk about Islam any time. I will tell you both of theological discussions I have had with Muslims and the practice that I have observed in many places.
Rob, that sounds great. I will take you up on your offer.
Note that most of the countries you list are still ruled by monarchy, and or have a significant non-Muslim population, and or have recently been ruled by dictators. Also, it appears to me that this economic integration you have experience with is disintegrating with the Arab uprising.
Is this the small group of cultists that you are referring to?
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/mob1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/mob2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/mob3.jpg[/img]
Jeff, this is getting ridiculous.
Indonesia and Malaysia are two large countries that are predominantly Muslim that have modern economies fully integrated into the world economy.
Arab countries that have thrown off their dictatorships are going to go through a period of instability and will gradually build institutions and rebuild their economies. You are attributing to Islam what could just as readily be attributed to dictatorship, to poverty, to lack of education in some cases — or other root causes I can’t think of off the top of my head.
I could just as readily post pictures from the former Yugoslavia to prove some similar point to what you seem to be trying to make about ethnic/religious/cultural causes of various problems. Just last year a mob attacked a guard outpost in Kosovo, causing the UN police to withdraw due to being out-gunned.
You have an unfortunate bias about Islam, probably uninformed IMO, that is leading you to questionable analyses about foreign policy. Unfortunately, I think you reflect the views of a portion of the Republican party.
Jeff my email is robbbike@me.com.
I listed 16 countries (these are not the only predominantly Muslim countries in the WTO, however). These countires are not monarchies: Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Mauritania, Tunisia, Turkey, Pakistan. So, “most” are NOT monarchies. Had I added Mali, Chad, Niger and Senegal this would be even more the case. Of these, recent dictatorships are rare. But the bigger point is I don’t see what monarchy or dictator has to do with anything about “free market” commitment. I read your post on this but don’t get your point. None of them has a significant non-Muslim population (although I suppose it depends on what you mean by “significant”). Unless I am mistaken, non-Muslims would not constitute more than 20% in any of them.
As to the pictures… I am not sure what I am looking at but I assume it is demonstrations from yesterday–Cairo or Benghazi. So what is your point? These folks can be angry at the extremely offensive video that provoked their ire but that does not make them Al Qaeda supporters (or cultists of another variety). I say this but want to make it clear that the anger can never justify the murder of the embassy staff in Libya. Still, even that killing is not an indication of broader support for cultists.
Anyway… contact me and we will set up a coffee.
I need to correct something. The same person at The Davis Enterprise who told me two hours ago they had confirmed that Ambassador Chris Stevens is the son of Judge Jim Stevens of Davis now has reversed that and says [b]”Chris Stevens is [u]not[/u] former Councilman Stevens’s son[/b]”. Sorry for passing along wrong information.
I also got an email from the Enterprise that said he was, and was from Davis.
See the following:
[quote]
Slain ambassador grew up in Davis
by Cory Golden
The U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in an attack by protesters angered by a film ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, Chris Stevens, was the son of former Davis City Councilman Jim Stevens, a retired Yolo Superior Court judge.
Chris Stevens attended North Davis Elementary School and reportedly attended Emerson Junior High School while growing up in Davis. He was a childhood friend of gallery owner John Natsoulas, Natsoulas’ wife, Terry, told television station KOVR.
Stevens, 52, and three American members of his staff were killed when he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi to try to evacuate staff as the building came under attack by a mob with guns and rocket propelled grenades.
Stevens was the son of retired Marin Symphony cellist Mary Commanday and the stepson of San Francisco Classical Voice magazine founder Robert Commanday, a former music critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, according to the newspaper.
Stevens graduated from Piedmont High School, according to the Chronicle. He graduated from UC Berkeley in 1982 and the UC Hastings College of Law in 1989. He later earned a master’s degree from the National War College.
A career diplomat who spoke Arabic and French and already had served two tours in Libya, Stevens ran the office in Benghazi during the revolt against Moammar Gadhafi. Stevens was confirmed as ambassador to Libya by the Senate earlier this year.
“Growing up in California, I didn’t know much about the Arab world,” Stevens says in a U.S. State Department video posted on YouTube in May. He goes on to talk about his two years teaching English in Morocco while a Peace Corps volunteer, then his career serving in the Middle East.
Stevens also served in Jerusalem, Damascus, Syria, and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, according to his State Department biography, as well as in Washington, D.C. Before joining the foreign service, he worked as an international trade lawyer.
In the video, an introduction of Stevens to the Libyan people, he compares their uprising to the American Civil War, notes that the U.S. Congress is made up of “men and women from every religious, ethnic and family background,” and says he believes education and health care are two ways the United States and Libya can forge new bonds.
“I was thrilled to watch the Libyan people stand up and demand their rights,” he says. “Now I’m excited to return to Libya to continue the great work we’ve started.”
In a statement, Frank Wu, Hastings chancellor, called Stevens’ death “a tragedy” and said Stevens had been looking forward to speaking to students about his experiences.
“The ambassador was performing the highest role that a lawyer is called upon to perform: public service,” Wu said.
The attack on the Benghazi consulate took place as hundreds of protesters in neighboring Egypt scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and tore down and replaced the American flag with a black Islamic banner.
The attacks in Benghazi and Cairo were the first such assaults on U.S. diplomatic facilities in either country, at a time when both Libya and Egypt are struggling to overcome the turmoil following the ouster of their longtime authoritarian leaders, Muammar Qadhafi and Hosni Mubarak, in uprisings last year.
The protests in both countries were sparked by outrage over a film ridiculing Muhammad produced by an Israeli filmmaker living in California and being promoted by an extreme anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian campaigner in the United States. Excerpts from the film dubbed into Arabic were posted on YouTube.
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, called the killing of Stevens and his colleagues “a senseless, coldblooded and violent attack.”
“The families of those we lost are in our thoughts and prayers. And those responsible will be brought to justice,” Thompson said.
Before Tuesday, five U.S. ambassadors had been killed in the line of duty, the last being Adolph Dubs in Afghanistan in 1979, according to the State Department historian’s office.
[/quote]
JB: [i]Christianity and Judaism, as well as other great religious – despite what historical conflicts existed – are largely at peace with the principles of free market capitalism and the global economy. Islam is not. Can it change to adopt and integrate? Not without a lot of conflict, IMO.[/i]
Do you also think that about members of the Isamic Center of Davis? From what I perceive of the Muslim community in the U.S., I don’t sense any difficulty with free market capitalism. Although if there is, I’m sure you’ll straighten us out.
[i]” I have lived and worked in Islamic countries around the world and I can assure you that free market capitalism thrives [b]in all of them.[/b]”[/i]
I assume Robb means “in all of them” he has lived and worked in. However, it is not the case that all majority Muslim countries have thriving free market capitalism. In fact, most of the autocratic Islamic states–like Mubarak’s Egypt and today’s Jordan and of course Saddam’s Iraq–have or had very strict controls on capital and on basic commodity pricing. The result is or was shortages and queuing for many basic goods.
A more extreme anti-capitalist example is Syria. It has been ruled by a socialist, anti-market ideology for 40+ years. It is one reason why Lebanon thrived as a regional financial center, because bigger Syria had to turn to little Lebanon for finance. Yemen, much like Syria, has had very strict anti-market controls. Libya under Ghadhafi did also.
In the very poor Islamic countries–Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sudan and much of black Islamic Africa–a majority of the people live outside of normal, above-board markets. They either live in village economies, where their prosperity depends on the political power of a chieftain, or they live in a black market economy and they are often victimized by corruption.
Were it the case that all Muslim countries had fully capitalist economies operating under the rule of law–the way Singapore and Malaysia now do–they would not be so very poor.
Last thought: I don’t see any real connection between an anti-capitalist POV and Islam. You find this same sort of non-market belief in large parts of “Christian” South American and “Christian” Africa. Is Zimbabwe a free market? And in the Buddhist world, you have some free market countries and others like Burma where the markets are tightly restricted.
If you think Judaism is different, it is not. For Israel’s first 35+ years of independence, it was ruled by its Labor Party and its ideology was “democratic socialism.” It was not until the Jews got rid of their market restrictions that Israel took off and is now the most successful non-oil economy in the Middle East.
Rich – I am not disputing your points (re: controls on capital, etc.) but I was actually talking at a much lower level. And, yes, the “all” referred to places I have lived and worked. I should have been clearer; I was referring to the thriving markets that exist in every small community throughout these nations. My point was that Islam is not antithetical to free exchange of goods, the accumulation and exchange of capital and all the other elements of free markets. Farmers freely grow and sell their produce. Artisans sell or barter their wares. Religious leaders themselves are often successful merchants. The point is there is absolutely nothing in Islam that condemns this free trade and it thirves. The controls you refer to have nothing to do with Islam and are practiced in other countries as well (as you note).
You have already done a good job talking about how “interest” is dealt with in some Islamic countries. I would only add that in some predominantly Muslim countries where I worked (including the Islamic Republic of Mauritania where I lived with my family) organizations I was part of ran successful microlending programs in which interest was openly and explicitly charged on loans.
Rob Davis: [i]”I listed 16 countries (these are not the only predominantly Muslim countries in the WTO,…”[/i]
I went for a run around the UCD arboretum after reading your post and thinking about the reasons why I am still in a bit of disagreement with you. You certainly have more direct credibility having worked in these countries. My business experience has taken me to most of the US states, but not abroad. So, I am at a disadvantage with personal experience. However, I read a lot and so when I get this feeling that another’s opinion is different than mine on a topic I consider to be well read on, I have to go back to see where the challenge is and resolve it.
Out of the 16 countries you listed, only the UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia fall into the top 100 GDP per capita. If you exclude oil revenue per capita, then UAE is #49, Kuwait is #59 and Saudi Arabia is #84. Indonesia (the country Don likes to use as his main argument against me… and I admit a good one) comes in at #116. Only Indonesia is a democracy. The other three are Monarchies.
Interesting enough to me, out of the top 50 countries on this list of GDP per capita, all but 14 of them the US either defeated and helped rebuild or prevented from being defeated and helped rebuild using our military and defense might.
I suppose you can make a case that GPD per capita is not a suitable data point to argue a level of global economic integration. I would argue that it is a very valid data point because it is a strong indication as to the level of success of global economic integration.
There is an awful lot of information out there that seems to back my claim that the global financial markets are not well integrated with countries that more strictly follow Sharia law. My general sense is that there is a sort of patchwork of special interfaces, rules and policies that allow Western concerns to do some business with these Mid-East and Northern African countries, but then they have to ignore and circumvent many other potential opportunities due to the theocratic rules.
Rich makes the point that Judaism had this problem. I agree. But it does not today. It looks to me that the global state of Islam is sliding back toward greater orthodoxy rather than toward Western principles of business like Israel has done. I don’t see how this bodes well for growing prosperity for the people living in these Muslim countries.
Wdf1: Your question about the Davis Muslims is silly and completely misses the mark. I was referring to countries that are a primarily Muslim theocracy. I am not anti-Mulim or Anti-Islam. I am pro: freedom, safety, non violence, competition, happiness and prosperity. I also support any and all cultures and religions as long as they do not advocate and support causing material harm to others. And as long as they respect my culture and my religion.
Jeff – I am not going to dispute your points that many of these countries are poor–very poor–and poorly managed (in some cases). There are LOT of reasons for that (poverty of the kind we see in West Africa, for example, is multi-dimensional and complex). But sticking to the point: their poverty does not demonstrate in any way that Islam is anti-capitalistic. It simply is not. These countries certainly don’t have a monopoly on inefficent state interference in the economy. This is not a problem that flows from Islam is all I am trying to say. Though I am not an expert on international business, I would not say that a commitment to sharia is any sort of blockage. In other words, economic chauvinism has many sources and sharia is not a driver of that any more than state control of enterprise is in, say, China. I just think attributing an inhospitable business environment to a single factor like that is not helpful. It just is not that simple. And keep in mind, the WTO does have some teeth so its members do face certain constraints.
[i]”Wdf1: Your question about the Davis Muslims is silly and completely misses the mark. I was referring to countries that are a primarily Muslim theocracy.”[/i]
One not widely known fact about Muslim Americans is how extremely successful in school so many are. This goes back a good 3 or 4 years, but I recall reading a story about various ethnic groups in the US and it incluided “North African immigrants” (and if I recall correctly it pointed out various Arab countries all these folks came from). What I remember is that the standardized test scores of North African immigrants were higher than any Asian group, including Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian, etc. They did not have the highest academic achievement level–I think that was Japanese–but they were second or third among the 25 or so listed groups in academic achievement. The point I took away from that story was that Arab-American immigrants (almost all of whom are Muslims in recent years have a culture which helps them do well in school and I presume do well professionally here. They are yet another example of how much we benefit from having an open society which welcomes immigrants, especially those who have good brains and are willing to work hard. It’s a shame that the morons in Congress have not yet seen fit to pass the DREAM Act ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act[/url]). It is likewise stupid of us to not make it easier for highly educated foreigners to come here to work for our companies under the H1B visa program ([url]http://www.h1base.com/content/h1bvisa[/url]).
wdf1: I support making it easier for companies to get skilled workers under the H1B Visa program.
I do not support the ill-conceived, Democrat vote increasing bill called the Dream Act.
Your points on Muslim American success in school is interesting and not surprising to me. I’m not so sure you can claim it is 100% their culture. It may simply be their hunger for prosperity combined with their recognition of what is available within the free economic culture of the US. In fact, most immigrants to this country are attracted to it because of the opportunities, and are motivated to succeed precisely because their culture of origin provided far less opportunities. If I could just inject some of this perspective into more of the American kids already here!!! But then, the expectations of the American kids already here are higher – as they should be – while the quality of education has fallen.
Even though some of these outcome difference might be explained by our own culture of opportunity, there is certainly a component of Asian culture (Tiger moms, etc.) that pushes their kids to achievement… especially academic achievement. What tends to be lacking in their body of achievement is relative evidence of creativity. I think this is a deficit of Asian culture. For example, China does well ripping off our technology and inventions, but is very slow to innovate their own complex products. Basically, we create, they copy and exploit.
It is interesting that Steve Jobs was of Asian (Mid-East) origins but was adopted. He was a brilliant artist that didn’t find academic pursuits very motivating. His American parents had that evolved “follow your dreams” sort of attitude that is part of our American culture (but that is being subverted by budget issues and tired teachers seeking the easier full-compliance path). I think it is more likely that he would have had much more conflict with parents of Asian or Mid-Eastern decent because of his behavior and lack of focus. In that case, I would not be currently itching to get my hands on the new iPhone 5! What a shame that would be!
[quote] will never get the sensitivity toward murderous criminals and murderous thugs and leaders that incite murderous violence over something like a movie that insults their religion… or to kill innocent Americans to get media attention to further their cause. I think those that gravitate toward that “these people are victims” line of thinking are a bit foolish, and in demanding their “the US is to blame and we should just seek cooperation” template, are pursuing yet another direction that contributes to a bigger mess for our children and their children.[/quote]
And you will never find in any of my posts any sensitivity towards murderous criminals and murderous thugs and leaders that incite murderous violence. Where we seem to differ is that it is the act of violence itself that is abhorrent to me. I am not ashamed of my pacifist position. Violence in anything other than direct defense of oneself or another is totally unacceptable to me. It does not matter to me what the name of the perpetrator of the violence is or what their stated objective is. It doesn’t matter to me if your name is Osama bin Laden,
Timothy McVeigh, George Bush, Saddam Hussein or Barack Obama. If you are killing, or ordering killing for any other reason than defense, I will not defend those actions. I believe it is the act of killing is wrong, and no amount of justification because of nationality, religion or any other purported reason is not convincing cause for the death of innocents of any nationality to me.
And to Rich, the statement made by President Bush that his purpose in going to war was in part to “spread democracy” was to me nothing but a prettier way of saying, to make sure others are doing things the way we want them to. I fail to see how this differs from forcing our way upon them.
[i]”the statement made by President Bush that his purpose in going to war was in part to “spread democracy” was to me nothing but a prettier way of saying, to make sure others are doing things the way we want them to.”[/i]
Here is the Bush statement ([url]http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-20/politics/bush.speech_1_ideologies-that-feed-hatred-bush-pledges-human-freedom?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS[/url]) you refer to: [quote]“It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” [b]GW Bush, second inaugural address, January 20, 2005[/b] [/quote] You have yet to name a civilization or nation which “does not want” representative governance and the democratic protection of basic human and civil rights. Your claim–“We are not likely to prevent another 9-11 by continuing to attempt to force our way of life on others. Spreading our style of democracy to people who are not seeking it and do not want it is not conducive to decreasing hatred of the United States.”–is still ridiculous and unsupported and likely not something you really would believe if you experienced life in a country where the government is undemocratic and does not protect basic human and civil rights. And if you have been to Zimbabwe or North Korea and you still believe that, there is no point discoursing with you.
medwoman, you are a mother and someone that has a soft heart similar to my wife and my mother. I don’t have any argument with your finding violence abhorrent.
However, unfortunately the world has a significant population of people that for whatever reason find satisfaction and glee in doing things like cutting off an innocent reporters head while he is alive and filming it to post on the internet. This was done in the name of Islam.
They also slammed jets into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon… and they would have hit the White House or Capitol if not stopped by regular American heroes. This was done in the name of Islam.
They also stormed a US embassy and murder our Ambassador and three staff members in the name of Islam.
The list goes on. It is not Islam per se, it is a corrupt interpretation of the teachings of Islam. But it is a much bigger problem than the “cult” argument used by some. It is a global cancer threatening to spread.
So, what do you do medwoman? Do you just cry over each death as a terrible tragedy and wait for the next, and the next, and the next?
If you want to do something to stop that death, what is it? What would you do?
I think it is a bit indulgent and overly simplistic to establish a moral position that just says you are against violence. There are very few intelligent and normal people that like or welcome violence. We all abhor violence. But, there are things we have to do to keep us safe and free that are distasteful. Freedom is not free. It never has been. It never will be. Humans are fraught with emotional complexities and a propensity to turn evil. They can rationalize the indiscriminate killing of innocent people as righteous and reasonable. When they form armies and participate in suicide murders, there is no other reasonable solution other than killing them first.
You don’t support the US spreading democracy as a way to promote peace.
You don’t support us killing those that are hell bent (literally) on killing as many of us as possible.
Excuse me medwoman, but it appears that you are void of ideas that contribute any solutions.
And, since you included George Bush in your list, why did you leave out Barak Obama? Note that he just sent warships and Marines to Libya to extract “justice” for the murders of the Embassy staff. Is his type of violence more acceptable for some reason?
[i]And, since you included George Bush in your list, why did you leave out Barak Obama
[/i]
She didn’t.
Don, Go back and read it. She uses George Bush and President Bush in her post.
Jeff
[quote]It doesn’t matter to me if your name is Osama bin Laden,
Timothy McVeigh, George Bush, Saddam Hussein or Barack Obama[/quote]
I believe that this is the quote you are referencing. Barack Obama was the last name on my list. True, I did list him last, but only because he is the last of the miscreants in this group historically speaking. I think it was a bit of “liberal branding” that caused you to not “see” this name on my list.
And did you actually go back and look at my list of alternative suggestions to sending in troops. When my daughter and I have done rural outreach trips, I am quite sure that we were better received by the population than troops would have been.
Rich,
I can’t give you a list of countries in which the majority of the population does not desire democracy. I am quite sure that neither of us have access to extensive polls of the populations of various countries to determine their preferences. However, I can tell you that not all cultures view democracy as the unquestioned positive that most of us have been raised to believe it is.
When I lived on the Tohono Ottam reservation in Arizona, there was a strong feeling amongst a fairly large proportion of the population that “the old ways” in which decision making was done by the elders who were not
a representatively elected group was superior to representative government. Many groups have organized around some form of non elected senior leadership. Democracy is what we have been raised to value. It is only natural that we see it as the best. This is not a universally held belief. If your goal as a people is to live a western lifestyle, obtain a material standard of living represented by the western lifestyle, then yes, democracy and a free market system may be appealing to you. But they are certainly not the only way to organize a functional society. And to pretend that the only options to be considered are either that of the US or Zimbabwe or North Korea, with no room for the tremendous variety of socially viable systems in between makes me think that perhaps you are right and there could not be discourse between us on this issue. I find it sad that you would be so pre emptive and dismissive of a different point of view as to choose ridicule as your final point of communication.
[quote] There are very few intelligent and normal people that like or welcome violence. We all abhor violence.[/quote]
I think that this is a demonstrable false statement. I believe that munitions manufacturers welcome violence in much the same way that tobacco companies and tobacco farmers welcome smokers. They know that there product is lethal and still welcome those who would use it instead of making and effort to convert there business in to peaceful uses in the case of weapons manufacturers or alternative crops and products in the case of tobacco. Unfortunately, I think it is you that are being naive if you honestly believe your own statement.
Many fortunes and careers are built on visiting destruction on others.
But is isn’t only these folks who do not abhor violence. I worked at the VA and have known a number of soldiers. Some regretted their actions and having ever been involved in fighting. However, for everyone I met of this mind, there were others who longed to return to the fighting presumably because it met some need in them for violence or at least for domination over others, or perhaps just the adrenaline rush that is hard to come by in civilian life. Some stated reasons such as believing in what they were doing. Others were very honest about just wanting to see more action.
[quote]You don’t support the US spreading democracy as a way to promote peace.
[/quote]
No, I do not. What I support as a way to promote piece is to provide assistance in development, education, medical supplies and training, public health support all provided without political strings attached. By showing respect for the cultures and beliefs of the people, I feel we are much more likely to gain their support, trust, and friendship than by trying to impose a political system that they may or may not want. If it does not fit with their strongly held beliefs, we should not be attempting to impose it.
medwoman: [i]Barak Obama was the last name on my list[/i]
Yes he was. My apologies to you and Don. Miust have been that empty chair that caused me to miss it… =
I don’t think you understand at all what motivates a soldier to want to return to battle. It is not violence for violence sake. They want to return to be with their fellow warriors to work together as a team (there is that cooperation thing you like) to do the job they are trained to do. They talk tough and make you think that they like violence, but they would prefer the enemy just turns tail and runs away and never comes back… or gives up without a fight. They do like to shoot and blow things up… they also like a sense of adventure… but a lot of people like these things too.
Do I detect some bias against, or intolerance of, soldiers… or maybe just men? You know they have more testosterone than women? Maybe the world would be better without any agressive men, or without testosterone. Do you think so?
JB: [i]Your question about the Davis Muslims is silly and completely misses the mark. I was referring to countries that are a primarily Muslim theocracy. I am not anti-Mulim or Anti-Islam.[/i]
That was unclear in your original comment:
[quote]Christianity and Judaism, as well as other great religious – despite what historical conflicts existed – are largely at peace with the principles of free market capitalism and the global economy. Islam is not. Can it change to adopt and integrate? Not without a lot of conflict, IMO. [/quote]
Jeff
[quote]Do I detect some bias against, or intolerance of, soldiers… or maybe just men? You know they have more testosterone than women? Maybe the world would be better without any agressive men, or without testosterone. Do you think so?[/quote]
No, you do not. I simply do not understand why you cannot take me at my word on this one. What I have said is that what I abhor is violence. Let me try again. What I abhor is violence. Not men, not testosterone.
Violence. Have I made that point clear ? Violence…..whether done by men, women, children, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, pagans, Jains,Sikhs.atheists, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens…… Violence, in and of itself is abhorrent. I agree, many soldiers and non soldiers do like to shoot and blow things up. A critical difference is that, whether it is what they like or not, some of those “things” that soldiers ( whether called warriors or terrorists) are blowing up are innocent people. Not things, not the enemy, not noncoms, not civilians, not collateral damage…..innocent people. And that act is abhorrent regardless of stated intent or rationale. As a pacifist, nationality or religion is not what gives value to human life for me. There is no honor for me in killing the wife or children of members of another group, even if they have struck my group. Violence generates nothing but more violence. Defense and deterrence, I support. Demonstrating that there is another way to respond and helping others to achieve a better way forward for themselves, I support. Striking back to
kill with bigger and better weaponry is violence, which I will never support, except in direct and imminent defense.
Now I will make a different observation. You are very quick to try to ascribe different motives to me.
And you were quick to tell me that I was bereft of any ideas with regard to promoting peace. And yet, I did put forth a few suggestions for promoting peace rather than perpetuating killing. But rather than addressing these suggestions at all, or even just acknowledging that I have put them forth, you have simply chosen to ignore them. Now I understand that ignoring someone else’s ideas and making up phony explanations for what they are saying is easier and more fun than engaging in a mutually respectful exchange of ideas, but I think that it does little to move a conversation forward.
[i]” However, I can tell you that not all cultures view democracy as the unquestioned positive that most of us have been raised to believe it is.”[/i]
The only ‘cultures’ which hold this view do so because they are ruling others in an autocratic fashion.
I fully concede that there are many poor and backward countries–Afghanistan being a prime example–where their widespread poverty and lack of a strong merchant and professional class makes it very difficult to sustain representative governance and the protection of civil rights.
But you seem to be arguing–wrongly and frankly shockingly–that representative governance and governmental protection of basic human and civil rights (which is only possible in a legitimate democracy) are not universal values. Outside of dictators and the classes they favor, there is no significant culture on earth which shares your autocratic point of view.
Likewise, the desire of (mostly) free commerce is universal among all peoples, save those who use the levers of government to enrich or empower themselves at the expense of their fellow countrymen. For those who argued that Maoism, for example, was a “Chinese cultural expression,” take a look at China post-Mao. The same thing is true of all of the post-Communist/Soviet countries which adopted free commerce as a basic policy. And for what it is worth, this is true among all the Scandanavian countries which has rich welfare programs. The basis of all of their economies is still mostly free commerce. They don’t tell individuals what jobs they have to do, what subjects they have to major in, or even what prices they can charge for a hammer or for a car repair job or for a banana or a haircut. They all let the market determine basic prices and allow people to freely trade with each other. None of them, also, uses tariffs to discriminate against imports.
[i]” the Scandanavian countries which [b]has[/b] rich welfare programs …”[/i]
Have, not has.
[i]And yet, I did put forth a few suggestions for promoting peace rather than perpetuating killing.[/i]
Yes, you did. But as Rich Rifkin pointed out, we are already doing all those things. We are the most helpful and giving nation on the planet.
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-us-ran_n_1159562.html[/url]
You think more that is going to help? I doubt it will. We give billions to Egypt and now our President is saying that we are not sure they are our ally after the Arab uprising. What violence have we perpetrated on Egyptians to deserve what they have done? Note that there has not been a condemnation (a least the last I checked) from their new leader (of the Muslim Brotherhood).
I didn’t accuse you of disliking soldiers and/or men. I just asked you the question. I asked it because I could not think of a better way to challenge this, what I see as overly-simplistic, notion that we can just do away with violence. I was also a bit disturbed at your inference that these soldiers are just violent for the sake of violence.
I think many people don’t understand human history, have lost some perspective, and confuse their desires with reality. The US has always had isolationist tendencies. That was the basis of our origin. We wanted to be left alone. We still want to be left alone. However, we also realize that as the most successful and wealthy nation on the planet, we have a great responsibility to the rest of the world. But more importantly, as the nation on the top of the success pyramid we will be the constant target of envy-driven hatred. History is rife with great nations that have failed at their point of weakness (because they were then defeated) and then disappeared. Their people, once the benefactors of all the goodness from the greatness, disappeared. They were swallowed up by those that defeated them.
I don’t think you understand what is going on in the heads of the leaders of other nations and other groups related to the opportunity to defeat us and plunder our wealth. I don’t think you understand the role of demographics. We have enemies. We will always have enemies because we are big and successful. They will attack us if we appear weak. They will make policy moves that threaten our interests and cause global conflict. Look at what passivism did during WWII. Neville Chamberlain cost many more innocent European lives believing he could hug his way to Hitler’s heart.
Violence by our brave young men and women, and some unfortunate collateral damage – mostly because the coward terrorists surround themselves with women and children – is going to happen. Our military already does an amazing job minimizing that damage. With new technology they will continue to get better and better at it.
I’m certainly not trying to change your mind here medwoman. You abhor violence. I also abhor violence. I think maybe our difference is that I think some violence, and the threat of violence, is necessary to keep you and me… and our families… and friends safe from those that would harm us and take away our freedoms… including the freedom to speak our minds like we are doing now.
Have you studied history much? The type of
[i]JB: Your question about the Davis Muslims is silly and completely misses the mark. I was referring to countries that are a primarily Muslim theocracy. I am not anti-Mulim or Anti-Islam.
wdf1: That was unclear in your original comment:
JB: Christianity and Judaism, as well as other great religious – despite what historical conflicts existed – are largely at peace with the principles of free market capitalism and the global economy. Islam is not. Can it change to adopt and integrate? Not without a lot of conflict, IMO.[/i]
Yes, I was not clear. I was also not clear that I was thinking about the global economy. That includes the international banking system and trade laws and regulations.
[i]Have you studied history much? The type of [/i]
Sorry. Copy paste error… line from from another coversation on another blog.
From Chris Stirewalt, related to the Muslim protests and murders on 9/11/2012. I think pretty much nails the two different templates. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out going forward. My sense is that Obama and the left are on much thinner ice for their template.
[quote]In the telling of the Obama administration and the American left, the cause was a crudely made movie, or excerpts from a crudely made movie, mocking the founder of Islam, Muhammad. The video went viral and turned the otherwise positive popular uprising of the region into an anti-American rage.
In the telling of Republican nominee Mitt Romney and the American right, the cause is the ongoing radicalization of Islam and the clerics who, as the anniversary of Sept. 11 was approaching, were looking for anything to incite their followers. If it hadn’t been for that movie, it would have something else.
This is the same rift that dominated the national discussion after the attacks of 11 years ago. How much culpability did American policy and culture play in precipitating the attacks?
The left said that the attacks should make Americans more sensitive to the concerns of the billion Muslims of the world. The right said that Americans, still morning the lives of nearly 3,000 of their countrymen, had nothing to apologize for and that it was Muslim culture than needed to reform.
This devolved into accusations from the left that conservatives were being jingoistic and intolerant and from the right that liberals were blaming America first and appeasing aggressors.[/quote]