Why Giuliani is Unqualified to be Prez

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I think you might be assuming that these people are united by nationalism more than religion. I don't think that's the case.

No. That was not what I was assuming at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian


Those numbers do indeed show the proliferation of madrassas going back beyond the last 20 yrs. I was thinking since roughly 1970 (collapse of pan-Arab nationalism, roughly), but said "a couple of decades" which only gets me back to 1987. I've gotten old enough now that I think of 20 yrs as getting back into the 70s... time flies.

We're in a propoganda war, and we're not doing very well. What I'm arguing is that we need to do a better job of reducing the appeal of this ideology. There is no one magic policy for that.

Let me ask you this: what purpose has Iraq served, from the perspective of the WoT? My answer: it's been counterproductive for the WoT, at least so far (there is still some dim hope that Iraq will come out of this as an example of a peace-loving democratic Arab state). There were other reasons for the invasion, obviously, and I really don't want to get back into that old debate. I bring it up, however, because we're talking about future policy. I have argued that future policy should aim to reduce our footprint in the ME. I say this because I think moving our troops won't do undo harm to our ability to apply force if the situation absolutely calls for it, and offers the benifit of reducing resentment amongst the locals. It's possible I'm wrong, not being a military man.

-Arrian

Yeah, I'm getting old too. I still think of the 70's that way also. I get really freaked out by the idea that the 80's were now 20 years ago!

You are right that we are in a propoganda war and not doing very well. The problem is the funding of radicalized education for islamic youth. They are being raised and indoctrinated with only one very myopic point of view.

The plan for Iraq was to install a secularized government that would serve as both a political buffer and an ideological buffer to islamic radicalism...and then hope the movement took off. The fact that our government TOTALLY screwed up the handling of this does not make it any less of a good idea.

The resentment among the locals is an outgrowth of radical islamic teaching more than our presence. The leadership would simply be inflaming the people about another aspect of the US (for example our support of Israel or, if need be, the fact that women drive...or whatever. They would have the same success due to the indoctrination).

You must remember their overall goal. A worldwide islamic state.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by PLATO


No. That was not what I was assuming at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Since they are united by religion that explains why fundamentalism is getting more popular in places like Pakistan during the occupation of Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

as for 1990

Im not a military man, but I was following the news in those days

I would make the following points

1. Op Desert Shield (the buildup of US forces in KSA) was not a trivial task, it stretched US logistics considerably. It was a good thing North Korea didnt start a war at the same time. The US military did NOT want to be in that position again, which is why they DID want the bases in KSA and Qatar, the prepositioned material in Kuwait, etc. Of course they didnt envision that this would cause mass radicalization in the muslim world (an unproven proposition now, IMO)

2. The Saudis were very nervous. It took some time for the build up to be completed. Fortunately the Iraqi army in Kuwait was weaker than it looked. We can assume that any future opponent will be no stronger. I dont know we can know that.

3. We were able to do it in part because we still had huge assets in Europe, mainly in Germany, which we no longer have. We could, I suppose, rebuild those assets, for just this purpose.

4. We were able to do it, in part, because we had the strong support of the govt of Egypt, which provided transit rights, and, IIRC, even some stuff from their own stockpiles of US arms and ammo. If we are envisioning doing Desert Shield again, we are even more dependent on the good will of Egypt.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by PLATO
This is why it is critical to try and set up as secular as possible friendly democratic governments that can not only combat terror themselves, but can begin to change the radical teachings of the regions youth.

That sounds great, but not likely. We really should have considered the fact that simply invading a country and overthrowing the regime does not automatically make a country a secular democracy friendly to both all Iraqis and the US. Because now the most likely scenerio is that we eventually withdrawl our troops and leave a more authoritarian govt than is acceptable to most people but which is the only real option. That's going to be a permanent mark on our record, and that really sucks hard.

[Arrian]

The problem is the funding of radicalized education for islamic youth. They are being raised and indoctrinated with only one very myopic point of view.

I'll quibble and say it's A problem, not THE problem. Though it's certainly a big one. The thing is, how does military action address it?

The fact that our government TOTALLY screwed up the handling of this does not make it any less of a good idea

There is the possibility that the goal was unattainable from the get-go. Iraq was a mess before we touched it.

Further, while I'm a big fan of democracy, in the ME it's quite problematic. Now that radical islam is so prevalent, chances are a democracy will end up Islamist... democracy w/o liberalism. That's not terribly good for us either.

There was the hope that Islamists who gained power would moderate. The example cited by some was Hamas in Palestine - and I found the argument attractive. With power comes responsibilty, right? Hmm... maybe, maybe not.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

arrian, you have said several times that you do not favor IMMEDIATE withdrawl from the region.

Very well.

I know of no one serious who sees no reason to in some way limit our footprint. I know of neocons who would like to leave KSA, and use bases in Iraq as a substitute. I presume there are many "realists" who would like to go back to the status quo antebellum, and depart Iraq fully, and stay in KSA. IMO both these options should be examined.

I would even entertain the idea of leaving both Iraq AND KSA, and relying more on bases in Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain.

The notion of abandoning any land presence in the entire area of Iraq/Arabian peninsula strikes me as dangreous and not well thought out. I would be leary of it even were it not associated with withdrawl from antiterror activities in North Africa, or with a weakening in our relationship with Egypt and Jordan.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Since they are united by religion that explains why fundamentalism is getting more popular in places like Pakistan during the occupation of Iraq.

No...due to increased islamic radical indoctrination in places like Pakistan, the occupation of places like Iraq has become more necessary.

You are just a bit confused on order of things. It's okay though, its not your fault. The lefties have inundated you with crap for so long that people are beginning to believe it.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That sounds great, but not likely. We really should have considered the fact that simply invading a country and overthrowing the regime does not automatically make a country a secular democracy friendly to both all Iraqis and the US. Because now the most likely scenerio is that we eventually withdrawl our troops and leave a more authoritarian govt than is acceptable to most people but which is the only real option. That's going to be a permanent mark on our record, and that really sucks hard.

Indeed. Very poor planning for what happened after the Iraqi army was defeated. Very poor.

[Arrian]

No...due to increased islamic radical indoctrination in places like Pakistan, the occupation of places like Iraq has become more necessary.

I think you may be mixing up Iraq and Afganistan. It's not your fault, though. The righties have inundated you with crap for so long that people have begun to believe it.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


There was the hope that Islamists who gained power would moderate. The example cited by some was Hamas in Palestine - and I found the argument attractive. With power comes responsibilty, right? Hmm... maybe, maybe not.

-Arrian

I hoped that would happen in Iraq, Turkey and maybe Egypt. I never, ever thought it would happen with Hamas. Im not putting you down for that - what withr Iraq, its nice to be right about things somewhere in the region.

So far I think its largely held true in Turkey. Shia Islamist politics in Iraq I think is more complex than most people realize, though Im less enthusiastic about Grand Ayatollah Sistani and SCIRI than I was. But not yet without hope.

As for the MB in Egypt, well, Im perhaps now more wary of seeing them in power than I was two years ago,not only because of events in Iraq and Gaza, but also because I dont think the will to keep democratization on path is here in the US post-Iraq "quagmire", and wont be for several years. Had Iraq followed an upward tragectory after the elections of Jan '05, Id have been willing to take a chance on the MB, counting on the US to contain or end it if things went seriously wrong. Today, I count on no such thing, and think theres little choice but to rely on Mubarak awhile longer.

[Arrian]

I would even entertain the idea of leaving both Iraq AND KSA, and relying more on bases in Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain.

Probably the best bet. I think we definitely want to be out of SA. I also think leaving Iraq completely is important from a PR point of view. Of course, the timing of that is difficult, because while I want to leave I also don't want to leave if leaving = the country implodes. It's a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into.

I'd prefer to eventually (I'm talking long term now - next decade maybe) remove all ground troops/bases from the region. Maybe that's unrealistic. But I at least want it seriously considered, and if it's nixxed, I want a good reason (preferrably more than one).

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian

With power comes responsibilty, right? Hmm... maybe, maybe not.

-Arrian

one problem with Hamas is that their aspiration was not to power over the territories, but over the entire area from the Jordan to the sea. From their POV they were NOT in power.

Another, arguably, is that they were not really an independent actor, but answered to Damascus.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian


I'll quibble and say it's A problem, not THE problem. Though it's certainly a big one. The thing is, how does military action address it?

Quibbling is always allowed! Certainly there are other problems, but I can see none more threatening than the children being raised in hatred and intolerence.

Originally posted by Arrian

There is the possibility that the goal was unattainable from the get-go. Iraq was a mess before we touched it.

While that may be true, I believe that a proper handling of things would have produced the desired result. The Baathist, for example, were more than happy to have secular government (albiet with them in control). They could have been turned to a force for stabilization instead of being shunned, alienated, and outlawed.

Originally posted by Arrian

Further, while I'm a big fan of democracy, in the ME it's quite problematic. Now that radical islam is so prevalent, chances are a democracy will end up Islamist... democracy w/o liberalism. That's not terribly good for us either.

The problem is that no one ever looked at the time frame that it would take to accomplish our goals. Everybody is so hung up these days on quick things. It may have taken 50 years under good circumstances to have the government in Iraq that we ultimately wanted. That does not mean that it would take 50 years of fighting, but 50 years of presence and stabilization should have been planned for.

Originally posted by Arrian

There was the hope that Islamists who gained power would moderate. The example cited by some was Hamas in Palestine - and I found the argument attractive. With power comes responsibilty, right? Hmm... maybe, maybe not.

-Arrian

Yes, there is always this hope, but one should not plan on hope. One should plan on a worse case scenario...a fact that our current administration totally missed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


I think we definitely want to be out of SA. I also think leaving Iraq completely is important from a PR point of view. Of course, the timing of that is difficult, because while I want to leave I also don't want to leave if leaving = the country implodes. It's a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into.

Its been a fine mess since the Brits left the region in 1971. Iraq itself has been a fine mess since the Hashemite monarchy was overthrown.