A Question of Motives - Al Qaeda

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO
It sometimes makes you wonder what kool-aid the liberals are looking at. It sure would be nice if their ideas conformed to reality. Unfortunately this is not the case.

AQ has made no secret of their goal. They have even published a manifesto on it

I have made no secret of my goal. I want to seduce Jessica Alba and make her howl like a wolf. I have even published a creepy stalker page detailing my fantasies.

But it won't happen, just as Al Qaeda won't establish a Caliphate.

They seek first to reestablish the Caliphate and thento use it to spread political and religious control to the rest of the world. Period. Their words, not mine.

Won't happen. Most Muslims have little interest in living the spartan and puritanical lives that the Islamists want them to. If Islamists were to achieve power over any significant Arab country, the result would probably be like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Saudi Arabia is actually less free than Iran in many ways, but neither comes close to what fundies like AQ want.

Fear not though! If you are not muslim, then you will be tolereated (once they have control) and be simply taxed for your incorrect beliefs.

Historically, Islam has been one of the more tolerant religions. But that is besides the point. The Islamists have about as much chance of making this work as they do of stopping masturbation.

Now take a quick look at the population and natural resources of the caliphate...throw in nuclear weapons...then throw in religious fanaticism for the soldiers.

They have oil. They have to sell it or their people don't eat. Even if they sell it at twice the current price, it won't make them all rich.

So what if they get nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are good for one thing, and one thing only: deterring attack. That's it. They are utterly useless as offensive weapons. Anyone who looked likely to use them would quickly be removed by their own people. The communist regimes had much greater ideological control over their countries, and even they balked at starting a nuclear conflict.

Iran had fanatic religious soldiers. Still couldn't beat Iraq after nearly a decade of war.

Anyone getting scared yet?

Nope.

Any idiot have any question why we are spending billions over there trying to install moderate governments?

Yes. Why do you think it will work when all the evidence suggests the opposite?

Cheaper in both people and treasure to do what we can to eliminate the problem now. Leaving is the stupidist idea on the planet. Saying that the problem will go away i we do is to deny everything that these people are publically telling you.

Leaving is the only option. You have no alternative other than to stay and bleed casualties and credibility.

All the liberal high brained theories on how we can all get along ignores one small point. They do not want to get along...they want to rule you.

What they want to do and what they can do are different. As I said, I want to do the horizontal mambo with Jessica Alba. But she can sleep easily knowing that this won't happen.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO

I guess by this well reasoned response that you assume that I believe that they could actually win. That would be most naive of you. If people had analyzed the potential of the allies in WWII then they probably would have concluded that Nazi Germany could not have won either. Unfortunately, it took 100 million dead to prove the point.

That kind of war is not feasible any more.

[Ramo]

I guess by this well reasoned response that you assume that I believe that they could actually win.

I was specifically laughing at what you wrote. That you believe that a grand Caliphate is the least bit possible belies an incredible degree of ignorance about the Islamic world. Other than right wingers over here, the only other folks that take this possibility the least bit seriously are hiding in a cave in the Northwest Frontier Provinces of Pakistan.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


Well, Qutb certainly shared some ideas with other Islamist schools of thought, but again, violence or intolerance isn't the distinction I was getting at. It's between a pragmatic local focus and a pie in the sky dream for a revived Caliphate. And Hamas is definitely in the former camp. After all, they were participating in elections, even abiding by a cease fire with Israel for the year after taking power. I mean, why isn't there sharia in Gaza? The vast majority of Islamist groups could be characterized in this way. And they can be negotiated with, and in the process moderate.

Its fairly easy to explain why there wouldnt be sharia in Gaza now, even if Hamas' goal was to establish Sharia. They want to rule not only Gaza, all Palestine. To declare Sharia now would undermine their political position in the West Bank, and reduce their chances of eventually conquering/absorbing Israel. Also, even if Sharia is not their goal, that would hardly indicated that they are moderate wrt to Israel. George Habash certainly didnt aim for Sharia, yet he was no moderate wrt Israel. OTOH, if they WERE moderates WRT Israel, who wanted a two state solution, that would hardly prove that they didnt aim for Sharia in Palestine.

And they could well want BOTH to eliminate Israel, AND to establish Sharia in Palestine, without aiming for a caliphate.


OTOH the fact that folks dont aim for a Caliphate doesnt mean they wouldnt cooperate with one if it started to emerge. Hungarian rightists in the 1930s, Prussian officers in the 1920s etc. etc didnt aim to have a German world state run on racialist lines, but when it was pragmatic to go along with such in order to accomplish their own more limited aims, they did so.

In the unlikely event that a caliphate began to emerge as something bigger than what the Taliban ran pre-2001 (and yes, I know they didnt actually declare a Caliphate) it would reach out for the support of many for whom the Caliphate is not now their aim.

[Ramo]

We are now seeing production of military armaments in Iran on a scale that the ME has never seen before.

Who would never, ever, ever, ever be in any kind of Caliphate. Starting with the obvious, they're Shia, while 90% of the Islamic world is Sunni. Complicating matters is that their population is secular leaning, the reactionary forces suffered a major defeat in the expediency council elections (and those elected in turn pick the Supreme Leader), and Ahmedinejad is widely expected to be kicked out of office in 2009.

We have a nuclear capable Pakistan with a huge fundamentalist movement.

Who only managed to get ~10% in the 2002 election at the height of their popularity, despite Musharraf rigging the polls against his secular opposition. Then they got soundly spanked in the provincial elections of 2005 after trying to implement their agenda.

We have a leader of a country vowing the annihilation of another country in the area.

A guy with little power, no credibility, and is going to be gone in a couple years.

[q]We have fundamentalist revolutionary movements in nearly all arab countries.[/quote]

Nearly all of whom care much more about their local concerns than a pan-Islamic Caliphate.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon

little interest in living the spartan and puritanical lives that the Islamists want them to. If Islamists were to achieve power over any significant Arab country, the result would probably be like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Saudi Arabia is actually less free than Iran in many ways, but neither comes close to what fundies like AQ want.

The majority of Pashtuns in Afghanistan were happy to live such lives, and they non-Pashtuns and anti-Taliban Pashtuns were not able to push them out. A similar regime managed to survive in Sudan for some time. AQ was quite ok with the KSA regime, until it let Americans in, and AFAIK all they ask of KSA is that it toss the Americans out. AFAICT AQ is capable of moderatings its domestic policies to some extent to increase its ability to survive in power.

A govt dominated by radical Islamists with links to AQ also briefly took power in Somalia, before being driven out by Ethiopian troops. The real problem creating a Caliphate is not that there are no places where it would have sufficient popularity to take power, but that neighboring states are prepared to stamp it out as soon as it arises.

What would happen if it took power in a state too big for that (and the only immediate prospect is Pakistan, about which Ramo and I are not in complete agreement) is unclear.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
[Who only managed to get ~10% in the 2002 electionat the height of their popularity, despite Musharraf rigging the polls against his secular opposition. Then they got soundly spanked in the provincial elections of 2005 after trying to implement their agenda.

I still see no evidence that the MMA was helped by Musharaffs vote rigging (as opposed to Musharaffs own party)

Nor am I convinced that every potential supporter of a more Islamist Pakistan voted for the MMA in 2002.

[Ramo]

Its fairly easy to explain why there wouldnt be sharia in Gaza now, even if Hamas' goal was to establish Sharia. They want to rule not only Gaza, all Palestine. To declare Sharia now would undermine their political position in the West Bank, and reduce their chances of eventually conquering/absorbing Israel. Also, even if Sharia is not their goal, that would hardly indicated that they are moderate wrt to Israel. George Habash certainly didnt aim for Sharia, yet he was no moderate wrt Israel. OTOH, if they WERE moderates WRT Israel, who wanted a two state solution, that would hardly prove that they didnt aim for Sharia in Palestine.

And they could well want BOTH to eliminate Israel, AND to establish Sharia in Palestine, without aiming for a caliphate.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. My point is that Hamas is much more concerned about their own parochial interests and political survival rather than establishing a Caliphate. Yes, if there were some seismic shifts in the nature of politics in the Islamic world, maybe, possibly that would change. But I'm not seeing any such shifts. Hamas is fundamentally a different beast from, i.e. the Army of Islam that kidnapped Alan Johnston.

I still see no evidence that the MMA was helped by Musharaffs vote rigging (as opposed to Musharaffs own party)

No, there were definitely biases against the secular opposition that was not applied to MMA. For example, Bhutto and Sharif were banned from the country, preventing their biggest draws from campaigning for their parties and disillusioning their supporters. And Musharraf banned those without university degrees from standing for election, but allowed clerics and military officers.

Nor am I convinced that every potential supporter of a more Islamist Pakistan voted for the MMA in 2002.

The PML may have moderately Islamist constituencies in the same way the GOP has moderately Christianist (to use Andrew Sullivan's term) constituencies, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in Islamabad?

[PLATO]

Man...I hope Ramo and Agathon are right. (I also am pulling for Agathon and Jessica Alba )

I still believe that you guys are underestimating the power of a fundamentalist religious movement. They certainly do not have to be a majority to win. Your Iran example is a perfect example. The Shia-Sunni rift is a major obstacle for sure, but I am not sure that it is enough to stop things.

Let's look at just Iran then...I would think it likely that they will obtain defacto control over Iraq if we leave. I also think it likely that an Iranian-Syrian alliance is coming fast (if not already here). Let's combine that with the strong possibility of Hizbullah taking control in Lebanon if the US leaves the area. If all that happens, then what do you think the consequences are for Israel? Or even Saudi Arabia for that matter.

Okay...you say these are all doomsday forecasts. Well, maybe so. I would just prefer to do what it takes to create a stable, US friendly Iraq and keep hitting the terrorist over there.

You see...this is the problem with liberal viewpoints. It all looks so good when you write it down. We all want the type scenarios that you guys detail. There are just some of us who question (and rather strongly) the fact that the fundamentalists will react as you have predicted...and some of us not willing to bet the future on it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


I'm not really sure what you're getting at. My point is that Hamas is much more concerned about their own parochial interests and political survival rather than establishing a Caliphate. Yes, if there were some seismic shifts in the nature of politics in the Islamic world, maybe, possibly that would change. But I'm not seeing any such shifts. Hamas is fundamentally a different beast from, i.e. the Army of Islam that kidnapped Alan Johnston.



No, there were definitely biases against the secular opposition that was not applied to MMA. For example, Bhutto and Sharif were banned from the country, preventing their biggest draws from campaigning for their parties and disillusioning their supporters. And Musharraf banned those without university degrees from standing for election, but allowed clerics and military officers.



The PML may have moderately Islamist constituencies in the same way the GOP has moderately Christianist (to use Andrew Sullivan's term) constituencies, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in Islamabad?

1. I dont see Hamas as aiming for a caliphate, and I do see them as having primarily a local concern. I was merely contesting your side comments that indicated that they are genuinely moderate wrt Israel, and uninterested in Sharia. (Its also quite clear that Hamas will make alliances with others with different goals to achieve their aims - they are currently closely aligned with Iran for example)

2. I wasnt thinking so much of other parties, as I was of ordinary voters who vote for a secular party out considerations such as deference to a local landlord or party boss, but who have no particular allegiance to secularism as an ideology. My impression was that this made up no small number of Pakistani voters. That indicates to me that in the event an Islamist govt came to power, say through the army shifting positions again, it could well be a stable govt domestically, despite the small number of MMA voters.



heres an interesting article on Paki politics, suggesting thats while the electoral threat from the MMA is not real, the problems in Pakistani civilian politics, and the institutional strength of the army, are quite real.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86407-p40/daniel-markey/a-false-choice-in-pakistan.html

Here on the other hand, is Bhutto, suggesting the US is ready to deal with her return.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070723/wl_sthasia_afp/pakistanpoliticsbhutto_070723131607

[Ramo]

I was merely contesting your side comments that indicated that they are genuinely moderate wrt Israel, and uninterested in Sharia.

That wasn't really the intent of of comments. It was that they to bowed to practical concerns like constituent will.

I wasnt thinking so much of other parties, as I was of ordinary voters who vote for a secular party out considerations such as deference to a local landlord or party boss, but who have no particular allegiance to secularism as an ideology. My impression was that this made up no small number of Pakistani voters. That indicates to me that in the event an Islamist govt came to power, say through the army shifting positions again, it could well be a stable govt domestically, despite the small number of MMA voters.

How would you estimate these numbers? Incidentally, from the first page of your article:

Only blatantly rigged elections would be likely to boost the Islamists' share of the vote above the historic highs achieved in 2002. Free and fair elections would favor mainstream parties, enabling a negotiated alliance between the army and a new, more progressive government.

Looks like an interesting article, but maybe the discussion should be shifted to the Pakistan thread...

[Ramo]

Here on the other hand, is Bhutto, suggesting the US is ready to deal with her return.

There's an interesting Guardian article that I linked to on the other thread about this.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ramo
Well, Qutb certainly shared some ideas with other Islamist schools of thought, but again, violence or intolerance isn't the distinction I was getting at. It's between a pragmatic local focus and a pie in the sky dream for a revived Caliphate. And Hamas is definitely in the former camp.

Agreed. Hamas is most certainly the most nationalist and limited-goal Islamist organization.

And yet you have to acknowledge that they do want to set up an Islamic state in Palestine, and such a state would have natural allies with other states.

I can also give you examples of Hamas propoganda which includes praise and support for Chechen resistance against Russia etc. This is a unique thing, but it certainly exists.

After all, they were participating in elections, even abiding by a cease fire with Israel for the year after taking power.

Participating in local elections does not exclude the thought of a larger more just union.

The Egyptian islamists are now participating in parliament elections and they are certainly 'internationalist' (though not as radical as AQ).

I mean, why isn't there sharia in Gaza? The vast majority of Islamist groups could be characterized in this way.

They do not want to allienate people.

But reports coming out of Gaza say that people started growing beards by the hundreds, to avoid getting profiled as pro-Fatah.

Also, for about a year now, Hamas militants have been patrolling areas with a 'modesty' squad. They've set aflames undecent shops and places, and physically harmed young couples whom they caught making out.

And they can be negotiated with, and in the process moderate.

I don't see their opinions getting moderate at all.

Each time they declared a new that they don't acknowledge Israel etc.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO
Man...I hope Ramo and Agathon are right. (I also am pulling for Agathon and Jessica Alba )

Thanks mate. I'll be waiting for her call.

I still believe that you guys are underestimating the power of a fundamentalist religious movement. They certainly do not have to be a majority to win.

I see Al Qaeda as being much more like the Baader Meinhof gang and the Red Brigades than a serious political movement. Hamas is a serious political movement, as was the IRA. Both of these organizations had well-defined political programs, and Hamas is experienced in providing governmental services. Organizations like the BMG and the RB are merely attempting to provoke revolution by violent means. Neither has thought very much in practical terms about what happens after that. Neither has Al Qaeda, as far as I know.

Even if Al Qaeda could overcome that problem. They still have to deal with the fact that a lot of the people they will be ruling will not want to live under the austere lifestyle of the Islamists, and many of them won't be Sunnis and will resist. Even if Islamist governments came to power in every Muslim country, it would be very hard to turn them into one cohesive political entity, as Al Qaeda would like. It would take years, and the resulting entity would be so weakly tied together as to pose little threat to anyone else.

Even if we restrict ourselves to Iraq, an Islamist government is going to face massive internal problems as it tries to balance competing interest groups.

Your Iran example is a perfect example. The Shia-Sunni rift is a major obstacle for sure, but I am not sure that it is enough to stop things.

If the resultant state turned out to be like Iran, then we wouldn't have that much to worry about. Iran is a strange country in many respects. In some ways it's like the US, only set up to preserve Islamic principles rather than the secular Enlightenment principles of the US. There is considerable dissent in Iran, and the various power groups cannot impose their will without some sort of restraint. It's far more democratic in its own way than other Middle Eastern States (excepting Lebanon and Israel).

While the Iranian system is somewhat odd, and in some cases repugnant, it is nowhere near being as bad as Mao's China or Amin's Uganda. I would certainly prefer to live in Iran than in Saudi Arabia, personally.

Let's look at just Iran then...I would think it likely that they will obtain defacto control over Iraq if we leave. I also think it likely that an Iranian-Syrian alliance is coming fast (if not already here). Let's combine that with the strong possibility of Hizbullah taking control in Lebanon if the US leaves the area. If all that happens, then what do you think the consequences are for Israel? Or even Saudi Arabia for that matter.

Hezbollah could not exercise absolute power in Lebanon. It controls some regions of the country, but is irrelevant in other parts. I doubt that the Druze and Christians would lie down for it.

Israel is faced with the problem that it was a lousy idea in the first place. It might be possible for it to do some deal that will allow it to continue, but that seems unlikely. It's also unlikely that the US will continue to be so generous forever, and outside the US Israel is probably the world's most hated nation. Demography is not on Israel's side, and it is unlikely that the Arab countries will be as supine as they are now for the next 50 years.

The Saudis are probably screwed no matter what. The regime is rotten and there are a huge number of young people with no prospects who live there. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up like Ceauscescu's Romania. Again, like Romania, a Saudi Revolution would have too many of its own problems to solve to be much of a threat. Whatever happens they can't stop pumping oil because they need to feed themselves.

Okay...you say these are all doomsday forecasts. Well, maybe so. I would just prefer to do what it takes to create a stable, US friendly Iraq and keep hitting the terrorist over there.

If you'd wanted a stable, US friendly Iraq, then the easiest solution would be to have bought off Saddam Hussein. He wasn't motivated by anti-Americanism and would have loved to get back in the US's good books. You might have been able to screw some basing rights out of him.

You see...this is the problem with liberal viewpoints. It all looks so good when you write it down. We all want the type scenarios that you guys detail. There are just some of us who question (and rather strongly) the fact that the fundamentalists will react as you have predicted...and some of us not willing to bet the future on it.

It's no longer a case of what you want. When you invaded Iraq, you removed the Hussein regime and it is now clear that neither you, nor anyone else friendly to the US, has the power to replace it. Whether the Iranians can install a friendly regime is up in the air, but it is clear that the US can do nothing in Iraq. I don't think any other western country can do anything either. We will just have to leave them to sort themselves out and try to live with the consequences. There really isn't another option. While you may disagree with the liberals over what may happen, it is a moot point, since none of us can do anything about it.

While there will probably be some bull**** report about the success of the "surge" and then a gradual withdrawal, it is clear that the US has already suffered a defeat in Iraq. Worse, the US has suffered a major strategic defeat in the Middle East, as its failure has handed its enemy, Iran, a greatly expanded influence in the region. Moreover, the US has burned up much of the good will it enjoyed among the peoples of the world, who will now influence their governments to see the US as a malign influence, or at least an influence to be handled with caution. Already, Latin American countries are openly defying the US, and there seems to be little the US can do about it.

The US military has also been exposed as incapable of conquering and holding a country. Everyone now knows that Vietnam was not a one off. The US can bomb a country and can take out various targets, but it is incapable of forcing a determined and defiant enemy to do its will. The basic problem is that you can't conquer countries any more. It doesn't work.

Osama bin Laden has won. That sounds bad, but the truth is that he won what he set out to do, which is to lure the US into a war that it could not win (as happened to the USSR). That was the point of 9/11 - to provoke that reaction.

Unfortunately for Osama bin Laden, his prize is a ****ed and ungovernable country, where the most influential elements are people he considers to be enemies of God. I have serious doubts as to whether he or his minions will ever be able to clear up the mess and make any great accomplishment from it. It's quite clear that he has no real plan for what to do with it, and he will now reap the whirlwind.

[Ramo]

And yet you have to acknowledge that they do want to set up an Islamic state in Palestine, and such a state would have natural allies with other states.

To an extent. But I don't see exporting the revolution as ever being a paramount policy goal.

Participating in local elections does not exclude the thought of a larger more just union.

The Egyptian islamists are now participating in parliament elections and they are certainly 'internationalist' (though not as radical as AQ).

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Islamism in the MB vein isn't an internationalist ideology. But at the same time it isn't exclusively focused on an international agenda. That's the distinction between itself and AQ. And that distinction lead to the Egyptian Brotherhood's participation in the political process (despite Mubarak's repression; MB members have to run as "independents"), renouncing violence, etc.

They do not want to allienate people.

But reports coming out of Gaza say that people started growing beards by the hundreds, to avoid getting profiled as pro-Fatah.

Also, for about a year now, Hamas militants have been patrolling areas with a 'modesty' squad. They've set aflames undecent shops and places, and physically harmed young couples whom they caught making out.

Like I was saying, I'm definitely not saying that Hamas is moderate. Just that the reality of political power forced it into the process of moderation. The indefinite cease-fire was a good example of that. Though this trend was obviously scuttled with recent events.

It takes time, but that's a pretty decent general rule. Like how the reality of political power forced Likud to moderate to some extent.