US warns Americans from traveling anywhere and doing anything.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

You omitted (d): destroy them, so that there are none left to do it again, or if any are left are too fearful of the consequences to repeat the experiment.

while this is a handy suggestion it doesn't seem to be practical either as seen in the current Iraq situation or in History - even 'defeated' terrorists like the Shining path are on the come back trail.

The sad reality you seem to not want to face is that when terrorists have defined political ends appeasement works - see the IRA and also on and off ETA and the PLO. Now AQ has no defined political end - so absolutely correct there is no negotiating with them.

But since AQ feeds of of tractable political problems whether it is political rule in Saudi Arabia or the lack of political expression in egypt, iran, pakistan etc etc there is a political solution. Israel has IMHO nothing to do with it, I agree with reposte on this; its a lightening rod and nothing else.

Can the 'west' do something about the puss in the boil yes it can - we just don't really want to have to deal with the consequences that might entail in the short term. A democratic middle east would be a very anti-western place for quite some time.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by keith

while this is a handy suggestion it doesn't seem to be practical either as seen in the current Iraq situation or in History - even 'defeated' terrorists like the Shining path are on the come back trail.

I had not heard that Shining Path had ever been 'defeated'.

However, I take your general point. It's difficult to uproot a guerrilla movement entirely. It wants measures that we are probably not prepared to take---ones that would damage our self-image and our reputation, such as any tatters of it remain, with the all-important "international community".

Still, the prospects are not entirely bleak. Terrorist groups have been all but destroyed before. Egypt managed it with the Muslim Brotherhood. We no longer hear from some of the big major names of the last century, like Baader-Meinhof and Rengko Sekigun, much less domestic examples like SDS and SLA. It is possible to marginalize and crush, even if it tends to take longer than fickle public support can be maintained in the face of inflicted pain...

A democratic middle east would be a very anti-western place for quite some time.

Possibly, but not necessarily.

In any event, we need to rid ourselves of the short-sightedness which afflicts American foreign policy and take the long view. How we are to do this given a political system which makes change and often complete reversal of outlook almost inevitable every 4 or 8 years I do not know...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

In any event, we need to rid ourselves of the short-sightedness which afflicts American foreign policy and take the long view. How we are to do this given a political system which makes change and often complete reversal of outlook almost inevitable every 4 or 8 years I do not know...

A point that I have made on several occasions. However, many people conveniently disregard the really long view. History teaches us that dominating countries do eventually sink down into lesser power and then obscurity. It can take centuries, but it will happen - if not by external factors, then by internal decay.

What about the options for US. foreign policy in year 2700, assuming that USA is a 2nd-tier (or lower) power then? By pissing enough people off now, the USA is setting itself up for successful revenge then. The muslim forces won a battle over the serbs in the 1380ies, and that battle was successfully used by Milosevic on its 600th anniversary to goad the serbian population into getting back at the present-day muslims, the bosnians. So, holding a grudge for 600 years is entirely possible. There are multiple examples of other multi-century grudges, I will let that be an Google exercise to the interested reader.

As to your near-genocide solution outlined in a recent post: Once one goes down that path, then all other options quickly become closed. Kill a significant percentage of the muslim population, and almost all countries would be so angry so that they would do anything in their power to go against the USA. One by one they would not amount to much, but all 200 banded together would be a major thing. At its present power, the USA could still force its way in all issues important to it, but that would require constant forcing - which would in and of itself be a resource drain on the USA.

(If the US. armed forces thinks that the present Iraq war is a problem with recruitment, just imagine what sending the forces necessary to police a restive Europe would mean!)

On the problem of changing foreign policies: The founding fathers did probably not envision a situation where the USA would be dominating the world, so they did not think of this flip-flop problem. If the white house was not premitted to hire and fire people in the state department in its own presidency, but instead was permitted to name the people slated for the next presidency, then a bit of the reversal problem would be alleviated. However, that would engender several other problems.

Simple solution: if the USA would have a middle east policy similar to that of any average European country - priorites being ensuring access to the Suez canal and oil, while at the same time abstaining from military power - and most importantly, dumping other objectives - then everything would be much easier. Fat chance.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Back to the original topic of safety abroad for americans.

I have been traveling around a bit in the latest weeks, both here and in other countries. I have overheard several americans talking about politics, and one thing has come up enough times so that it is not just a quirk of chance.

Many americans speaking about politics abroad are very much against Bush, his policies, and indeed everything that he stands for. I have not overheard any instance of pro-Bush political speech at all. this should be contrasted with the fact that both parties got comparable percentages of the popular vote in the latest election.

Why is this? I see at least two different explanations, both of which may be correct in different instances.
1. A segment of the democrat voter base is much more likely to travel than average GOP voter. One could contrast blue-state, University-linked, well-off but not necessarily affluent to red-state person who seldom leaves his home state.
2. USA travelers feel a need to speak anti-Bush, maybe to make ordinary people around them more happy/inclined to help them, or that they genuinely are concerned that not doing so would make them more likely terrorist targets.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Gav]

Point 2 is a discinct possibility I think.

I think that point 1 comes into play a lot. If you look at the distribution of US votes then the most likely Democrat 1 vote comes from the cosmopolitan big cities. The inhabitants of these are the most likely to travel 2 and thus are the most likely to be anti-Bush.


1. Surely this is a generalisation? There must be Republicans who don't like Bush. Dividing the country in two like that suggests over-simplification to me.
2. A lot of Scottish people, we get to meet US travellers regularly, find themselves frequently asking why; if these are the ones most likely to travel, and therefore the most receptive to the outside world, are american tourists so ignorant?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

You omitted (d): destroy them, so that there are none left to do it again, or if any are left are too fearful of the consequences to repeat the experiment.

How exactly would you complete this extermination? Go into each and every country (not just the Muslim countries), identify the individuals of Middle Eastern descendancy and excecute them? Bomb Mecca? Take out the entire Middle East?

As has been continually stated by event the current Admin, this is NOT a conventional war. Yet, for some reasons we ( read you and them), seem to want to address it as such. What exactly about the term "suicide" bomber makes you believe that they will be willing to stop because we obliterated a country or rounded up a few hundred thousand Muslims who may or may not be terrorists. As we've seen in London, the problem is like a cancer that has spread into nearly every country with a Muslim influence. They see their Islamic roots as their first allegiance. Country comes in a far third.

Did invading Afghanistan AND Iraq stop terrorism. No. Terrorists events have actually increased. I'm sure in the minds of those who feel might makes right that the problem is we just need to keep lobbing increasing amounts of bombs at them. Problem with that is for every legitimate terrorist that is killed, there are a certain amount of civilians killed. You kill one (civilian or terrorist or armed insurgent, whatever you want to call them), and now his/her's brothers, cousins, uncles, sisters, and daughters now feel they have a legitimate reason to hate you.

We declare ourselves as being a civilized nation. Perhaps we could address the problem better by acting like one. For every act of terrorism, large or small, we (again, read you and them) seem to be willing to commit far worse atrocities. How does that make us ( you and them) any better than the terrorists? Though we have a moral imperative to defend ourselves, the methods which we use to do so are highly questionable morally and don't have a definitive efficacy. If something hasn't worked for the past 20, 30, 40 years, isn't it time to adjust? Wouldn't that be the true hallmark of a powerful nation?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

A point that I have made on several occasions. However, many people conveniently disregard the really long view.

By the "long view" I really meant with respect to Keith's belief that "A democratic middle east would be a very anti-western place for quite some time". That is to say, it might indeed be so, but need not and probably would not remain so indefinitely. Theoretically, the benefits of democracy themselves would go a long way toward remedying many of the problems usually cited as the roots of extremism: poverty, oppression, etc. If so the US need not even be involved politically. This is one reason why I think it's so important that greater freedom come to a place like Iran, where enmity toward the US and the West generally is almost entirely a product of the policies of the ruling mullahcracy---the people themselves seem to have moved away from the 1980s religious antiAmericanism, and probably would have done so to an even greater extent were their government not still expecting them to display a good measure of rote hostility on demand...

What about the options for US. foreign policy in year 2700, assuming that USA is a 2nd-tier (or lower) power then? By pissing enough people off now, the USA is setting itself up for successful revenge then.

I do not worry unduly about this; the outcome you suggest is far from inevitable. Where for example is the vengeance lust against Britain, which behaved in as high-handed a way toward certain of its former possessions as ever the US has latterly? Where is the legacy of hatred for Italy and Germany for WWII, or in the case of the former for the oppressions of Rome? Is Latin America carrying a torch of crusade against Spain? Is Algeria still nursing a grudge against France?

The muslim forces won a battle over the serbs in the 1380ies, and that battle was successfully used by Milosevic on its 600th anniversary to goad the serbian population into getting back at the present-day muslims, the bosnians. So, holding a grudge for 600 years is entirely possible.

Useful symbolism aside, that conflict was not really about history, but about religious hatreds and political jealousies. Though if you want real grudges over past acts you need look no further than relations between Greece and Turkey.

In any event, I would like to think that Islam will by that time have undergone the same mellowing, moderating effects of age and maturity which Christianity seems to have experienced. Hopefully it will be helped along by greater material prosperity and political participation in the Muslim world...

As to your near-genocide solution outlined in a recent post: Once one goes down that path, then all other options quickly become closed. Kill a significant percentage of the muslim population, and almost all countries would be so angry so that they would do anything in their power to go against the USA.

You exaggerate my "solution" grossly. I do not think that the radicalized, energized segment of the Muslim population amount to anywhere near that percentage of the total population, and I do not think it would be necessary to kill off a significant portion of that group before the rest were deterred. Certainly the Egyptian government did not need to engage in "near genocide" to crush the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance.

(If the US. armed forces thinks that the present Iraq war is a problem with recruitment, just imagine what sending the forces necessary to police a restive Europe would mean!)

Man, you are really envisioning a slippery slope of bobsled-run proportions here, aren't you? From harsh action against Islamic terrorists to occupying Europe! Wow...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

How exactly would you complete this extermination? Go into each and every country (not just the Muslim countries), identify the individuals of Middle Eastern descendancy and excecute them? Bomb Mecca? Take out the entire Middle East?

A straw man so titanic that I shan't even bother to tackle it, it will topple under its own weight...

What exactly about the term "suicide" bomber makes you believe that they will be willing to stop because we obliterated a country or rounded up a few hundred thousand Muslims who may or may not be terrorists.

They are still human. Humans can be pressured. They may not value their own lives, but there WILL be things they DO value, and those can be attacked. It remains to be found what those things are.

More importantly, whatever the pundits you read may tell you there simply is not an inexhaustible supply of zealots willing to blow themselves up on the off chance of killing a few of their enemies. By definition, each one removes himself from the supply and cannot go on to raise and indoctrinate others. He is a finite commodity...and given the right tactics could be made a whole lot more finite.

Personally, I'd like to see a much more targeted campaign against the sources of support and creation of this group. I'd like to see clerics who preach violence and provide the justifications for crimes not only deported from civilized countries but treated like Israel treated Hamas' "spiritual leaders" the last few years. Yes, that means killed. I'd like to see madrassas known to produce jihadists shut down and if their host countries refused to do so then I'd like to see them physically destroyed. This might well mean bombing runs by US warplanes or cruise missiles. I'd like to see groups which gather and provide financial resources to terrorist groups not only have assets frozen and conduits closed but ruined financially---put out of business and their proprietors driven into poverty, by whatever means necessary.

As we've seen in London, the problem is like a cancer that has spread into nearly every country with a Muslim influence. They see their Islamic roots as their first allegiance. Country comes in a far third.

Indeed. However, it is not inevitable. We do not have the same sort of dangerous, isolated enclaves as France and Great Britain; this is a function of the way immigrant communities are treated in the various countries.

Did invading Afghanistan AND Iraq stop terrorism. No. Terrorists events have actually increased.

"Events", defined how?

In any case, I have already said that we do not have the stomach for the sorts of measures necessary to stop terrorism. The reason we did not stamp it out in Afghanistan and Iraq is because we haven't really tried.

You kill one (civilian or terrorist or armed insurgent, whatever you want to call them), and now his/her's brothers, cousins, uncles, sisters, and daughters now feel they have a legitimate reason to hate you.

Oderint dum metuant.

We declare ourselves as being a civilized nation. Perhaps we could address the problem better by acting like one. For every act of terrorism, large or small, we (again, read you and them) seem to be willing to commit far worse atrocities.

Ess, you have gone off the deep end with your partisan dislike for "them"...

Seen "us" beheading anyone lately? Seen "us" flying planes into any mosques? Seen "us" hving jubilant dance parties around the strung-up burned bodies of civilian contractors of our enemies?

Get a grip.

If something hasn't worked for the past 20, 30, 40 years, isn't it time to adjust?

Yes, indeed. Half-measures and overnice concern haven't worked. It IS time to adjust. Not by singing kumbaya, though. IMO adjusting in the opposite direction is indicated.

Of course, it won't happen. Not until we are the victims of a much worse attack than heretofore, anyway.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

{snip}
Oderint dum metuant.

And how'd that work out for Caligua?

--Philistine

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by Gav

Point 2 is a discinct possibility I think.

I think that point 1 comes into play a lot. If you look at the distribution of US votes then the most likely Democrat 1 vote comes from the cosmopolitan big cities. The inhabitants of these are the most likely to travel 2 and thus are the most likely to be anti-Bush.


1. Surely this is a generalisation? There must be Republicans who don't like Bush. Dividing the country in two like that suggests over-simplification to me.
2. A lot of Scottish people, we get to meet US travellers regularly, find themselves frequently asking why; if these are the ones most likely to travel, and therefore the most receptive to the outside world, are american tourists so ignorant?

Well, I'm pro-Bush. But by no means can I support everything he does or says. I criticize him loudly and often, call him a moron and worse, but that doesn't mean I don't support him.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

{snip} I criticize him loudly and often, call him a moron and worse, but that doesn't mean I don't support him.

What do you do to people you don't support?



--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

And how'd that work out for Caligua?

--Philistine

Pithy, but Caligula didn't have the NSA, the CIA, Tomcats and cruise missiles.

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by Philistine

And how'd that work out for Caligua?

--Philistine

Common misattribution. Actually a line from one of Lucius Accius' plays, written about 170BC.

And it wasn't the hate/fear thing that didn't work for Caligula. It was his utter insanity. The hate/fear thing worked very well for innumerable others throughout history.

But I'd hate and fear the possibility that WE would ever subscribe to that approach.

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by Philistine

What do you do to people you don't support?



--Philistine

I withhold from them my support. If I feel strongly enough, I may even go so far as to explain why.

When someone whose policies and general direction you actually agree with messes up, it's so much more upsetting, isn't it?

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Pithy, but Caligula didn't have the NSA, the CIA, Tomcats and cruise missiles.

On the other hand his enemies didn't have potential access to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

Nor was their main tactic suicde attacks on civilians.

--Philiistine

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

But I'd hate and fear the possibility that WE would ever subscribe to that approach.

You might hate and fear the grave, too. Me, I'd rather make the other poor dumb bastard die for HIS jihad.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Common misattribution. Actually a line from one of Lucius Accius' plays, written about 170BC.

True--but Caligula was the most famous quoter of the line.

And it wasn't the hate/fear thing that didn't work for Caligula. It was his utter insanity. The hate/fear thing worked very well for innumerable others throughout history.

Has it? And for how long? Not to get into a discussion of the history--but I just don't think it is an effective strategy in modern times--as well as having concerns with the morality of a full-fledged acceptance (not that I think anyone is actually advocating it).

But I'd hate and fear the possibility that WE would ever subscribe to that approach.

I agree.

--Philistine