Why Giuliani is Unqualified to be Prez

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
I understand that argument. It makes a certain logical sense. The trouble is I think there is a legitimate question as to whether you're killing more terrorists than you're creating with such tactics.

And IMO, you are creating FAR more than you are killing. You may be dealing heavy blows to the heads (which seem to grow back), but feeding, in vast amounts, the body.

[Arrian]

The madrassas are obviously worrisome, PLATO, but as Imran points out they have been around a long time. The more recent (and unfortunate) development is the radicalization of those schools. As I understand it, that's something that has taken place over the last couple of decades.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Arrian

No. I go back to "the beginning" as it were, to examine the roots of it. As things have progressed, he's tacked on all sorts of ****, in many cases almost like an afterthought. I find the 1996 fatwa more instructive.

1996 is hardly the beginning. Go back to the hit on Sadat. Go back to Qutb. Its been evolving since the 1920s.

The basis for our disagreement, as I understand it, is WHY they are "coming for me." You asserted that they want to kill us because we have power and we're preventing them from making the whole world Islamic. I argued, in turn, that the primary grievances these crazies have with us are:

1. Military presence and activity in the Middle East and/or other areas they consider "Muslim." (that last bit, as LotM has pointed out, has some play in it)
2. Support for Isreal.
3. Support for "apostate" Arab governments, such as the House of Saud.

I think you misread me then. My point is that at THIS stage, there is no strategic distinction between wanting to make the whole world Islamic, and wanting to create the Pan-Islamic Caliphate. The latter is so far off theres no need to plan for the former. So they are vague, but their inclinations are fairly clear.

It is true that at this point their interest is confined only the muslim world. I dont think our influence is only by way of troops, or financial support for arab govts. There is also our very existence as an example, and I believe they are quite aware of it, and are in part motivated by it. That is one more reason why they would still be concerned about us even if we withdrew from the region.

As for the "apostate" governments of the ME, frankly given that most of them are nasty little dictatorships/police states, I've no love for them. We support them because we don't want radical Islamist governments taking over and turning off the tap, and/or using their countries as terrorist training centers for missions against us. No easy answers there. My position on that would be to continue to support the various governments we are friendly with, but conditionally (push reforms, albeit slowly).

Turkey is a democracy, but rigidly secular. They have repeated attacked Turkey. Do we abandon them? Pressure them to be softer on Islamism? Morocco and Tunisia are not democratic, but are relatively liberal, forward looking regimes. Should we pressure them as well? And like Turkey, their geographic position makes them a direct threat to europe.

There is an easy answer, if not an easy solution. The answer is really, that withdrawing from the ME is NOT going to help, and will in all likelihood make things worse. Im all for reducing our reliance on oil - it would give us somewhat more flexibility internationally, and unlike some folks here Im not a global warming skeptic. But it would be a mistake to expect that to enable us to significantly reduce our profile in the region (a fortiori given that US independence still leaves the world economy dependent)

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
"

The idea that all "infidels" must convert or die is not a new idea to religion. It is not caused by the US being involved in ME politics, that's for sure!!

So why exactly is this all happening now? There have always been loonies claiming "infidels", but now you have common man on the street joining up with them because of percieved political issues with the big bad bully on the street. And it isn't because of:"

Weve been over this before. At least in the Arab world, the ideology of hope from 1914 to 1967 was secular pan arab nationalism. That failed in '67, and pan islamic radicalisms appeal spread.


As for Pakistan, the defeat in '71 was the equivalent for secular Paki nationalism. After that the Paki military turned heavily to Islamism for support under Zia, and KSA was deeply tied up in that. KSA was also at the same contesting Egypt for influence in the Arab world

Oh, and, to counter the Iranian rev, KSA started spending lots of money wahabizing the muslim world. Now you CAN blame us for the Iran rev, Mossadegh and all that, but its kinda too late to undo that.

[Arrian]

LotM,

I meant "the beginning" re: OBL. I understand the ideology goes back farther than that.

I think you misread me then.

I wasn't reading you at all. I was talking to PLATO, man.

Turkey is a democracy, but rigidly secular. They have repeated attacked Turkey. Do we abandon them?

No. I mentioned dictatorships & police states... and you bring up Turkey, which is neither. Turkey is doing alright. I'd leave them be, for the most part (while trying to convince them and the Kurds to quit killing each other). In fact, I think we all have to hope Turkey can do well.

As for the rest, I disagree that removing our military from the region won't help. I think it will. But again, I'm talking long-term, not next year.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And IMO, you are creating FAR more than you are killing. You may be dealing heavy blows to the heads (which seem to grow back), but feeding, in vast amounts, the body.

First, its not clear if you are referring specifically to Iraq or to the much broader activity of the WOT.

As for Iraq, theres some dispute about the numbers created. I dont think anyone really knows for sure, and both sides just engage in spin on that.


Anyway, our goal in Iraq CONTINUES to be Iraqization. Even the surge is meant to improve conditions for that, not to avoid it forever. The real policy question now in this regard is whether we create more terrs by staying there, or by withdrawing quick. My read is that the Sunni muslims who are paranoid enough to see our presence in Iraq as an attack on Islam, are just as likely to be radicalized when they see Shia or Kurds (who despite their nominal Sunnism are too secular, to prowestern, and to friendly to Israel) fighting Sunni Arabs.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
LotM,

I meant "the beginning" re: OBL. I understand the ideology goes back farther than that.



I wasn't reading you at all. I was talking to PLATO, man.



No. I mentioned dictatorships & police states... and you bring up Turkey, which is neither. Turkey is doing alright. I'd leave them be, for the most part (while trying to convince them and the Kurds to quit killing each other). In fact, I think we all have to hope Turkey can do well.

As for the rest, I disagree that removing our military from the region won't help. I think it will. But again, I'm talking long-term, not next year.

-Arrian

1.you were talking to Plato, but you referenced me.

2.My point is that just saying "the 'apostate' regimes are all nasty police states" is an oversimplification, one that tends to encourage the notion that we SHOULD leave, or that we are there only for Israel and oil. It also adds complications - if we want to protect Turkey and Tunisia, can we abandon Egypt? What would the fall of Egypt to Islamists mean to Turkey and Tunisia? what would the fall of Algeria mean to Tunisia and Morocco.

I dont much care for Mubaraks internal policies, esp wrt to the secular opposition, such as it is. But I dont think we have a good choice but to mainly support him.

[Arrian]

Most of us would agree that immediate withdrawl is the wrong answer, LotM.

But it remains unclear whether or not we intend to fully withdraw our military from Iraq (now or later), or the region in general (answer to that is no). So the troops will stay, and crazies will be able to rant and rave out crusader armies in Muslim lands.

For what? How much military footprint did we have in the ME in 1990? Very little, IIRC. Yet when Saddam got uppity we were able to plant a half-million man force on his doorstep and then clobber him. Why stay? We can go back if the situation calls for it. We have that capability.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

My point is that just saying "the 'apostate' regimes are all nasty police states" is an oversimplification, one that tends to encourage the notion that we SHOULD leave, or that we are there only for Israel and oil. It also adds complications - if we want to protect Turkey and Tunisia, can we abandon Egypt? What would the fall of Egypt to Islamists mean to Turkey and Tunisia? what would the fall of Algeria mean to Tunisia and Morocco.

Ah, ok. Mostly nasty police states. Not all.

The rest sounds like domino theory, v2.0. I'm not a big fan of the domino theory, myself. Too many assumptions.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
As for the rest, I disagree that removing our military from the region won't help. I think it will. But again, I'm talking long-term, not next year.

-Arrian

What does removing our military from the region mean? Beyond not maintaining a long term presence in Iraq? No more bases in KSA? No presence in Kuwait, or prepositioned stocks in Kuwait? No more naval presence in Bahrain? No more port visits to Alex in Egypt? To Haifa? Should the Euros get out of the UN force in Lebanon? Should the French stop training the Algerian security forces? Should we get out Djibouti?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Madrassas have been around for looooong time before the Arab countries had money. Religious schools have been part of the region for generations. And you have radical Pakistanis, where the amount of kids in the traditional madassa is less than 1%, but a far more radicalized country than even 30 years ago.

To say it is because of madrassas being built by ME countries getting oil money is being silly. Hell, most ME country leadership is far, far, far more moderate and secular than the Islamists. OBL's brand of Islam, Wahabbism is diametrically opposed to, say, Saddam's brand of secular Pan-Arabism.

The person on the street is not radicalized because they were taught to be in religious schools. Those religious schools have been around for generations.

here is a bit of info on just pakistani Madras:

Table 1.
Profile of madrassa education in Pakistan
Number of secondary and higher madrassas 6,000
Senior and graduate level madrassas 4,335
Deobandi madrassas 2,333
Barelvi madrassas 1,625
Ahl-i-Hadith madrassas 224
Shia madrassas 163
Number of all students 604,421
Local students (Pakistani) 586,604
Foreign students 17,817
Afghan students 16,598

Here is a bit of information on how you have been missing the world around you:

Table 2. Growth of higher madrassa education in Pakistan: 1947–2001
Year Number of
madrassas
Number of
teachers
Number of
students
pre-1947 137 … …
1950 210 … …
1960 472 1,846 40,239
1971 908 3,185 45,238
1979 1,745 5,005 99,041
1984 1,953 … …
1986 2,261 12,625 316,380
2001 4,345 * … 604,421

Care to guess who is financing most of it all? I should make you research that one since you obviously haven't a clue about the reality of the impact of the madras, but for everyone else I will post it. Saudi Arabia.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Most of us would agree that immediate withdrawl is the wrong answer, LotM.

But it remains unclear whether or not we intend to fully withdraw our military from Iraq (now or later), or the region in general (answer to that is no). So the troops will stay, and crazies will be able to rant and rave out crusader armies in Muslim lands.

For what? How much military footprint did we have in the ME in 1990? Very little, IIRC. Yet when Saddam got uppity we were able to plant a half-million man force on his doorstep and then clobber him. Why stay? We can go back if the situation calls for it. We have that capability.

-Arrian

The crazies will always have something to rant and rave about. The massacres in Burma (wtf?) our support for the Eevil Hindu civlization. The Joos. Lebanon.

As for 1990, one forgets today, how close a thing that was. Not the war itself obviously. The Saudis almost got cold feet and didnt let us in. Not sure we'd be there in force, in time, to make it worth provoking Saddam. Leaving, now, to avoid provoking radicals in the region, is probably NOT going to inspire their confidence in us.

[PLATO]

Thanks for the thoughtful response Arrian.

Here is a link to the al Qaeda manual:

http://www.disastercenter.com/terror/

Here are a couple of pretty relevant exerpts:

Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it.

The young came to prepare themselves for Jihad [holy war ], commanded by the majestic Allah's order in the holy Koran. [Koranic verse:] "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

It is my contribution toward paving the road that leads to majestic Allah and establishes a caliphate according to the prophecy.

This document lays out a lot of information. There are others that are specific to the establisahment of a worldwide calphate. I will get those links to you as soon as I locate what I did with them!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


What does removing our military from the region mean? Beyond not maintaining a long term presence in Iraq? No more bases in KSA? No presence in Kuwait, or prepositioned stocks in Kuwait? No more naval presence in Bahrain? No more port visits to Alex in Egypt? To Haifa? Should the Euros get out of the UN force in Lebanon? Should the French stop training the Algerian security forces? Should we get out Djibouti?

No bases. I'm inclined to think that naval forces would be of very limited use to AQ et al for propoganda purposes. The UN force in Lebanon as well.

Algeria is a situation I know less about, but what little I do know tells me that French tactics have been questionable.

Djibouti... purpose? If the policy objective trumps its usefulness as a recruiting tool for loonies, then I'd leave it be.

That's the basic calculus I'm arguing for: make damned sure that we NEED troops/ships/etc in a place if we know that having that presence is going to piss off the natives.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Ah, ok. Mostly nasty police states. Not all.

The rest sounds like domino theory, v2.0. I'm not a big fan of the domino theory, myself. Too many assumptions.

-Arrian

Most of the ones we support are NOT nasty police states. The gulfies other than KSA, the Magrebi states, even Jordan. They mainly aint real democracies (thought they often DO have representative bodies with varying degrees of power) , but then Id think folks here are skeptical of imposing democracy on illiberal societies, at this point.

The only real exceptions are KSA and Egypt.

Now if we can figure out a way to secure the gulf, without troops in KSA, id be all for getting out of KSA. I think the radicals will still accuse of supporting KSA as long as deal with them at all though. Alternatvely, there are elements in KSA society, even in the royal family, that would like to switch sides.

Egypt? Well I dont think the domino thing is that far fetched, right now. The arab states are not like SE asia, they have traditions of meddling in each others affairs, merging,etc, etc. And Egypt is much more central to the region than VN was to SE Asia. Its the cultural center, for one thing.

Egypt also may be a key to settling the Israeli-Pal conflict, which settlement, though i dont think its central to ending radicalisms appeal, would certainly help us across the region.