....because Islam doesn't spread by the sword, it spreads by memetic transmission through a culture who, under the diffused influence of thinkers from Heidegger to Marx, Chomsky to Rorty, are content with dhimmitude....thereby proving that their multiculturism is authentic and real.
The only acceptable fundamentalist is he who is "the Other".
Yes, but arguably the folks holding that burning effigy of Bush aren't necessarily radical Muslims bent on jihad against the West. In particular, the United States represents to the developing world the imperial bully who meddles in others affairs while supposedly being hypocritical to its own espoused values.
You’ve read the polls, you know how unpopular we are with the rest of the world. In this sphere where perception rules over reality, how are we to go about public relations with such people?
If we did peruse such a hands-off policy, would it indeed improve our world wide image? Would anti-Americanism wither away?
One wonders what these regions would look like if the US withdrew completely and allowed the extremist elements to shape the course of things on the ground.
It's not a question of hands off in the Mideast, it's more of a question of where we pick are battles. How come we are not more involved in Somalia and the Sudan? President Bush said in his recent interview that he was wrong on all accounts execept for that he got rid of tyranny in Iraq. Is there not tyranny in Somalia and Sudan? Are those people not suffering terribly? You asked why people hate Americans that is CLEARLY why.
To the level that Somalia or Sudan represent a threat to our national security will determine our involvement.
Our recent air-strikes targeting al-Qaeda in Somalia, specifically those individuals who took shelter in Somalia after organizing the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, is a great example of picking our battles wisely, and doing so based on national security, i.e., taking out those who plot to kill innocent Americans here at home and abroad.
And our cooperative involvement with the horn of Africa is ongoing:
I’m not sure I can make much sense of the notion that people around the world dislike us on some principle because we aren’t more involved in the Sudan and Somalia. If that was the case, then I find it hard to reconcile why deposing a brutal dictator in Iraq didn’t enjoy more popular support in the Arab world and elsewhere. And I’m not sure what motivation you have to singularly classify these campaigns solely as humanitarian efforts to fight tyranny. The war on terror nor the intervention in Iraq was or has ever been justified as a humanitarian initiative alone, but rather one based on principles of national security and geopolitical reform of the M.E.
Certainly, these people who hate the US for not becoming more involved in the region must still celebrate the CJTF-HOA efforts in rebuilding schools, medical clinics, providing medical services, digging of wells, efforts against human trafficking, piracy etc.
Or do the efforts of their own home countries eclipse these efforts? Or are you implying some hypocrisy on the part of US policy? Please be specific.
January 15, 2007: A "perpetual" peacekeeping operation may work in Haiti, where the peacekeepers essentially are serving as a police force intended to keep the wilder criminal elements out of political power, but it's doubtful it would work in Somalia. There are no clans or tribes ( with significant militia forces on call) in Haiti. In Somalia, there are dozens of well armed clan militias, and past attempts to disarm the clans have all failed. It would be well to examine that history. For thousands of years, Somalia consisted of trading ports along the coast, each with large Arab and Indian minorities, and often controlled by those foreigners, who owned the trading organizations. The interior was populated by dozens of clans. The term "tribe" doesn't really apply, because all these people were of one ethnic group, what we know of as Somalis. These were an independent and feisty people, who depended on their weapons more than anything else. Somali didn't even have a written form until the 1970s. Before that, if you wanted to be literate, you usually did it in Arabic.
In 1886, Britain replaced Egypt as the primary foreigners in northern Somalia, and the area became known as Somaliland. In 1889, Italy displaced the various Arab, Indian and Somali rulers in the south, and formed a colony called Somalia. In 1960, both colonies were combined into a new country; Somalia. For the first time ever, there was a united Somalia. The country contained most, but not all, of the Somalis in the region. Many more still lived in Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti. Many Somalis wanted to combine all the Somalis, and the territory they occupied, into a "Greater Somalia." But the other countries in the region were against this, for they had been the victims of raids by Somali bandits for centuries. There was also a lot of bad blood between Ethiopia and Somalia, mainly because the Ethiopians had conquered, and ruled, most of present day Somalia, many times in the past two thousand years. Somalia could be conquered, but there really wasn't much there worth having, and most conquerors eventually got tired of the cost, and withdrew.
As soon as the new Somalia came into existence, it began attacking Ethiopia and Kenya, in an attempt to create Greater Somalia. This effort failed. The democracy the colonial powers left behind also failed. Clan loyalties were more powerful, and by 1969 Somalia had become a dictatorship. A coalition of clans enforced their rule over the entire country. This couldn't last, and it didn't.
The new dictator tried to eliminate the clan loyalties, and create a socialist dictatorship and police state. This appealed to many young Somalis. The dictator, Siad Barre also tried to curry favor by going to war with Ethiopia again in 1977. That failed, and the clans became more troublesome throughout the 1980s. By 1991, the government fell apart, as did the country. Since then, the clans have squabbled with each other, and continue to do so. Try and fix that with peacekeepers.
You asked for a reason why people hate us. I offered one. The United States choses when to "engage" and when not to. We support Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, condemn him in the 90's, and kill him in the 2000's. Obviously, Saddam got what he deserved, however, it point to the United States failed froeign policies. Those failed foreign policies and our boldness to stick our nose in wherever we deem necessary are the main reasons for the dislike around the globe. Dizyd, always was against. Always feared the ??? following Saddam's ouster. At least with Saddam you had a clear enemey/point of attack/you knew what you were up against. Now, it's anyone's guess.
Dizyd, speaking of failed policies, do you mean to say that other countries, particularly those on the security council like China or Russia, might object to our interference based on economic interest? I wonder how far the Oil for Food scandal goes in explaining their objections to intervention in Iraq.
Quoting Anon: You asked for a reason why people hate us. I offered one. The United States choses when to "engage" and when not to.
> That's partly true. Under President Clinton the Balkans engagement was undertaken by a president without the approval of Congress and with no national sercurity threat at stake...the operation is embraced, yet the Iraq operation, which itself holds some of the same requisites and more than the Balkans operation, many cannot seem to support it. > Mightn't there be some sense of gratitude to be expressed by Kuwaitis or Iraqis for deposing a brutal Stalin-inspired dictatorship, whose regime made repeated war against its neighbors, (Israel in the 70's, Iran in the 80's and Kuwait and Israel in the 90's) and gassed the Kurdish minority in the north among other crimes. >Speaking of those who hate the U.S. Kuwaitis, according to a poll two years back rated the highest anti-American sentiment. When asked why, Kuwaitis said that it was the U.S. treatment of the Palestinians. This, coming from a nation (Kuwait) which has just ethnically cleansed itself of tens of thousands of Palestinians by shipping them out, back to the Palestinian territory. I don't think it's entirely fair to think that Kuwait must contain all those persons unconditionally, but to eject them and and register this complaint toward the U.S. is a hollow complaint. This is just one example of the hypocrisy of the anti-U.S. complaints which rise from the Middle East.
Quote: " We support Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, condemn him in the 90's, and kill him in the 2000's."
>It's an often quoted fact, yet it's rarely taken to task. ( As if the mere existance or repetition of this fact itself is an argument, which it is not.)
>We "supported" Stalin too.
>The largest suppliers of material for chem. weapons to Iraq were Singapore, Egypt, India and Germany, in that order. U.S. support was mainly dual use materials which also had some civilian use, such as computers and helicopters.
"Obviously, Saddam got what he deserved, however, it point to the United States failed froeign policies."
> Failed? If one considers the realpolitik of the Cold War actions of the U.S. in the Middle East a "failure" then wouldn't the new policies be considered a corrective? > Saddam had justice served to him, but you shouldn't overlook Libya giving up it's weapons program in light of the events of Gulf War2 and the fact that the Iraq regime can not threaten Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or the U.S. with a standing army and/or missles of any type. > "We" didn't kill Saddam, the Iraqis did, within the legal process within the jurisdiction of their laws.
Quote: "Those failed foreign policies and our boldness to stick our nose in wherever we deem necessary are the main reasons for the dislike around the globe."
>That's the common belief. Yet, there are many who dislike the U.S. for wholly irrational and uninformed reasons. Many who live in any of the 20-odd Middle East countries haven't much hope of getting any real counter factual to Al-Jazeera. Many have a perception about the United States, but rarely does it comport with what is true about it.
>I hate to drop quotes rather than speak my mind, but these following two side by side quotes say quite a lot about this attitude toward the United States....
"Sometimes the United States is attacked for failing to promote human rights; sometimes for wanting to impose "the American way of life" on all people withouth respect for their cultures. To the extent that it does the latter, the United States does so in the name of self-evident truths that apply to the good of all men. But it's critics argue that there are no such truths, that they are the prejudices of American culture. On the one hand, the Ayatollah was initially supported by some here because he represented true Iranian culture. Now he is attacked for violating human rights. What he does is in the name of Islam. His critics insist that there are universal principles that limit the rights of Islam. When the critics of the U.S. in the name of culture, and of the Ayatollah in the name of human rights, are the same person, which they often are, they are persons who want to eat their cake and have it, too. - Allan Bloom _________________ "How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?" ~James Madison, Federalist No. 41, January 1788
Quote : "Dizyd, always was against. Always feared the ??? following Saddam's ouster."
>Who could ever predict what is to come after a war? I don't think that it was ever a compelling argument against acting in this case. Yes, there are many negative outcomes in case Iraq cannot pull together within the political process. Yes, it's a problem that Iran and Syria are directly working against that happening.
Quote: "At least with Saddam you had a clear enemey/point of attack/you knew what you were up against. Now, it's anyone's guess."
> In what counter insurgency in history has there ever been a "clear point of attack" and when did any invasion force halt its plans for fear of that outcome? Let's suppose that insurgency tactics are unbeatable. Let's suppose that it's Japan before the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you commit troops to engage the huge civilian "insurgency" which was preparing for a land assault or do you bomb? Given your fear, Anon, of what came next after Saddam was gone, how does one eradicate that threat? Nukes? Hide head in sand and hope for the U.N. to create collective security?
"I actually do think that being unable to prevent chaos and civil war in Iraq post-invasion is a plausible reason not to go in."
>So you'd have chosen the Clintonian method of bombing without putting troops on the ground?
>How would you have dissarmed Hussein without force?
"There were a lot of voices predicting chaos that the US would be unable to control. (Not saying that there weren't equally strong reasons to invade)."
>I think Chomsky predicted just that and stated that it would be the intentional outcome of U.S. policy. I would never choose inaction(containment) when confronted with dissarming a hostile regime with a history of ignoring U.N. resolutions and attacking or invading its neighbors....and risking something of a repeat of any of Husseins prior actions over the possibility of a resultant unstable nation/state. In the gamble that was presented, the much more pressing concern, in my view, was to stop Husseins ability to wage war. The humanitarian, democracy project, although of immense value and import, is and was secondary and partly resting now on the shoulders of a people who must take responsibility for their own governance. I'm not suggesting a withdrawal of U.S. forces at this time, though such a withdrawal must come eventually.
"My point is that if you were against Iraq because of fears of what would happen next, you should be equally against military action in Somalia and the Sudan."
> Outside of a humanitarian concern, what national security threat do Somalia or the Sudan represent? If one judges the wisdom of regime change or invasion of either of those three regions (Iraq, Somalia, Sudan) strictly on that one criteria and the potential downside of that one consideration (result of chaos), I'd say they should reconsider.
That's good stuff. You guys make some really good points (seriously). This is why I like coming to this blog, you guys (maybe gals to) make great arguments.
I went the doctor's the other day with a variety of ailments. he asked me to point to where I was hurting. I touched my arm and said it hurts here. I touched my forehead and said it hurt here. I touched my thigh and said it hurts here. After much thought, the doctor looked at me and said "I have found your problem" I said great "what is it?"
17 comments:
....because Islam doesn't spread by the sword, it spreads by memetic transmission through a culture who, under the diffused influence of thinkers from Heidegger to Marx, Chomsky to Rorty, are content with dhimmitude....thereby proving that their multiculturism is authentic and real.
The only acceptable fundamentalist is he who is "the Other".
Yes, but arguably the folks holding that burning effigy of Bush aren't necessarily radical Muslims bent on jihad against the West. In particular, the United States represents to the developing world the imperial bully who meddles in others affairs while supposedly being hypocritical to its own espoused values.
You’ve read the polls, you know how unpopular we are with the rest of the world. In this sphere where perception rules over reality, how are we to go about public relations with such people?
Good point there.
I really have no idea how to go about any sort of p.r. for them.
I've seen how difficult p.r. is among local folks whose perceived grievances are much tinier and they're nearly inconsolable.
This isn't going away.
If we did peruse such a hands-off policy, would it indeed improve our world wide image? Would anti-Americanism wither away?
One wonders what these regions would look like if the US withdrew completely and allowed the extremist elements to shape the course of things on the ground.
It's not a question of hands off in the Mideast, it's more of a question of where we pick are battles. How come we are not more involved in Somalia and the Sudan? President Bush said in his recent interview that he was wrong on all accounts execept for that he got rid of tyranny in Iraq. Is there not tyranny in Somalia and Sudan? Are those people not suffering terribly? You asked why people hate Americans that is CLEARLY why.
To the level that Somalia or Sudan represent a threat to our national security will determine our involvement.
Our recent air-strikes targeting al-Qaeda in Somalia, specifically those individuals who took shelter in Somalia after organizing the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, is a great example of picking our battles wisely, and doing so based on national security, i.e., taking out those who plot to kill innocent Americans here at home and abroad.
And our cooperative involvement with the horn of Africa is ongoing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Joint_Task_Force-Horn_of_Africa
I’m not sure I can make much sense of the notion that people around the world dislike us on some principle because we aren’t more involved in the Sudan and Somalia. If that was the case, then I find it hard to reconcile why deposing a brutal dictator in Iraq didn’t enjoy more popular support in the Arab world and elsewhere. And I’m not sure what motivation you have to singularly classify these campaigns solely as humanitarian efforts to fight tyranny. The war on terror nor the intervention in Iraq was or has ever been justified as a humanitarian initiative alone, but rather one based on principles of national security and geopolitical reform of the M.E.
Certainly, these people who hate the US for not becoming more involved in the region must still celebrate the CJTF-HOA efforts in rebuilding schools, medical clinics, providing medical services, digging of wells, efforts against human trafficking, piracy etc.
Or do the efforts of their own home countries eclipse these efforts? Or are you implying some hypocrisy on the part of US policy? Please be specific.
Good questions dizyd, ones worth answers.
A recent post and history from James Dunnigan:
January 15, 2007: A "perpetual" peacekeeping operation may work in Haiti, where the peacekeepers essentially are serving as a police force intended to keep the wilder criminal elements out of political power, but it's doubtful it would work in Somalia. There are no clans or tribes ( with significant militia forces on call) in Haiti. In Somalia, there are dozens of well armed clan militias, and past attempts to disarm the clans have all failed. It would be well to examine that history. For thousands of years, Somalia consisted of trading ports along the coast, each with large Arab and Indian minorities, and often controlled by those foreigners, who owned the trading organizations. The interior was populated by dozens of clans. The term "tribe" doesn't really apply, because all these people were of one ethnic group, what we know of as Somalis. These were an independent and feisty people, who depended on their weapons more than anything else. Somali didn't even have a written form until the 1970s. Before that, if you wanted to be literate, you usually did it in Arabic.
In 1886, Britain replaced Egypt as the primary foreigners in northern Somalia, and the area became known as Somaliland. In 1889, Italy displaced the various Arab, Indian and Somali rulers in the south, and formed a colony called Somalia. In 1960, both colonies were combined into a new country; Somalia. For the first time ever, there was a united Somalia. The country contained most, but not all, of the Somalis in the region. Many more still lived in Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti. Many Somalis wanted to combine all the Somalis, and the territory they occupied, into a "Greater Somalia." But the other countries in the region were against this, for they had been the victims of raids by Somali bandits for centuries. There was also a lot of bad blood between Ethiopia and Somalia, mainly because the Ethiopians had conquered, and ruled, most of present day Somalia, many times in the past two thousand years. Somalia could be conquered, but there really wasn't much there worth having, and most conquerors eventually got tired of the cost, and withdrew.
As soon as the new Somalia came into existence, it began attacking Ethiopia and Kenya, in an attempt to create Greater Somalia. This effort failed. The democracy the colonial powers left behind also failed. Clan loyalties were more powerful, and by 1969 Somalia had become a dictatorship. A coalition of clans enforced their rule over the entire country. This couldn't last, and it didn't.
The new dictator tried to eliminate the clan loyalties, and create a socialist dictatorship and police state. This appealed to many young Somalis. The dictator, Siad Barre also tried to curry favor by going to war with Ethiopia again in 1977. That failed, and the clans became more troublesome throughout the 1980s. By 1991, the government fell apart, as did the country. Since then, the clans have squabbled with each other, and continue to do so. Try and fix that with peacekeepers.
You asked for a reason why people hate us. I offered one. The United States choses when to "engage" and when not to. We support Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, condemn him in the 90's, and kill him in the 2000's. Obviously, Saddam got what he deserved, however, it point to the United States failed froeign policies. Those failed foreign policies and our boldness to stick our nose in wherever we deem necessary are the main reasons for the dislike around the globe. Dizyd, always was against. Always feared the ??? following Saddam's ouster. At least with Saddam you had a clear enemey/point of attack/you knew what you were up against. Now, it's anyone's guess.
Dizyd, speaking of failed policies, do you mean to say that other countries, particularly those on the security council like China or Russia, might object to our interference based on economic interest? I wonder how far the Oil for Food scandal goes in explaining their objections to intervention in Iraq.
Shocking...
Quoting Anon: You asked for a reason why people hate us. I offered one. The United States choses when to "engage" and when not to.
> That's partly true. Under President Clinton the Balkans engagement was undertaken by a president without the approval of Congress and with no national sercurity threat at stake...the operation is embraced, yet the Iraq operation, which itself holds some of the same requisites and more than the Balkans operation, many cannot seem to support it.
> Mightn't there be some sense of gratitude to be expressed by Kuwaitis or Iraqis for deposing a brutal Stalin-inspired dictatorship, whose regime made repeated war against its neighbors, (Israel in the 70's, Iran in the 80's and Kuwait and Israel in the 90's) and gassed the Kurdish minority in the north among other crimes.
>Speaking of those who hate the U.S. Kuwaitis, according to a poll two years back rated the highest anti-American sentiment. When asked why, Kuwaitis said that it was the U.S. treatment of the Palestinians. This, coming from a nation (Kuwait) which has just ethnically cleansed itself of tens of thousands of Palestinians by shipping them out, back to the Palestinian territory. I don't think it's entirely fair to think that Kuwait must contain all those persons unconditionally, but to eject them and and register this complaint toward the U.S. is a hollow complaint. This is just one example of the hypocrisy of the anti-U.S. complaints which rise from the Middle East.
Quote: " We support Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, condemn him in the 90's, and kill him in the 2000's."
>It's an often quoted fact, yet it's rarely taken to task. ( As if the mere existance or repetition of this fact itself is an argument, which it is not.)
>We "supported" Stalin too.
>The largest suppliers of material for chem. weapons to Iraq were Singapore, Egypt, India and Germany, in that order. U.S. support was mainly dual use materials which also had some civilian use, such as computers and helicopters.
"Obviously, Saddam got what he deserved, however, it point to the United States failed froeign policies."
> Failed? If one considers the realpolitik of the Cold War actions of the U.S. in the Middle East a "failure" then wouldn't the new policies be considered a corrective?
> Saddam had justice served to him, but you shouldn't overlook Libya giving up it's weapons program in light of the events of Gulf War2 and the fact that the Iraq regime can not threaten Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or the U.S. with a standing army and/or missles of any type.
> "We" didn't kill Saddam, the Iraqis did, within the legal process within the jurisdiction of their laws.
Quote: "Those failed foreign policies and our boldness to stick our nose in wherever we deem necessary are the main reasons for the dislike around the globe."
>That's the common belief. Yet, there are many who dislike the U.S. for wholly irrational and uninformed reasons. Many who live in any of the 20-odd Middle East countries haven't much hope of getting any real counter factual to Al-Jazeera.
Many have a perception about the United States, but rarely does it comport with what is true about it.
>I hate to drop quotes rather than speak my mind, but these following two side by side quotes say quite a lot about this attitude toward the United States....
"Sometimes the United States is attacked for failing
to promote human rights; sometimes for wanting to impose "the American way of life" on all people
withouth respect for their cultures. To the extent
that it does the latter, the United States does so in
the name of self-evident truths that apply to the good of all men. But it's critics argue that there are no such truths, that they are the prejudices of American culture. On the one hand, the Ayatollah was initially supported by some here because he represented true Iranian culture. Now he is attacked for violating human rights. What he does is in the name of Islam.
His critics insist that there are universal principles
that limit the rights of Islam. When the critics of
the U.S. in the name of culture, and of the Ayatollah
in the name of human rights, are the same person,
which they often are, they are persons who want to eat
their cake and have it, too. - Allan Bloom
_________________
"How could a readiness for war in time of peace be
safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like
manner, the preparations and establishments of every
hostile nation?"
~James Madison, Federalist No. 41, January 1788
Quote : "Dizyd, always was against. Always feared the ??? following Saddam's ouster."
>Who could ever predict what is to come after a war? I don't think that it was ever a compelling argument against acting in this case. Yes, there are many negative outcomes in case Iraq cannot pull together within the political process. Yes, it's a problem that Iran and Syria are directly working against that happening.
Quote: "At least with Saddam you had a clear enemey/point of attack/you knew what you were up against. Now, it's anyone's guess."
> In what counter insurgency in history has there ever been a "clear point of attack" and when did any invasion force halt its plans for fear of that outcome? Let's suppose that insurgency tactics are unbeatable. Let's suppose that it's Japan before the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you commit troops to engage the huge civilian "insurgency" which was preparing for a land assault or do you bomb? Given your fear, Anon, of what came next after Saddam was gone, how does one eradicate that threat? Nukes? Hide head in sand and hope for the U.N. to create collective security?
"I actually do think that being unable to prevent chaos and civil war in Iraq post-invasion is a plausible reason not to go in."
>So you'd have chosen the Clintonian method of bombing without putting troops on the ground?
>How would you have dissarmed Hussein without force?
"There were a lot of voices predicting chaos that the US would be unable to control. (Not saying that there weren't equally strong reasons to invade)."
>I think Chomsky predicted just that and stated that it would be the intentional outcome of U.S. policy. I would never choose inaction(containment) when confronted with dissarming a hostile regime with a history of ignoring U.N. resolutions and attacking or invading its neighbors....and risking something of a repeat of any of Husseins prior actions over the possibility of a resultant unstable nation/state. In the gamble that was presented, the much more pressing concern, in my view, was to stop Husseins ability to wage war. The humanitarian, democracy project, although of immense value and import, is and was secondary and partly resting now on the shoulders of a people who must take responsibility for their own governance. I'm not suggesting a withdrawal of U.S. forces at this time, though such a withdrawal must come eventually.
"My point is that if you were against Iraq because of fears of what would happen next, you should be equally against military action in Somalia and the Sudan."
> Outside of a humanitarian concern, what national security threat do Somalia or the Sudan represent? If one judges the wisdom of regime change or invasion of either of those three regions (Iraq, Somalia, Sudan) strictly on that one criteria and the potential downside of that one consideration (result of chaos), I'd say they should reconsider.
That's good stuff. You guys make some really good points (seriously). This is why I like coming to this blog, you guys (maybe gals to) make great arguments.
There's wimmins here.
I always find it interesting how certain threads end, usually because the dialectic is dropped and facts/reasons posited are left unreconciled.
Hmmm.
I went the doctor's the other day with a variety of ailments. he asked me to point to where I was hurting. I touched my arm and said it hurts here. I touched my forehead and said it hurt here. I touched my thigh and said it hurts here. After much thought, the doctor looked at me and said "I have found your problem" I said great "what is it?"
You have a broken finger
America has a broken finger, and that broken finger is her rampant imperialism.
"We need to be stopped."
Post a Comment