Famed LDS author and Democrat Orson Scott Card writes that Tuesday’s election only has one issue: the war on terror. I couldn’t help but think of the Ender’s Game books as I read Card’s analysis. (Did you know that some middle schools, military schools and high schools have Ender’s Game as required reading?)
The Millennial Star
He lost me with this: …the only possible conclusion is that this is the best-run war in history, with the fewest mistakes…
Uncle Orson (as jatraqueros call him) is no more a Democrat than I’m a Martian.
so sad to see how little Mr. Card knows about foreign policy. so sad.
OSC is a registered republican, as far as I know, due to his disagreement with the democratic party on some key issues…
He claims in his article that he is a democrat.
Orson Scott Card is registered as a Democrat. If you read his essays at ornery.org (where this essay was originally posted), you find out why:
He supports Affirmative Action and Gun Control. He considers the Republican hopelessly racist in the area of Civil rights. He also likes progressive taxation, and spends a lot of time attacking the rich for exploiting the poor.
However, like Joe Lieberman, he supports Bush in the War on Terror. For some Democrats, who seem only interested in ideological purity, that’s enough to claim he’s really a Republican. But that stance comes from a misguided, misinformed, purely partisan reading.
To follow up on Ivan’s comment, here’s a detailed look from Wikipedia on Orson Scott Card’s politics:
The link is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card
You may also want to Google “Orson Scott Card Democrat” for the many articles he has written on the subject. It seems to me if somebody identifies himself or herself as a Democrat, we should take them at their word. Whether or not they agree with the Democratic party on all subjects is another issue.
Political identification
Card identifies himself as a Democrat, which he asserts is because he is pro-gun control/anti-NRA, is highly critical of free-market capitalism, and believes the Republican party in the South continues to tolerate racism. Card encapsulated his views thus:[10]
Orson Scott Card
Maybe the Democrats will even accept the idea that sometimes the people don’t want to create your utopian vision (especially when your track record is disastrous and your “utopias” keep looking like hell)… The Democratic Party ought to be standing as the bulwark of the little guy against big money and rapacious free-market capitalism, here and abroad. After all, the Republicans seem to be dominated by their own group of insane utopians — when they’re not making huggy-huggy with all those leftover racists from the segregationist past.
Orson Scott Card
He has described himself as a Moynihan Democrat, and later as a “Tony Blair” Democrat, saying he has to look outside the U.S. for someone representative for his views now that Moynihan has died and the Democrats oppose Bush. He has written columns condemning extremist liberals as being part of what’s wrong with America, and praises Zell Miller for trying to save the Democratic Party. During the 2004 election Card wrote many articles supporting the Bush/Cheney ticket, criticizing John Kerry, and lambasting his own state’s senator, John Edwards, as being absurd, insincere, and an opportunistic shill. Prior to the 2004 presidential race, Card had written that his state needed to regain control from people like Edwards and advocated running a strong primary opponent against Edwards should he run for reelection to the Senate.[11] He has also been a staunch defender of Fox News, stating that “It’s a good feeling to hear about our war from people who actually think it would be a good thing if we win.”[9] Card also publicly endorses children of illegal immigrants receiving in-state college tuition rates,[12] has stated there is a need for moderation in tax cuts,[13] and opposes unfettered deregulation.[citation needed]
Morality
Consistent with his beliefs as a Latter-day Saint, he is opposed to pre-marital sex (castigating Smallville for interjecting sensuality into a teen-oriented show)[14] and same-sex marriage (believing homosexual acts to be a sin, and homosexual marriage to be a perilous experiment on the core social institution).[15]
It’s interesting to note how often people attack the writer himself rather than engage his ideas. OSC raises some interesting ideas in his article. Does nobody want to deal with them?
Ivan,
I never claimed he wasn’t a democrat. I merely stated what he said himself. As to his views of the war on terror, well, he is with the wrong side. He’ll come to regret it at some point, whether in this life or the next.
oops, I was backwards. Of course, since OSC is pro-husband and wife only marriage, pro-bush, pro-war on terror, pro-war in iraq, and pro-life. It’s easy to see where the mix up comes in.
Geoff,
Sure, I’ll get into all his mistakes if you really want me to. But yes, I do believe he knows very little when it comes to foreign policy.
Matt,
OSC is one of those Democrats that apparently was very traumatized by 9/11 and lost all sense of reason and followed emotion rather than logic…..oops I’m attacking him again.
Dan, you commented at length on war on the other thread. No reason to re-state any of that. But comment away if you have anything deeper to say on his article, the substance of which I agree.
Interesting that Mr. Card joined the party of Harry Truman and Pat Moynihan in the 1970’s, but completely avoided the party of George McGovern and the members of congress who refused to authorize aid or action by the US in 1975 when the North Vietnamese invaded the South (in violation of the Paris Peace accords that the US was party to).
I guess anybody may choose to call himself whatever he wants to, but Mr. Card seems pretty selective in deciding what constitutes a Democrat.
Mr. Card is a fallen Democrat, believing Rove’s lie that a victory for Democrats tomorrow is a victory for terrorists. He states:
Is that really reality? Hardly. Control of one or both Houses of Congress will not end the war, nor will it bring the control of Congress into the hands of extremist Democrats, because they know the only reason they managed this victory is by recruiting moderate candidates. What a victory for Democrats in November will mean is that Americans at large want moderate candidates. The irony of the election is that both parties play to their base to somehow convince the moderate independents. What folly!
What is worse with Mr. Card’s accusation is that he provides no evidence in his long piece about how Democrats will bring an end to this war by winning the House and the Senate. Shame on you, Mr. Card. If you accuse your own party, provide the evidence, man, or shut up!
What is worse is that according to Mr. Card, a victory for Republicans does not actually guarrantee a victory in Iraq. He says:
Say what? Then why should I even consider voting for Republicans? They’ve had now SIX YEARS to prove themselves. It is not Democrats that are losing Iraq; they are not in control of Congress right now. Republicans are. Republicans are losing Iraq. The irony of blaming Democrats for losing Iraq when Republicans are executing this war is…just astounding.
Mr. Card goes on:
Unfortunately, as I said, Mr. Card has falled to Rove’s propaganda. He seems to have forgotten (because at heart 9/11 has converted him from a real Democrat to….something else, as he doesn’t want to call himself a Republican), that the Baker group due to release their report—after the election of course, Republicans wouldn’t want the truth to affect the election after all—one of Baker’s recommendations for Iraq will be what he calls, “Redeploy and contain.” Anyone who has paid close attention to Iraq and Congress over the past two years will feel like they are in deja vu. They will say, wait a second, didn’t I hear this before? They’ll get the help of a real Democrat who will remind them that it was indeed Rep. Murtha of Pennsylvania, who first advocated the “redeploy and contain” policy one year ago. Back then Republicans called Mr. Murtha a traitor for daring to recommend such a policy. Now Mr. Baker’s group will recommend exactly that. Will Republicans call Mr. Baker a traitor too? I wonder why Mr. Card has forgotten Mr. Murtha’s recommendation from a year ago? Was Mr. Card embarrassed by such a bold move because it wasn’t what President Bush wanted?
How about the talk among Republicans now about splitting Iraq into three provinces? Hmmm, first I heard of that was from Senator Joseph Biden (D) of Delaware back in May 2006. Do I hear Republicans crediting him for it? But they’re talking about it now. And why has Mr. Card forgotten this? Mr. Card pays attention to politics. Why has he left out that Mr. Biden has offered a plan now discussed among Republicans?
As to the rest….well, let’s just say if I were trying to educate Americans about foreign policy, Mr. Card will not be the first, nor even the last person I would recommend they read, especially this poorly written, poorly researched piece. I say again, how sad, Mr. Card. You know so little of foreign policy.
*fallen not falled
I agree with Geoff(#8),
everyone is avoiding substance and attacking the person because he expressed a view. Such is the state of politics in America these days. I do not agree with any stance that invading Iraq was a good idea or that it has been run in the way it needed to. But I also take issue with anyone who thinks Card is ignorant when it comes to Geopolitics. It seems to be a hobby of his and is deeply incorporated into his shadow series. He has done the research. Characterizing Bush as a moderate is interesting, and characterizing what may really be going on politically in the modern world is brave. However, thinking that the I’m with Colin Powell on the idea that invading Iraq was a boneheaded move of gargantuan proportions. Whether we can leave or not and what the best course of action is I don’t know, but it was a huge mistake regardless. Yes, the terrorists are just waiting for us to fold up tent, but why, knowing this and knowing it is how we would react, using the past in Viet Nam as a model to predict our behavior, would it ever be a good idea to go into the whole thing in the first place?
Dan –
you claim Card’s piece is poorly reasoned and poorly researched, yet all you seem to be able to do is commit the fallacies of ad hominem, straw man and post hoc ergo propter hoc. You have yet to actually deal with what he said, instead claiming Card is too emotional, has been brainwashed by Rove and will “come to regret” his stance in “this life or the next.”
Aside from your hubris in claiming that you know the mind of God by being sure about just what Card will be sorry for in the next life, you haven’t done anything other than insult Card, even in comment #15. Your comments lack substance and are nearly 100% logical fallacies.
It seems you are the emotional one who has lost the ability to reason, not Card.
Ivan, I actually thought Dan made some decent points in the beginning of #15. I don’t think OSC’s piece explains well enough exactly why voting for the Democrats will encourage the terrorists. I also think not all Dems will vote with the “cut and run” crowd (although the majority probably will).
I think the big failure in Democratic thinking is how to turn their opposition against the Iraq war into a strategy for taking on Islamofascism. We clearly are facing a ruthless, implacable enemy who wants us all to die or convert. I don’t see enough Democrats dealing with the issue of how to defeat this enemy.
Ivan,
What comments of mine in #15 are logical fallacies? Please show me.
Geoff,
I noticed that you commented about the “Beginning of #15.” Did you read the end of #15, where I showed two examples of Democratic Congressional leaders offering ways to fix Iraq? Both examples are now being discussed by Republicans.
I’ve said this before, Geoff, don’t listen to Rove. Democrats do have a plan. Who pushed for the Department of Homeland Security? Bush was against it before he was for it. Republicans were against it before they were for it. It was Democrats who pressed for this department, because Democrats care about the safety of our nation. Who agreed to going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan? Democrats and Republicans. No one doubted the importance or justification of that mission. Who didn’t accomplish the job? Bush and Republicans. Bin Laden is still alive, the Taliban are making a strong comeback, meanwhile, Saddam is sentenced to death, even though he had nothing to do with 9/11.
Can you see my frustration with a noted Democrat saying Democrats are not for securing our nation?
Dan, I’ll give Biden a lot of credit. He’s been one of the few Democratic voices actually offering constructive criticism. I have a lot of problem with Bush (and did before 9/11) but Democrats as a party have been embarrassing on the defense front the past years.
I’m not sure Biden’s plan can work simply because several of the major cities are just too cosmopolitan. Dividing Bagdad makes dividing Jerusalem sound like a cake walk. But he’s presenting clear plans which few Republicans or Democrats have been.
It’s too bad that Democrats didn’t nominate Biden in the previous two elections. I think he’d have been a good President even if I disagree with his politics. But both Republicans and Democrats seem crazy in who they nominate at times. (Come on, Dole in ’96, Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004?)
Clark,
Biden is a good man. I don’t know if he will make a good president, but he certainly will do extremely well as Secretary of State. I also do not think dividing Iraq is the best plan. Frankly, Murtha’s plan of redeploy and contain is at this point probably the best plan. Right now the current Maliki government has little credibility with the militias because Maliki has to resort to the US military for aid. I think it is time for us to get out, be close to move in when needed, but let Iraqis fight it out right now for control of the country. At this point control of Iraq is in the hands of militias and sectarian tribal groups. They’ve got no allegiance to the government. What incentive do they have to join?
The best option is to get out and let them see that their best incentive is actually to join or face an Iraq in complete shambles (if it already isn’t in one).
Otherwise, the only other best option is to flood Iraq with nearly half a million troops. Interestingly the Pentagon did a war games simulation in 1999 on what would happen if America toppled Saddam’s regime. They calculated that it would take about 400,000 troops to pull that mission off. And even with that many, their assessment showed that Iraq could still fall to sectarian violence. That was in 1999. I wonder what Rumsfeld thought of that assessment…I’ve got a link to it on my blog, if you want to go check.
If one lets Iraqis fight it out for control it will make the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia seem like schoolyard play. I just don’t see Murtha’s plan as workable. We don’t need Iraq becoming Lebanon of the 70’s through 90’s.
I understand where Murtha’s coming from, but it frankly sounds far, far worse than Biden’s.
The biggest problem in Iraqi is the Iraqi government which is amazingly corrupt and too beholding to Al Sadr who should have been taken care of early on.
“OSC is one of those Democrats that apparently was very traumatized by 9/11 and lost all sense of reason and followed emotion rather than logic…..oops I’m attacking him again.”
That reminds me of the saying “A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.”
LOL. And not only by criminals Bookslinger. I suspect a lot of businessmen are conservative because they’ve had to deal with regulators too much.
so Bookslinger, you’re agreeing with me that conservatives have lost all sense of reason and follow emotion rather than logic?
Clark,
Um, I think it already is worse than the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and this is with 135,000 American troops present. Can you honestly tell me that American troops are “keeping the peace” in Iraq? It isn’t their mission. In fact, I don’t think they really know what their mission is, the rhetoric has changed so often.
Seriously, Yugoslavia did not have anywhere as close to an equal proportion of murders and death as you have in Iraq right now. Monthly reported average of deaths in Iraq is like 3500 Iraqis. That’s like 41,000 annual dead from murder and sectarian violence. This is with US military presence.
My problem with Democrats is that they grossly misunderstand the threat of Radical Islam. They see the threat as either non-existent, or not a big deal. Bush is doing a crappy job running this war, but at least he acknowledges the threat. No good can come by burying our heads in the sand.
Democrats will never widen their base as long as they refuse to acknowledge the very real dangers of Islamofacism. I’ve only seen one prominent Dem who gets it- Lieberman- and the Dems have all but disowned him. I’m a very open-minded conservative, but as long as the Democratic Party is ruled by Kerry/Dean/Kennedy leftists, I cannot consider it a viable option.
Dan- We will never ‘win the peace’ with the current plan because we never actually ‘won’ the invasion. I’ll agree with you that we are losing this war. I simply disagree with you on the reasons for it.
Tossman,
Can you provide evidence of how Democrats “misunderstand” the threat of radical Islam? I’d really like to see where you get this perception from.
Dan – as you requested.
Mr. Card is a fallen Democrat, believing Rove’s lie that a victory for Democrats tomorrow is a victory for terrorists.
fallacies employed: poisoning the well, prejudicial language, ad hominem.
next:
What is worse with Mr. Card’s accusation is that he provides no evidence in his long piece about how Democrats will bring an end to this war by winning the House and the Senate. Shame on you, Mr. Card. If you accuse your own party, provide the evidence, man, or shut up!
fallacies: abusive, begging the question, non-support, limited depth
Then why should I even consider voting for Republicans? They’ve had now SIX YEARS to prove themselves. It is not Democrats that are losing Iraq; they are not in control of Congress right now. Republicans are. Republicans are losing Iraq. The irony of blaming Democrats for losing Iraq when Republicans are executing this war is…just astounding.
fallacies: circular reasoning, narrow definition, non-support, limited depth
unfortunately, as I said, Mr. Card has falled to Rove’s propaganda.
fallacies: prejudicial language, ad hominem, circular definition, begging the question
I don’t want to go on. I haven’t even scratched the surface – but basically, you’re more into name calling and orthodoxy of thought than reasoned argument.
Ivan,
Very interesting. Do you hold everybody to the same standard? Because if you are going to call me out for any supposed logical fallacy, I should hope to see your analysis of Mr. Card’s article and all his logical fallacies. I wonder why you didn’t start with him. After all, his views have more sway, and therefore, if based on logical fallacies, might lead individuals on wrong paths……
or are you merely picking on a Democrat?
moreover, most if not all of your analysis of supposed logical fallacies in my post don’t actually add up. Am I correct in calling Mr. Card a fallen Democrat? Well, let’s look at the facts. He wishes that Democrats not win an election. He’s certainly not for them. It seems my analysis is correct and on target. Is Rove lying by stating that a victory for Democrats is a victory for terrorists? Do we even really need to answer that one? Of course it is a lie. I find it very ironic that you consider my comment “poisoning the well” when I’m not the one who thinks that a vote for one party gives a victory for terrorists! My what our world has come to!
Can you honestly tell me that American troops are “keeping the peace” in Iraq?
They are keeping it better, which was my point.
The casualty rate in Yugoslavia was over 7% by many accounts. (I don’t think that is using the more broad death count that methadologies like that employed by the Lancet used) If that death rate occured in Iraq we’d have 1.8 million casualties. Add in secondary deaths and we’d have a figure much higher than you appear willing to imagine. And that assumes it would only be as bad as Yugoslavia. I suspect it would be much worse.
Tossman, I think that’s a bit unfair. One thing the Democrats have said is that they will improve things in the war in terror. Those advocating pulling out of Iraq advocate more troops on the Pakistan border. (I think that naive for various reasons and I think if anything making Afghanistan a functioning democracy would be harder than Iraq) They also advocate finishing taking the suggestions of the 9-11 committee and making them law. (I also don’t think that a good idea – indeed I think many of the things Bush caved in on made situations worse such as putting FEMA under homeland security) Finally they advocate searching all containers coming into the country. That sounds ultimately too expensive and ineffectual but one can’t say they aren’t taking things seriously.
What I do think some aren’t taking serious is the degree to which Al Queda is in Iraq. One can blame Bush for that. But pulling out seems destined to strengthen our foes, not weaken them. Murtha’s “containment” philosophy doesn’t make much sense to me as I’ve seen it expressed.
The problem with most Democrats and the war on terror or Iraq is simply that they don’t seem willing to speak in much beyond vague generalities. Now this isn’t true of everyone. Biden and Murtha are two examples that we’ve seen. Some of the expected Freshmen Democratic congressmen have spoken clearly on things as well. But by and large the great failure of the Democratic party has been their unwillingness to say much that is specific.
Dan –
okay. Let me say a few things: I am not saying you are necessarily wrong. The use of logical fallacies does not render an argument untrue, merely invalid.
It is, in fact, a fallacy (the argument from fallacy) to say: “You just used a fallacy therefore your argument is wrong.” Logic doesn’t test for truth.
Logic tests for validity – it establishes ground rules that make it so we discuss the issue at hand, rather than things like whether the person making the argument is a good person or not. Logic also helps ensure our arguments are consistent and use proofs related to the argument, rather than proofs that are there for mere emotional shock.
No one is perfect, of course, and OSC does get too emotional and caustic at times. However, whatever his sins may be in that area, your vitriol aimed back at him makes your arguments no more valid than his.
so – you may be right. But it would be nice if you could present other evidence beside name calling and saying that “Card has been deceived by Rove” since that statement begs all sorts of questions and convinces only those already converted.
Dan- Well my first clue would be the notion that we can start solving the crisis in the Middle East by pulling out of Iraq that seems to be the Dem position. The average Dem might support a more moderate approach to ‘redeployment.’ But where does the average Dem stand in your party? Ask Joe Lieberman.
The power players on the Left – Dem congressional leadership and the DNC admin- are all for a swift, across-the-board pullout. This is echoed by the leftist powerbases like college professors, mainstream media, and the liberal bloggosphere.
Kerry and Feingold just proposed legislation that would require us to pull out of Iraq by July 2007. By making the goal date-oriented instead of task-oriented, they make it clear that to them, leaving is more important than winning. Which is telling, because this kind of proposal says they don’t understand the vacuum we create if we leave.
We don’t need to surrender, we need to fight smarter- and frankly, less politically correct. You can’t win a war when you fight it half-arsed.
Tossman,
Well, now that’s a fascinating point. The Pentagon assessed in 1999 what would happen if we were to capitulate the Saddam regime. Their war games simulation required 400,000 troops for the takeover and maintenance of Iraq through post-war rebuilding. Even then, their assessment was that 400,000 might not be enough to quell the possible sectarian violence that might arise between the three main factions in Iraq. Now, let’s flash forward to 2002. How many troops did Donald Rumsfeld recommend for Iraq? 150,000. Who was fighting the war “half-arsed” as you say?
Ivan,
On this point I agree. I did intentionally rip into Mr. Card. I guesss it is pretty clear I have no love for his political views, even though he calls himself a Democrat. I let my anger get the best of me.
Dan, as I recall Rumsfeld wanted between 40,000 and 50,000. The 150,000 was kind of a compromise. A bad one.
I agree that the problem was we went in half-assed. We focused on winning the immediate war when that was never the war to worry about.
I think there are some great ideas in this essay. I agree with him in general about the amorphousness of the war on terror. The section that I disagree most violently with is the one labelled “Mistakes.” I would have liked very much for us to stay in Afghanistan and finish the war in Afghanistan in a positive way, along the German model that Card cites. The 2003 invasion of Iraq distracted from that goal and hindered our ability to finish the job right.
I don’t see how the 2003 invasion of Iraq can be characterized as anything but a mistake. It was based on faulty intelligence, and the numbers are clear now that Congress would not have approved it had they known the truth about WMD. Nothing would help our country to move forward to a new, solid anti-terrorism policy than for the Bush administration to admit the mistake, beg forgiveness, and ask us all to move on. As it is, we have no assurance that they won’t lie to us again.
Even with good evidence of WMD, I had concerns about taking over the country. Read Lois Lowry’s book NUMBER THE STARS…only put us Americans in the place of the Nazi’s, and we get a sense of how the Iraqi view us: “Three years they have been in our country, and still can’t speak our language…if he has such a pretty listle girl, why doesn’t he go back to her like a good father? Why doesn’t he go back to his own country?”
Read John Hersey’s book, A BELL FOR ADANO, about the struggles of the Americans in adminstraton of occupied Italy following WWII–and then keep reminding yourself that the major at least spoke fluent Italian.
Watch the movie BATTLE OF ALGIERS, which has recently been released on DVD.
And then tell me it wasn’t a mistake to invade Iraq without a plan for winning the peace. I have thought this for years, based on reading and watching those three sources listed above. Nowadays, my opposition against the war has taken on a new level due to my brother serving as a police trainer. He says that if he shows up at a station in the morning and the local cops don’t shoot them, it’s going to be a good day. But there is such corruption and lack of cooperation among the local police that it is discouraging.
And this is the basic problem. As LDS, we would never do “forced” missionary work. But the American military are basically serving as missionaries of democracy, and enforcing it with firepower. Of course it is doomed.
As well as the fact that I want to know why I have to live with this fear for my brother in the pit of my stomach, and Bush does not feel strongly enough about the war to encourage his own family members to enlist. There was an editorial in Sunday’s paper about the “Draft the Neocon” movement, the notion that if Neocons actually had to put their lives on the line, the war would be over in a minute. Karl Rove was a draft dodger. He has little-to-no credibility when talking about defense policy. (And yes, I am a veteran, so I get to say that.)
42
I am a pro-Bush Republican. I was a reluctant Bush supporter at first but the Democrats have never provided an alternative. Lieberman might have been it.
However, I have very mixed feelings on the war. Is it just? Absolutely. Is it winnable? Not at a cost we are willing to pay. Defeat of terrorism requires the absolute defeat of Islam “the religion of peace”. Muslims must abandon it and that will not happen without near annihilation of Muslims. This is too bloody for us to contemplate no matter the necessity. We do not have the stomach for war that the Muslims have. We would rather die than fight. So die we will.
One of my concerns with OSC’s article is his characterization of our military as decent and compassionate. I think this is probably still true, but I see a number of indications that decency is declining. Abu Gareb comes to mind, as well as this article about an LDS servicewoman who committed suicide because she was unwilling to resort to the interrogation methods that she was being trained to use on enemy combatants:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003345862
Both of these incidents indicate a vein of cruel arrogance and vindictiveness in our military and national attitude that I believe is growing and will come back to haunt us in the future.
GeorgeD, I think it’s important to point out we don’t need to defeat Islam. There are hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims who are trying to be the best people they can be and are not filled with hatred. We need to defeat the radical, fascist version of Islam spread by Osama Bin Laden, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups. I also don’t think it’s correct to discuss the near annihilation of Muslims. Nobody wants to kill 1 billion people, and it’s a huge mistake to turn them into our enemies.
There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, and in African and Arab countries who are not interested in fighting the U.S. They have the same desires for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” that we do. What we need to do is show them there is an alternative to the extreme Islamist fascism they hear about. That alternative includes democracy and freedom (hundreds of millions of Muslims in India and other countries have accepted democracy already). And, yes, hopefully someday they can learn about the gospel just as the Lamanites did in the Book of Mormon (think of the sons of Mosiah traveling to preach to the Lamanites). That is my hope.
Carl, I read about that article. I think the woman was obviously very disturbed, and I grieve for her and her family. Attempts to use this horrible event for political gain and to make political points are heartless and cruel.
Geoff- You’re right, we do not need or want to defeat Islam. Unfortunately, the radical minority happen to hold all the power in the Muslim world. It’s the dictators, the imams, the governments, the activist organizations. Even CAIR, mainstream Islam’s supposed ambassador org to the West, is demonstrably radical in speech and on paper. The fact is, if Islam’s most influential are also radicals.
I’ve long been troubled by this situation. We keep hearing that Islam is a peaceful religion and that the radicals are only fringe minorities. Ok then, why does greater Islam not simply stamp out this minority? I mean, you have billions of Muslims, who’s radical fringes are supposedly responsible for a lot of Muslim troubles. Yet it seems that Islam as a whole simply turns its head and ignores it. Islamofacism is a Muslim problem that can only be rooted out by Islam. The question is why do they not, with their vast peaceful majority, just take care of it?
Either than cannot or they will not. I don’t know which is scarier.
I think it is a little of both. You have a people- at least in Arab countries- who have been taught since birth that Israel and the U.S. should be destroyed. Virtually all Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Iran, and Syria (and soon Somalia) have been victims of severe emotional abuse. They have essentially been programmed for jihad.
The threat of Radical Islam is very, very real. Ignoring it is not a solution. Singing Kum-ba-yah is not a solution. The neocons have adopted the philosophy that only by spreading democracy can we stem the tide of radicalism, give oppressed Muslims a taste of freedom, and let them take it from there. Of course we’ve discovered it’s more complex than that- hence my disallusionment with Bush and Rumsfeld.
Containment worked for a while. For a long time we were content with just letting them slaughter each other. But eventually- inevitably- technology would allow them to migrate radicalism to the global arena. Hence the embassy bombings, Khobar towers, WTC ’93, the USS Cole, and 9/11.
I hate to burst the bubble of misguided pacifists and liberals who think Bush is the Great Satan. This threat was born long before Bush pissed you off and will be here long after he’s gone. Like I said, please DO NOT mistake me for a Bush fan. But at least he’s trying to do something about this. Thankfully, moderate Dems like OSC understand this.
47 Amen Tossman The problem with fighting the radicals is that the whole Muslim community is structured to radicalize the center. If we crush the radicals, as we must, we will in the process create more and more radicals until some final tipping point when the remainder reject Islam. The only way for the Muslim menace to end is for the Muslims to reject their religion. Reaching that tipping point is beyond the will of the West. We don’t believe anything is worth fighting for. The bloodshed would be awful. Discussions of waterboarding would be tame compared to what we would have to do to ensure our safety from the religion of peace.
But don’t anyone go on talking about how peaceful Muslims are. It is a horrible delusion.
georgeD- As somebody who has a number of Muslim friends (who don’t want to behead me), I take issue with your blanket statements. While you can make a good argument that some base cultural and doctrinal tenets of Islam breed radicalism, it is irresponsible to lump all Muslims in the same category.
But your point about rejecting radical doctrines has merit. The only Muslims and non-Muslims will ever peacefully coexist is if Islam’s radical arm is destroyed, and greater Islam rejects the goals of established caliphate and worldwide Shari’a. As these are core doctrines, this essentially means that Muslims must ‘reject’ their religion.
Imagine if we as LDS were somehow forced to reject our ideas of baptism and sealings for political reasons. Would that not amount to denying our religion? No LDS doctrines have any temporal effect on non-mormons. But certain Islamic doctrines do. Global caliphate and worldwide Shari’a are Islamic articles of faith. Unless the majority of Muslims interpret these doctrines figuratively rather than literally, they will have to reject them in order to avoid conflict with those of us in the West who aren’t exactly enthusiastic about forced conversion and living under Islamic Law.
As I said above, the problem of Radical Islam can only be rooted out by Islam itself. We can be nice, we can be understanding, we can love our Muslim brothers. But in the end only Islam can solve the problem. The question is will it?
Tossman if you keep making my points for me who will I debate?
You are exactly correct. Since forcible conversion is a basic tenet of Muslim belief, how can one change this and one still be a Muslim? It is a contradiction. You ask if Islam will solve that problem. Why would they define away their identity as Muslims? They don’t even have a theological mechanism to do so. But we cannot have peace until they solve it or we solve it.
The inevitability of the Apocalypse is abundantly clear.
Believe me, there are PLENTY of people here for you to debate.
George,
#42,
You’re telling Muslims to abandon Islam or face “near annihilation?” You’re saying this is a “necessity?” Dude! We would rather die than fight? Isn’t it when you fight that you die? You’ve got reality all twisted around, dude.
Here’s the problem, George, a Muslim looks at an American, you for example, and he reads exactly what you wrote here. What do you think will go through his mind about you and about America at large when he reads what you just wrote? Compare this to Geoff’s reply to you in #44
How does threatening Muslims with “near annihilation” bring them to your side of things?
Tossman,
You say,
But then you say,
In the end, if only Islam can solve this problem, would not Western intervention get in the way? The facts on the ground seem to indicate this very point. You are most correct that only Islam can root out the extremists in their midst, much like it would be futile for Muslims to try and root out Christian extremists in the Christian world, would you not agree?
So if only Islam can solve this problem, how can you support militaristic forcible Western intervention?
Furthermore, you state,
Is it not ironic that with democracy you actually give extremists a far greater tool to spread their filth within the world of Islam? Why does the United States support Mubarrak in Egypt, and King Abdullah in Jordan? They are not democracies. Why was the United States upset when the people of Palestine freely elected Hamas to govern their country? Why was the United States upset when Hezbollah gained seats in Lebanon’s democracy? Why was the United States telling Iraqis that they cannot choose out of their own free will to create an Islamic-based government in Iraq?
Here is the contradiction, and the ultimate downfall of neo-conservative thought: We don’t really want democracies in the world; we want pro-West democracies. I am reminded of Henry Kissinger’s famous quote:
Methinks Americans at large still think this way about the rest of the world. Can you imagine why there are so many people in this world who are mad at the United States?
Uncle Orson once opined that women and blacks were better off in the 50s. That is where he lost me.
I know that he has claimed to be a Democrat, but his political opinions that I have read are far more often in line with the Republicans. I would guess he has voted for Republican presidential candidates over Democratic for a good number of years now. His opinions stand or fall on their own merits, but I don’t think it’s valid to claim the extra impact it gives to them to say that this is a *Democrat* who thinks this way. He may have been a Democrat when he was in college, but I seriously don’t think he is one now.
Tatiana, I’d like to see a citation on your claim that OSC said that, and I’d like to see the context.
I like it when Democrats say you can only be ideologically pure to belong to their party. That way, more people leave and come home to the other side.
Dan, you must be a Democrat. You read what you want to not what I wrote.
No point in arguing with you dude.
George,
I read exactly what you wrote. Are you now denying that you wrote that Muslims must give up Islam or face near annihilation?
You’re still twisting what I said Doood
In regards to the comments on the nature of Islam. Islam itself is not an “evil” religion nor is it inherently a religion of peace. It’s a religion built on the nature of its religious texts and the propensity of those in power to interpret those texts in ways that serve them. Fazlur Rahman (who had to leave Pakistan in the face of death threats) argues that the Quran and other Islamic texts (the hadith and Shari’a) must be interpreted holistically. He believes that a holistic, historically rooted effort to reread the Quran can eliminate many of the injustices and evils perpetuated by radical, ahistorical interpretations of the Quran. There are as many passages in the Quran that advocate peace and living in harmony with others as there are that advocate killing the unbelievers. What does one do in that situation? Islam is far from monolithic, as it is constantly displayed, and liberal Muslims (like Fazlur Rahman) have argued that Shari’a is not inherently pro- or anti- liberalism and democracy (I won’t argue that it’s inherently neutral, subject only to what the reader imposes upon it, however–the texts do provide limits to discourse, but they can be expanded through interpretation and re-interpretation).
The problem is one of interpretation and power. Extremists and radicals have made significant efforts to justify their actions by Islamic law, although it is not universally accepted.
The problem of reform within Islam is made difficult by the prisoner’s dilemma created by those who would use violence to suppress opinions not in line with theirs. If I’m a moderate Muslim who believes that all this terrorism is wrong, the incentives for me to speak up about it are very low. Everybody keeps quiet because of fear of reprisals, even if a majority of the population agrees that terrorism is counter productive. As long as the minority can keep the majority silent through threat of reprisal, even the possibility of armed response (and nasty civil wars that would likely follow) to radical/extremist Muslims is minimal.
In sum, it’s critical that we get beyond the misperceptions we have about the unity of Islam. Power, violence, and interpretation matter as much as source texts.
Democrats won’t be able to simply force a hasty withdrawl from Iraq, whatever the ideologues in their party would like to do. Hasty withdrawl, followed by a Sudan-style humanitarian meltdown in Iraq would leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth and leave the Democratic party looking unprincipled and selfish in the eyes of too many voters.
No, there will be a timetable for a scaled withdrawl. No matter how much we’d like to go mano-e-mano with them durn Islamofacists, our national budget simply can’t afford it anymore. Reality bites.
The only question is whether there will be sufficient diplomatic efforts to get the warring factions to sit down together and fight with each other at the negotiating table for a post US military Iraq. Right now, I think our best bet is a partition of the country into ethnic zones.
Bush’s plan for a unified Iraq is now a pipe dream. The only way it could happen is if the US were to play Imperial Britain of the 19th century. But the US doesn’t have the stomache to play the colonialism game and never has (neither the leadership or the population). The best we can hope for is a Yugoslavia-style division along ethnic lines.
Of course, a major problem will be getting Turkey and Iran to allow a semi-autonomous Kurdistan.
Hey, it’s a long-shot. But right now it’s either partition or Sudan. Take your pick.
HOWEVER,
If the Dems want to show they’re serious about addressing the Middle East problem, they’ll have to simultaneously beef up the US-NATO military ventures in Afghanistan. Combined with another attempt at resolving the Palestine issue.
George,
feel free to restate, respin, reshape your words as you please. At this point, the inference is clear. You think Muslims must give up their religion or face near annihilation.
HAC,
#59,
Well said. One thing I wish to add about the problems of Islam is that Islam might actually do better if they indeed had a caliphate, a one leader that can guide the whole religion one way or another. Right now, Islam is leaderless as a whole. Who speaks for all of Islam today? Whereas, who speaks for all of Catholicism today? The Pope. Who speaks for all of Mormonism today? President Hinckley. The world’s second largest religion is leaderless. There’s a reason why extremists in their midst are not shunned or disregarded, and that is because there is no leader to tell Muslims to disregard and shun extremists, who can also back those words with force. Can the Pope back up his words with force within Catholicism? Most certainly. Can President Hinckley within Mormonism? Most certainly.
Geoff,
Thanks for providing a forum to discuss Card’s views.
I do not think Card is a “fallen democrat” for believing his party has gone too far to the left to be trusted to act even as a check and balance by having control of either house in the legislative branch. Nor do I think my wife is a “fallen republican” for voting democrat this time because she believes the GOP has gone too far to the right to be trusted to have all branches of government in its power.
I was opposed the the invasion. But it baffles me why Card thinks the war has been managed as well as it could, or that having either house in the democrats’ hands would make things worse.
HAC- You make some good points, but you also raise some questions. Why, if Muslim radicals are such a minority, should greater Islam be afraid of reprisals? I guess it depends on your definition of radical. To the politically correct media and Democrats, radicals are those that actively participate in terrorism. To me, a Muslim doesn’t have to blow himself up to be radical. There are many Muslims who would never strap a bomb onto themselves and walk into a pizza parlor, but who celebrate- even if quietly- when one of their brothers does.
One Muslim co-worker of mine was appalled at his family’s reaction to 9/11. He said they were quiet around non-Muslims but openly celebrated at home. These people I would call radicals.
So according to popular definition of ‘radical’, they are a fringe minority. I called this notion into question in my previous post- if they are a small minority, detached from and not supported by the main body, why do they even still exist? According to my definition, the number of ‘radicals’ within Islam increases exponentially.
So is it a question of interpretation? Is Islam inherantly evil? Could it be that the radicals are actually the true Muslims? What is the ‘true’ interpretation of the Quran’s doctrine of Shari’a? Let’s get to the bottom of this. Is Shari’a a figurative notion or is it literal? If it’s figurative, fine. Whatever. It doesn’t affect my life at all. But what if it’s literal? Well we have a problem then, brother.
In the end, does it really matter what Mohammed meant? If it’s interpreted literally by a majority of Muslims then we’ll have to deal with that.
So I return to my original point- that Western liberals and specifically the U.S. Democratic Party do not understand the implications of a rapid-growing and increasingly dangerous group of people. Now that they have won the House and have a greater presence in the Senate, things will only get worse.
Dan- You’re misunderstanding the caliphate principle, and you make my point with your comments. Muslims don’t want a caliphate to be a leader and spokesman for Islam. They want a caliphate to be a leader and spokesman for THE WORLD. That I have a problem with.
Seth,
One thing to clarify. When it comes to foreign policy, and the use of the military, Democrats cannot execute or command at this point in time. Only Bush can. Democrats can recommend policies (as they have done before–Murtha’s redeploy and contain, Biden’s splitting of Iraq, etc.), but if the President chooses not to employ those strategies, it is not Democrats who should be blamed. Just wanted to make sure this point is clear. I gather that many Republicans are attempting to corner Democrats into an impossible situation, where suddenly they are supposed to fix the mess Republicans made (specifically the Bush Administration) yet not be in the position where they can execute the strategies that can fix the problems (The Executive Branch). Democrats can recommend policies and legislation, and hold oversight to ensure policies are being executed properly (as is Congress’s role), but please don’t think that Democrats should be held accountable
Tossman,
Hmmmm, do we not believe our prophet speaks for the whole world? When President Hinckley signed the “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was he talking just to Mormons around the world, or to the entire world?
Seth, #60-
The problem is we never went mano-a-mano with Islamofacists. We made the mistake of thinking we could fight a politically correct war. We could smash the Iraqi insurgency right now if we had the juevos to do it. The problem is it wouldn’t be pretty. But then again neither is the daily U.S. body count.
Dan, Dan, Dan. Yes, we believe Pres. Hinckley speaks for the world. But nothing he says has any temporal effect on anybody. His authority is spiritual and based on free agency. World shari’a under an established caliphate would be very, very different. Our missionaries ride bikes and make street contacts. Ask Fox News reporter Steve Centanni about his ‘missionary’ experience in Gaza.
So, President Hinckley couldn’t, say, move mountains, or create a famine. Nothing of what he can do is temporal eh?
Dan- WOULD he do that? Come on.
Neither is there an official spokesman for all of Judaism. Does Hinckley also speak for the Warren Jeffs’ Mormon sect?
As far as I can remember, there was nothing politically correct about unilaterally invading Iraq while the UN was still resolving the issue of Saddam’s WMDs.
Bush’s biggest mistake was invading another sovereign country and overthrowing its existing government – both actions illegal by international standards, while trying hard to look pretty. Marie Antoinette could have taught him a thing or two about eating cakes…
At least those Muslims were quiet in public. These guys below got arrested for being such show-offs.
“The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11”
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
Zohar,
Let’s clarify, is there any leader of the Shi’ite group as a whole, and is there any leader of the Sunni tribe as a whole? Nope. You’re right, there is no official spokesman for all Judaism.
Geoff B, it was posted on his site a number of years ago, in a review of a movie, as I recall. I doubt it’s still up. I suggested to him at the time that it was rather patronizing for a white man to be deciding that women and blacks were better off in the 50s. I suggested he actually ask women and blacks what they thought about that, and that I didn’t think many would agree with him. I remember feeling very disillusioned, when I read that, about the wonderful man who wrote Ender’s Game. For what it’s worth, I still think he’s a wonderful man. His book “Folk of the Fringe” was an important step in my conversion. When you talk to him in person, he is not strident and bitter, as he seems when one reads his political screeds. I realized then that all gods have feet of clay. He’s a great guy with lousy political views. =)
You wouldn’t happen to be the Geoff who is related to him, would you? If so, then surely you know him far better than I, and don’t need me to tell you any of this. =)
WW,
And the high point in Judaism? Was when their kings were anointed by prophets? Or better still, was it when they were united with the rest of the clan of Jacob under the prophetic guidance of Moses or Joshua?
I hate to reply to a threadjack, but i simply cannot help myself. This is a reply to Tossman’s assertion:
Tossman: “unfortunately, the radical minority happen to hold all the power in the Muslim world. It’s the dictators, the imams, the governments, the activist organizations.”
It’s also a reply to why extreme Islamism is tolerated among mainstream muslims.
Let’s go over some dictators and see how radically Muslim they are, shall we? Then we can do activist organizations and governments.
Egypt: Mubarak. Very secular. Has flirted with the Muslim Brotherhood to avoid problems at times, then clamped down on any MB activity and imprisoned many of their leaders. Ex: LAte 1980s, the MB had leadership of every Egyptian university club in the country, as well as the doctor, lawyer and merchant guilds. Mubarak did not imprison the MB leadership because of any violent act, but because his power was becoming threatened. This has happened cyclically over the last thirty years, and it’s representative of other countries: Mubarak tolerates a little bit of MB activity to increase his popularity and because he’s secure in his power. The MB gets popular and then has the chance of getting a little political power. Then Mubarak imprisons (and tortures) them because he feels threatened. The US supports him because he’s pro USA and a big player in ME politics. He allows very few civil and political freedoms, but we still give him 3 to 4 billion a year in aid, so you can see why many Arabs don’t buy Bush’s “we’re pushing for democracy in the ME.”
Lebanon: Mixed power base with a confessionally-dictated government. The President is required to be a maronite christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni, and and Parliament Speaker a Shi’a (even though the country is only around 25-30% Maronite). Hizbullah has power in the Southern area of the country because it provides the best hospitals, the best schools, and subsidies to rural Shias who are otherwise excluded from general Lebanese politics and society. Hizbullah has some seats in the parliament, but last I checked it was less than 15%.
Syria: Hafiz Al-Assad ruled with a secular ba’athist party for over thirty years and now his son Bashar is keeping it secular but trying to improve freedoms.
Saudi Arabia: The Al-Saud family came to power with the help of Ibn Abd al Wahab, the founder of Wahabism and the most extreme version of the Hanbali School of Islam. The Al-Saud family has appeased Wahabi Imams by making very strict rules in order to stay in power. This is one of the ONLY Middle East governments that claims to rule by Sharia, and most of the people don’t like it.
Palestine: I don’t even want to get into this. It deserves its own thread.
Jordan: Ruled by the Hashemites, who play more to a Bedouin base for their power than to an Islamic group. Kicked out the PLO on Black Friday, deny the MB any following (although they just recently allowed them the right to field candidates, but the gerrymandering keeps them from getting any real power).
Iraq: Ruled by the Secular Ba’ath party under Saddam Hussein since the 1960s. Back in Ottoman times, it was actually 3 separate provinces (at least they could set up some things right) and only became a unified country because Great Britain wanted to pit the sunnis, shias and kurds against eachother squabbling for favor so Britain could rule. (kind of a backwards version of divide and conquer)
Should we do North Africa too? Libya, Tunisia, Algeria: secular dictatorships, very repressive against any threat to power (especially Islamic ones since the US tends to dislike them). Morocco? No extreme Islamism going on over there either, and they’re actually mildly Islamic in government (as I understand.)
What about the Persian Gulf and the other Gulf states? (i’ll include Yemen)
Kuwait: Very cosmopolitan, pretty laid back. One of my best friends is there on a Fullbright, and that’s what he says about it. They allow lots of US military bases, and the government? A monarchy based in Islamic law that is pro-american. Allowed Women’s suffrage last year because they thought it would get Bush to talk to their ambassador.
Qatar: Ruled by the Al-Thani family, who rule according to Sharia as interpreted by a Wahhabi tradition. Yet, when was the last time you heard about Qatar being ruled by extremists? the Al-Thani family’s rule has never been questioned and they have given money to the Hamas-led government in Palestine, but once again, Palestine is a separate issue that deserves its own thread.
Bahrein: The only country in the Middle East with an independent media, which happens to be Al-Jazeera. Government similar to Qatar’s.
UAE: Ruled by Emirs. Incredibly secular in practice, but Islamic in theory. The economy is based on tourism and trade, especially with the US so it has little incentive to play to extreme-Islamist ideologies.
Oman: Another big country for US military bases. Gov’t is at peace with every Middle East country (although I’m not sure about Israel–could be the exception) and pro-US. Led by a sultanate.
Yemen: Rushing headlong into the 17th century; a country of friendly qat-chewers that about 10 years ago finished a north-south civil war.
How about SE Asia? Indonesia is the most Islamic country (by population numbers) in the world. They have a government system with some democratic elements as well as some Islamic. Should we feel threatened by Indonesia’s government because it has all the power?
How on earth can you possibly believe that the “radical minority” holds all the power in the middle east? The assertion is outright ridiculous. The minority holds NO political power in ANY country except for Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (three of which aren’t technically even in the middle east).
Now I’m going to quote Graham Fuller, former vice-chairman of the CIA: “When Washington is perceived to be supportive of regimes that crush Islamic movements, (Examples: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Israel–lots of important ones. Also, note that he is not talking about radical islamic movements; he’s talking about ANY Islamic movements that try to be representative of the population) Islamist hostility and suspicion in return cannot be surprising. Washington is indeed right to expect at least initially a frosty view toward US policies from Islamists who come to power. And this expectation often leads Washington to try to prevent their coming to power at all. The perceptions of each side feed the other. (The Future of Political Islam, pp. 101)
In other words, the US supports oppressive regimes in the Middle East and that’s part of the reason why moderate Muslims tolerate extreme Muslim’s violence toward the US. The other part of the reason (IMO) is Palestine. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem is not a panacea to US-MIddle East relations (especially now that we’re quagmired in Iraq) but it would do a lot of good to have a balanced policy on Israel, which we have never had, and i don’t think we ever will.
pneal,
well said!
Well, I think the U.S. supports those regimes that serve the U.S.’s purposes. This does not mean, however, that if the U.S. were not supporting “oppressive regimes” that ergo the non-U.S.-backed regime would not be oppresive.
pneal- You spent a great deal of space telling me how dictators of Islamic countries aren’t necessarily radical Islamists themselves. Can you do the same for the rest of my listed factors- imams, governments, and activist groups?
I noticed you conveniently relegated Iran to a part of one sentence. Iran is arguably the biggest threat of all the Islamic countries. They said today that Israel’s destruction is near, and, in returning to the original subject, lauded last Tuesday’s Democratic takeover. Tell me, Dan, how does it feel to have Brother Ahmadinejad laughing with glee over your victory?
Ahmadinejad, like every other dictator in the world probably understands that US foreign/military policy, historically, doesn’t really change much, regardless of which party is running things.
So unless Ahmadinejad has been laughing for some time already, I doubt he decided to start simply because Pelosi is going to be House majority leader.
Besides isn’t this argument of “if you vote Democrat, bin Laden will laugh at your funny underpants” just a bit 5th grade-ish?
Honestly, I don’t give a damn what bin Laden or Ahmadinejad think of my manhood. The conservative war hawks are always so keen to tell us how we’re not trying to win a “popularity contest.”
But for all that, they sure do seem awfully prissy about their own popular image with mad dictators.
Bit fashion concious aren’t we?
Not really, Seth. The fact that Ahmedinejad did indeed cheer the Democratic takover of Congress does say something important, don’t you think? It’s not so much what Ahmedinejad thinks so much as the confidence he seems to have taken.
If I’m watching a football game and the other team’s star QB goes out with an injury, I cheer. Not necessarily because I hate the guy, but that I see it as a strategic advantage for my defense.
Just the same, Iran sees the Republican ouster as a strategic advantage. Not because they think Dems will have all kinds of power now, but because he knows
1) That Dems will be a thorn in Bushe’s side (the enemy of my enemy is my friend)
2) That Dems will not allow Bush to pass anything
3) That Dems will force the replacement of John Bolton at the U.N., giving them quite an advantage there.
4) That Dems will call for a hasty pullout from Iraq, giving Iran hope at filling the vacuum.
This isn’t 5th grade, this is reality. If our greatest enemies want Dems to win in U.S. elections, shouldn’t we take notice?
Tossman:
Dictators control their governments–that’s what a dictatorship is. Patrimonial dictatorship is the common pattern of rule in the Middle East, where influence is determined by how close you are to the dictator, and informal politics govern. Activist groups in the Middle East are all over the political spectrum–and most of them are calling for an increase in civil and political liberties, not for the destruction of America. Furthermore, the pattern of patrimonial rule makes it impossible for any activist groups to have any real influence. I’ll take Egypt as my example again: When i lived in Alexandria (in Egypt), almost everyone i talked with was afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood. The only people that listened to the MB were the rural poor who took handouts. You have no idea how not-powerful they are, because they just aren’t allowed by Mubarak to participate. There is a slight threat of a populist backlash, but there wouldn’t be if Mubarak actually allowed people to have freedoms. Honestly, you (and most Americans) misunderstand how politics in the Middle East work if you think activists in the Middle East have any influence at all.
As for Imams, every major mosque in Egypt is patrolled by guards who listen to what the Imams say. If they say enough of the wrong things, the Imams disappear. I have friends who have witnessed this firsthand. Imams are totally under the thumb of the ruling dictatorships, and the dictators are happy to let the Imams blame problems on the US (and the blame isn’t totally uncalled for either). But Imams have almost no power–they get iced just like everyone else if they open their mouth too much.
America’s fear of Iran is silly: Ahmadenijad is largely a figure-head and the only reason he has any attention is because our current administration chooses to listen. Getting nuclear weapons IS a problem but the calls for Israel’s destruction are largely a play to appease constitutents in his own country. The Presidents of Iran have been calling for Israel’s destruction since the revolution in 1978, and the only reason we’re paying attention to it now is because Bush is using it to play on American’s fear and push his own politics. Honestly, why weren’t we terrified of Iran in 1984? Or in 1992? It’s been almost 40 years of calling for Israel’s destruction and nothing’s happened, and nothing’s going to because Ahmadenijad is bluffing like every other Iranian figurehead since 1978. Why didn’t we care 20 years ago about it?
Jack: “Well, I think the U.S. supports those regimes that serve the U.S.’s purposes. This does not mean, however, that if the U.S. were not supporting “oppressive regimes” that ergo the non-U.S.-backed regime would not be oppresive.”
You’re absolutely right, but that’s not the point. The point is that for the last 50 years, Arabs (and Iranians with the Shah until 1978) have seen that the US has maintained allies that oppress their own people. They could still be oppressive without the US propping them up, but the fact that the US props them up is what allows Arabs to blame the US for it. If we didn’t support them, then Arabs couldn’t assert that the US is responsible for bad government in the Middle East, and there would be some belief that the US cared about democracy in the Middle East as well. For now, we say we care about democracy, but support oppressive dictators, and the discrepancy is obvious to any Arab who can read a newspaper.
Ok, pneal. Let me see if I understand you correctly. Radical Islam is not a threat to American security, and it’s paultry existence can be blamed on the U.S. anyway, right?
That’s overesimplifying, and neither of those are what I was talking about. I said that Radical Islam has little to no power in the Middle East ( contrary to your assertion that it has “all the power” –see comment 47) and that the reason Radical Muslims are tolerated by the general Muslim population is because many feel that the US is at least partly to blame for their bad governance. I never said anything about American security.
That’s overesimplifying, and neither of those are what I was talking about. I said that Radical Islam has little to no power in the Middle East ( contrary to your assertion that it has “all the power” –see comment 47) and that the reason Radical Muslims are tolerated by the general Muslim population is partly because many feel that the US is at least partly to blame for their bad governance. I think the issue of Palestine is the other part of why most Muslims at least tolerate some Radicalism. However, most Imams, and most Muslims have decried every terrorist attack that has happened in the last 10 years. As for American security, I never said anything about it.
pneal- Iran not a threat, huh?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111400230_pf.html
Tossman,
Ahmedinejad is going to make political hay out of any result. If Bush is doing well, he’ll rail against the “imperialist president” and curry favor with his own citizens. If Bush is doing poorly, he’ll take it as a sign of his victory. If Bush invaded Iran, he’d crow about how Allah favors the oppressed, and how the US shall bleed as they have in Iraq. If we pull out of the Middle East, he’ll take it as a sign of almost the same thing.
But the fact is, his political grandstanding doesn’t really say much about anything and you’d be a fool to base foreign policy on it.
I’m not a big fan of letting the “enemy” set the agenda. Let the US proactively set its own agenda and stop worrying about who might be laughing at us. You propose a very self-conscious and insecure paradigm for foreign action. Ahmedinejad’s mood seems like an incredibly misguided barometer for measuring our foreign policy success. For one thing, it is premised on the assumption that Ahmedinejad and Bin Laden (among others) even have a firm grasp on what’s going on in the world to begin with. Secondly, it makes no distinctions for who these fellows are talking to and what their objectives are. And finally, if the US can’t afford Iraq, it can’t afford Iraq. Regardless of what Ahmedinejad thinks.
The only thing your arguments do is seek to play off American pride (and I mean that in the worst sense) with ridicule hoping people can be embarrassed/angered into adopting a certain course of action.
But it doesn’t speak to whether the course of action is a good idea or not.
Actually, Seth, I’d just like an honest discussion about the threat of radical Islam. I don’t care who’s laughing at us. Iran is about to go nuclear, and we need a discussion on the national level about the best course of action. For that, we need to take their positions and reactions under consideration.
I love the scare quotes you put around “enemy.” Do you agree with pneal that Iran poses no veritable threat to Israel or the U.S.? I would not base foreign policy on a dictator’s political grandstanding. The problem is that this grandstanding, contrary to pneal’s assertion, has increased exponentially since they decided to go nuclear. It’s one thing for a fool to spew meaningless tripe. It’s another when it’s a nutjob with a nuke.
Finally, which course of action do you think I’m attempting to embarrass/anger people to adopt? What I wish people would do is analyze the situation and rethink their position. If indeed Islamofacism (with Iran being only one example of it) is a threat, one of the nails in Western civilization’s coffin will be pretending all is well in Zion.
well said Seth.
Iran has reaped some serious rewards from our actions in Iraq. We really have no cards to play on Iran right now. Not even a threat of military strikes. Because of Iraq, Iran is now the main power in the Middle East. Because we have failed to secure a peace in Iraq, Iran’s influence is very strong with the militias in Iraq, and we really need Iran’s help there. But the moment we go to ask Iran for help, they will immediately turn around and say, “we’d love to help…but, we’re sorry, we’ve got a bit of a problem with your threats on our nuclear facilities. Perhaps if you stop threatening our nuclear capabilities, we might be kind enough to help you in Iraq.”
Seth’s analysis of Tossman’s (and every other Bush backer) fear of “radical Islam” is spot on. Many Americans simply cannot look at the world around them objectively anymore, but are ruled by ideology and fundamentalism.
Dan- I take offense at you calling me a Bush backer. My ideology has nothing to do with Bush. Oh, and I love the scare quotes around “radical Islam.” Apparently it’s no big deal.
Dan, you make my original point with every post. Thank you.
And I’m not sure we’ll have to do anything about Iran. It’s looking like Israel might take care of it when the time comes, anyway.
Israel? You mean the Israel that let Hezbollah kill 300 of its soldiers? (Proportionally speaking, 300 deaths for Israel is a very large amount). What could Israel do better than what America could do? Nothing. Israel and Iran are on par in regards to spending on the military. Iran, however, has 100 million more people than Israel does. In the end, Iran wins in a straight fight against Israel, unless of course Israel uses its nuclear weapons. Well then, what do you think will happen? Bad stuff man, Bad stuff.
calls for peace fall on deaf ears in the last days.
If I read Revelations correctly, there is no peace in the last days.
There actually is peace: with the true followers of Christ. The rest of the world desires war.
Ok, fine. Peace in our hearts. That doesn’t mean we won’t be physically anihilated at Armageddon.
I actually wish I could take more peace in that promise. Maybe I am of little faith. I believe in Christ and I believe I follow Him. But when I think of the inevitable horror of the last days, I find myself wishing I was born in another period of time. Could it be I am so passionate about national security because of my lack of faith?
Tossman,
No, there will be peace among the true followers of Christ. That means that the rest of the world will not war with them, and they with the rest of the world.
Tossmann,
Iran, just like Iraq, is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which governs how nations can use nuclear technology. On the other hand, Israel developed nuclear weapons without even bothering to submit itself to the stringent requirements of the NPT.
Shouldn’t you be more afraid of Israel than Iran? After all, who else led us with false intelligence into Iraq (ans: Israel), and who were caught dancing in the streets when the WTC twin towers fell (ans: Israelis)?
Oh Geeze. Let’s leave the 9/11 conspiracy theories out of this.
We do know that lots of Palestinians were dancing. Or how about the 9/11 Commission report that said Iran had far more ties to events than Iraq did?
Do you really think Iran or Israel is more apt to help attacks on US soil or US interests?
I agree that Iran is a threat to US interests. I also think that Pakistan is a threat to US interests. Russia’s destabilizing power-plays for the European energy market are equally as damaging to US security interests as Iranian posturing. The only direct nuclear threats to the US today are Russia and China. This will still be true when Iran has a nuclear weapon, mounted on a ballistic missile. Iran will never be more than a regional threat. It’s only threat to the US is indirect.
Long term, I would actually say that China, Russia, and India present greater aggregate world security problems for the US than Iran does.
They’re all inter-connected of course (Iran, for instance, destabilizes all three of the above mentioned nations). But my point is that US foreign policy has to look at the bigger picture and not allow itself to get hijacked by fruitcakes with an agenda.
Oh I see… I guess the 19 hijackers were acting independently until they met each other that day, kinda like Oswald or McVeigh. That’s right… no conspiracy at all. And this is true because you say so.
Sure, the Palestinians were dancing… but hey, those guys don’t have access to our national secrets the way Israeli top brass and spies do. Ever heard of AIPAC and how Keith Weismann (former AIPAC policy director) and Steven Rosen (Iran analyst) were indicted for passing out secrets to Israel? I mean, are allies supposed to be spying on each other?
If Israelis have access to our secrets, and they pass these secrets out, who are they passing it to, and why? Our troops are dying in Iraq because Saddam was supposed to have WMDs. Doesn’t it bother you that our govt was most likely fed with cooked intelligence?
No.
They were stupid to act on the information they had the way the did, no matter where it came from. The idea of Israeli “treachery” doesn’t bother me even a fourth as much as the sheer stupidity of this whole Iraq thing from day one.
Oh geeze. I don’t want to get into an other 911 conspiracy fest. Al Queda confess and there is tons of evidence the people were associated with Al Queda.
CNN: "Mubarak [said] he would step down right away but did not want to risk plunging [Egypt] into chaos" Glad we're avoiding chaos in Egypt!