Tweet
Originally posted by Tripledoc
The war against Muslim hardliners is often referred to as the war on terrorism, but it is really more resembling a low intensity war, not localized to a specific geographical place. So if one accepts that it is a war, and not simply instances of random terrorist acts, then one can view the issue differently.
First, there have in the west been a tendency to consider diplomacy and warfare as seperate issues. Starting with the demand for unconditional surrender during the Second World War everytime the West has intervened the war would not end before the West had achieved all objectives, which, however, would often change over time. This was IMHO a chief reason behind the prolongation of the Vietnam War.
But this 'unconditionality' is really an historical anomaly.
From the Middle ages to the First World War diplomatic agreements have often prevented one side from completely annihilating the other.
I disagree. Al-Qaeda's chief aim is to reform the political process in the Arab world. Now when the West is attacked, it has been because the West supports the present regimes in the Muslim world.
Actually when the West calls for democratic reform in Arab countries they are actually giving in to al-Qaeda demands, so in a sense there is a diplomatic game going on. The problem is that the Western diplomacy and the current Arab regimes both refuse to take into account the wishes of the fundamentalist
muslims, of whom many are in fact peaceful. But such an approach of ignoring the religious right is hardly democratic, in that in a democracy all views are equally respected, and some sort of consensus is achieved.
So the question is why western leaders seek to shortcircuit the political process, by going over the heads of the Muslim right and yet still seeks to impose political reform on the Arab regimes, which invariably must lead to the Muslim right gaining more influence?
Direct negotiation with the al-Qaeda network would also greatly benefit the ordinary citizen, because it seems to me that there are too many contradictions in the way Western leaders seek to combat terrorism. Most notably in how the rigts of citizens is being eroded. One example is how in the EU far-reaching measures have been taken in violating the privacy of citizens. Yet no substantial measures are being taken in furthering the intelligence sharing among EU member countries. Would it not be logical first to share the intelligence one has, before giving the green light for each state to gather more intelligence on it's own citizens? So what you end up with is a larger amount of information, which is only useful for each member country's own powers of state. This is basicly a mechanism for the containmnet of domestic dissent, and does not help in combating international terrorism in any meaningful sense. But maybe the EU is mostly afraid of terrorism which is specifically anti-EU or anti-state?
The war against Muslim hardliners is often referred to as the war on terrorism, but it is really more resembling a low intensity war, not localized to a specific geographical place. So if one accepts that it is a war, and not simply instances of random terrorist acts, then one can view the issue differently.
First, there have in the west been a tendency to consider diplomacy and warfare as seperate issues. Starting with the demand for unconditional surrender during the Second World War everytime the West has intervened the war would not end before the West had achieved all objectives, which, however, would often change over time. This was IMHO a chief reason behind the prolongation of the Vietnam War.
But this 'unconditionality' is really an historical anomaly.
From the Middle ages to the First World War diplomatic agreements have often prevented one side from completely annihilating the other.
I disagree. Al-Qaeda's chief aim is to reform the political process in the Arab world. Now when the West is attacked, it has been because the West supports the present regimes in the Muslim world.
Actually when the West calls for democratic reform in Arab countries they are actually giving in to al-Qaeda demands, so in a sense there is a diplomatic game going on. The problem is that the Western diplomacy and the current Arab regimes both refuse to take into account the wishes of the fundamentalist
muslims, of whom many are in fact peaceful. But such an approach of ignoring the religious right is hardly democratic, in that in a democracy all views are equally respected, and some sort of consensus is achieved.
So the question is why western leaders seek to shortcircuit the political process, by going over the heads of the Muslim right and yet still seeks to impose political reform on the Arab regimes, which invariably must lead to the Muslim right gaining more influence?
Direct negotiation with the al-Qaeda network would also greatly benefit the ordinary citizen, because it seems to me that there are too many contradictions in the way Western leaders seek to combat terrorism. Most notably in how the rigts of citizens is being eroded. One example is how in the EU far-reaching measures have been taken in violating the privacy of citizens. Yet no substantial measures are being taken in furthering the intelligence sharing among EU member countries. Would it not be logical first to share the intelligence one has, before giving the green light for each state to gather more intelligence on it's own citizens? So what you end up with is a larger amount of information, which is only useful for each member country's own powers of state. This is basicly a mechanism for the containmnet of domestic dissent, and does not help in combating international terrorism in any meaningful sense. But maybe the EU is mostly afraid of terrorism which is specifically anti-EU or anti-state?
Comment