Leftist Muslim blogger Ali Eteraz has been beating the drum about the Pakistani divorce reform proposal, and feeling kind of lonely in doing so.
Today, he uses this history to talk about the interaction between domestic reformers with the Muslim world and Western progressives.
This might be part of the reason that so many Muslim ‘reformers’ like Irshad Manji, Hrsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, end up becoming a “chamcha” (joke for insiders) to the neo-imperial right. They become unhappy with the progressives for seeming so “distant” from activism and so flock to those who seem “all up in the bizness” (even if its the worst way to do bizness). It’s a sort of Reformist Dilemma I discussed earlier.
Reformists are activists; and that means they are impatient. They don’t want to sit around and explain why demanding equality in divorce rights is not cultural imperialism. The neo-right doesn’t bother to ask such questions, and therefore draws the Reformists to it. I see that Ziba Mir’s film was made and financed in 1998. Back then it was the progressives who were the vanguard of human rights advancement in the world and the conservatives preferred isolationism. I doubt that a left group in England today would fund her film. They would be more concerned with how such a film would advance the neo-con ambitions over Iran. While the concern is legitimate, I think it is overwrought. In the end, progressives need to usurp and re-assert their former dominance in the international human rights arena. At the time being, they have utterly and totally lost their status. So they have been supplanted.
The problem is that mainstream progressives are caught in a logical bind; they can’t promote that which further imposes perceived Western hegemony; and at the same time they can’t abandon their human values.
Ali is already a signer of the Euston Manifesto, and so he’s participating – more so because he’s working the hard seam of progressive values within the Muslim world.
For the conservatives here who are harrumphing about the uselessness of progressivism or human rights in the face of Islamist tyranny, let me suggest that liberating women in the Muslim world would do far more to solve Islamist tyranny and terrorism than any weapons system you can imagine.
Ali was actually complaining that it was only the conservatives who were answering his call to defend women’s rights in Pakistan. That the progressives, who claimed to care, were too tied in ideological knots to move. So I’m not sure that it’s safe to say that conservatives were harumphing on this issue. It’s the liberals who hemmed and hawed and ignored it.
Walrus, my point was intended (if not necessarily clearly written) to the conservaties who harrumph becauase his proposed solutions and issues are progressive ones…
A.L.
Hi Armed,
Concise and effective, as usual.
I do take umbrage with being called a “leftist.” Yes I did state that I learned “Center Left” in an earlier post, but as the amicability between you and me, or me and Dean illustrates, there is a lot of overlap between a non-Leftist-Center-Left liberal and a non-Rightist-Center-Right Liberal (as I am assuming you are). Further, “leftist” is associated with Marxism and big government, both of which I oppose. I might be a Democrat but I am not a leftist.
Gee you would almost think that President Bush and Republicans hadn’t spent the last five years talking (and unlike “progressives” actually doing something about) spreading freedom and equal rights for women in the Muslim world as part of our overall strategy. I doubt AL missed the part where women where Afghanistan and Iraq had elections which included women candidates, where women were part of the interim governments set up before the first free elections, and where equal rights for women were included as part of each nation’s respective constitutions. That’s not to say that either nation is anywhere near a model on these issues or more work won’t be needed but it seems rather obvious that in talking about “women in the Muslim world” as a solution for “Islamist tyranny,” AL isn’t so much making a new observation as he is reiterating things that conservatives have already been working on.
Thorley,
“Gee you would almost think that President Bush and Republicans hadn’t spent the last five years talking (and unlike “progressives” actually doing something about) spreading freedom and equal rights for women”
Really? You sure? Because women’s rights in Iraq have gone backwards.
I don’t think the Republican give a flying eff about protecting women’s rights.
They can’t even protect the rights of teenage interns in their own HOUSE!!!
They can’t protect the ports – and veto legislation that sensibly protects ports, because of their corporate buyers objections.
They can’t secure Iraq.
They can’t secure Afghanistan.
They can’t catch Bin Laden.
The Republicans made very clear last year, they CAN’T protect their own citizens after a natural disaster – remember Katrina!?
We saw last week – these guys aren’t interested in protecting and defending the Constitution – but more interested in passing a law that guts the Constitution.
I’ll say again – they WON’T even protect their teenage interns, in THEIR OWN HOUSE!!
Because why? Because they didn’t want to risk the Florida seat.
Power over principle with these guys, always.
Anyone who doesn’t have at least a mild case of Bush Derangement Syndrome – BDS – and has been paying attention, is absolutely deranged themselves.
So enough talk about how the “Republicans are protecting” ANYTHING but their own power and privileges.
Even if you hate democrats and everything democrats stand for, you should hold your nose and vote for them. Because the current crop of Republicans stand more for power, privilege, and corruption, than any principle.
Liberals stopped being progressive when they continued to support the pull out from Vietnam despite the disasterous results.
I can forgive them for taking that stance in 1975. By 1980 it was clealy a mistake of mass murder proportions. They have never repented and it has colored their view of war an peace ever since.
BTW in ’75 I was a liberal and supported the pull out. I learned from my mistake. Where are the rest of the liberals?
Well any way I’m a supporter of the Republicans on the war. And economics.
_. . . women’s rights in Iraq have gone backwards._
The Iraqi Constitution gives women equal rights.
The United States Constitution does not.
That’s a good example of progressive reforms with different external and internal results.
_Back then it was the progressives who were the vanguard of human rights advancement in the world and the conservatives preferred isolationism._
And in 1860, who were the vanguard of the human rights movement?
_The problem is that mainstream progressives are caught in a logical bind; they can’t promote that which further imposes perceived Western hegemony; and at the same time they can’t abandon their human values._
It seems a recurrent problem, doesn’t it?
_let me suggest that liberating women in the Muslim world would do far more to solve Islamist tyranny and terrorism than any weapons system you can imagine._
And would catapult Islamic countries into a full market economy. I agree. But I am afraid the left simply has joined the anti-Western civilization front. Is their hate for freedom greater that their love for human rights? I don’t know, but I find pretty fool to see here in Europe leftist gays critizing mounting pressure in Iran, when probably there, they would be prosecuted and jailed.
la gauche!
#5,
So you would throw the Afghanis and Iraqis under the bus because the war is more difficult than you hoped?
BTW what does Foley have to do with Afghanistan? I remind you of Gary Studds as long as it is mud slinging time. Or Barney Frank and his home grown gay prostitution ring. Which rather surpisinly he was ignorant of.
If the Dems were not calling pull out I’d believe they had a better plan for Iraq.
Well there is one consolation. If the Ds pull out we have the net now. The genocide will be noticed at once. The Dems will never survive it.
I’m still looking for Dem support of Iraqi and Afghani democrats. Or any Democrat consultation of the democrats and trade unionists in that country. Hippocracy indeed.
How about we let the Iraqis and Afghanis vote on whether we withdraw from their countries, M.?
It sure looks like most of them want us to leave.
If that’s the case…America is just a garden variety occupier.
It only takes one vote per country to find out…
monky,
So far the Iraqi and Afghani elected governments have not voted to expel the Americans.
The dog that didn’t bark and all that.
Did you see/hear/read what Karzai had to say about American defeatists? He wasn’t very nice.
So when are liberals going to get back to their anti-despot roots?
I’m with monkyboy on letting them vote on it. At the same exact time, we should also hold an election in the United States with one question only on the ballot and let Americans vote on it too: Should America stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, or pull out and let them figure it out for themselves?
My bet is that we’d hear a LOT of weeping and wailing from the Iraqi’s and Afghan’s along the line of “no no no – don’t LEAVE us!!! We’ll be good – we promise!!!”
And then after an American vote, either the Dem’s or the Rep’s would have to shut up because the tribe has spoken. Hopefully France, Germany, Russia and all the Middle East countries would shut up too.
I did a bit on Redrawing the Map a day or two ago.
NahnCee,
Suppose The Iraqis and Afghanis want us to stay/help and Americans vote to leave (Vietnam redux)?
It doesn’t matter what the vote is. Any ensuing genocide will be blamed on the pull out folks.
Democrats rarely think more than one move ahead.
M. Simon,
First – nowhere did I write –
“So you would throw the Afghanis and Iraqis under the bus because the war is more difficult than you hoped?”
If you are going to dialogue, don’t use your own projections as sock-puppetry, that you then get to reject.
Maybe it works in your world to build imaginary strawmen that you then make fun of but I call that dishonest.
Second –
“BTW what does Foley have to do with Afghanistan?
What does it have to do with it? The point is very clear – the current Republicans cannot be trusted to secure women’s rights, for any number of reasons – number one being the underlying cynicism and pursuit of power – regardless of any principles. THAT is the commonality that underlies the way ALL issues are treated by the current Republican leaders. (And again, not all Republicans – but the leaders sacrificed principles for power long ago.)
“I remind you of Gary Studds as long as it is mud slinging time. Or Barney Frank and his home grown gay prostitution ring. Which rather surpisinly he was ignorant of.”
Ah – nice. You want to point to other scandals, to show that this one – what? Isn’t that bad? Democrats do it too?
You are trying to find a way to DIMINISH this? To NOT hold Hastert accountable for sitting on this? Even if Dems did the same thing – you reaching for various excuses and reasons to mitigate this, speaks of an amoral center in yourself.
Before I jump to that conclusion, if it looks like Hastert and Boehner sat on this – which it looks like they have – what do you think those particular two Republican leaders should do?
M.,
I imagine Karzai will say whatever Bush wants him to say.
A vote of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan may be the only (small) chance the pro-war folks have of continuing our occupations of those countries beyond November.
And if the people of those countries vote us out, what a nice face-saving tool to cover our retreat.
It’s a win-win plan.
Monkey and Hypocrisy neatly demonstrate the Necromonger post of Wretchard at Belmont Club:
Summary: bad guys in Chronicles of Riddick find Life imperfect so want to wipe it out for the perfect stillness of death.
Which is where Monkey and Hypocrisy lead us.
By any objective measure life for women in Afghanistan is orders of magnitude BETTER. Yes the Taliban are still there, still fighting, still making women’s lives miserable in much of the country but they are NOT conducting public executions of “immodest” women and that is a PLUS.
One I will take and THANK GWB for.
By any objective measure Saddam’s Religious police who would decapitate women on the spot for being “immodest” being gone courtesy of the USA is a plus. By any objective measure the mass graves no longer being filled by Saddam (contents being mostly women, old men, and toddlers) in Kurdistan or the South are a net plus (and thanks btw to GWB).
By any objective measure the rape rooms, torture rooms, predations by Saddam’s sons are gone, womens lives are better, and it’s all courtesy of the USA and GWB.
Now Monkey and the other one view the fact that GWB has not transformed Iraq and Afghanistan into say, Berkeley, as a gigantic failure, and want SADDAM BACK. As frankly do most Democrats. Who never met a hereditary tyrant (Castro, the Jong-Il, Saddam, and other hereditary rulers) they did not just like but LOVE.
So some Rep Congressman did what Bill Clinton did, only gayer. Big deal. I didn’t care about Clinton’s sexual harassment (probably broke about ten laws on that score) then and I don’t care now.
Witness the Necromongers of the Democratic Party.
If either commenter has objective recommendations on improving womens lives in either country (such as military rule by America for generations, banning Islam, other things they have no intention of offering) I’d be glad to hear it and can say with confidence they have no zero none nada zilch to offer as an alternative to improve women’s lives.
Women’s lives in Muslim nations suck because of Islam. Get rid of the Islam and their lives improve by an order of 5,000% . Of course Monkey and the other one are handcuffed by PC ideology that leads them into “the world is flat” statements.
“How about we let the Iraqis and Afghanis vote on whether we withdraw from their countries, M.?”
They are both welcome to vote on it. In fact they did. Not via referendum, but via a republican process just like ours.
How many polls show the US people overwhelmingly in favor of something that hasnt happened politically btw? What people claim they want in theory and what they actually elect people to go do is 2 seperate things.
“What does it have to do with it? The point is very clear – the current Republicans cannot be trusted to secure women’s rights, for any number of reasons ”
Wow. This coming from the people who brought us Bill Clinton. You really want to open up this kettle of fish?
I’m a big fan of The Chronicles of Riddick, Jim, but not of your logic.
Do you think the woman of Vietnam would have been better off over the past 30 years if we were still using their country as a battlefield?
Wearing a burka to cover your head is one thing, getting a bomb dropped on your head is something else again.
Could the Bush administration at least pretend we’re not in Iraq for the oil for a few months so the Islamic fundies don’t win the upcoming election in Pakistan?
“Do you think the woman of Vietnam would have been better off over the past 30 years if we were still using their country as a battlefield?”
There are 3 million Cambodians that would have wanted a voice in that, not to mention the 2 million south vietnamese forced to flee the nation and several hundred thousand more put in concentration camps. I think they might not have the answer you expect. I thought there was some saying in our culture about liberty and death, but i guess you dont subscribe to that.
“Could the Bush administration at least pretend we’re not in Iraq for the oil for a few months so the Islamic fundies don’t win the upcoming election in Pakistan?”
The only people obsessed with oil is your ilk. Oil on the brain. Hows that secret Afghanistan pipeline to Bush’s pool in Crawford coming along? Or is the pipeline-stealth technology cloaking it (courtesy of Halliburton(evil) of course).
Mark,
Same ploy, same mitigating tendencies. There will always be scandals coming up – that’s what happens. The people responsible – and the people who should be overseeing – will be brought to account as necessary.
So why are you diverting from THIS scandal? It sounds like you would do the same thing as Hastert – “ignore” the issue, and not make sure the pages are protected IN YOUR OWN HOUSE.
And it seems that way, because instead of preaching accountability, you leap to the defense by pointing to “Clinton did it”.
I say again – the current republican leadership crop made an amoral decision to ignore the Foley issue, because they wanted to keep the Florida seat.
And that should be an issue for any Republican, shouldn’t it?
Am I trying to find a way to diminish Foley? Hell no.
I’d just like to see the Dems come out against their own miscreants.
Foley resigned. Studds stayed in office.
BTW FWIW I’m not a Republican or a Democrat. Voted Bush/Obama in the last election. What I am is an old school liberal. A vanishing breed I’m afraid.
I’m a Kennedy liberal. To the right of the Republicans on taxes and defence. Far to the left of them on social issues. Did some one mention drug prohibition (Barney Frank is correct about that one)?
“Down with despots by any means necessary” kind of liberal.
Hehe, Mark,
Oil on the brain? There’s enough oil under Iraq to buy America. I don’t think it’s just me.
The U.S. military says they can’t defeat the insurgency in Iraq.
U.S. intelligence agencies say the insurgency in Iraq is fueling terrorism across the Muslim world (including Pakistan).
If we’re not there for the oil, what possible reason could we have for staying?
Let’s let the people of Iraq vote on our continued occupation of their country…while we still can.
“Down with despots by any means necessary” kind of liberal.”
That sounds good to me – it’s the type of liberal I am.
You mean it?
Because I haven’t seen anything here, or browsing quickly, your blog, that spoke of the elimination of habeaus corpus with last week’s passing of the Torture and Detention Act.
What is your particular rationalization of why that doesn’t concern you?
Lincoln totally eliminated habeas corpus and the nation survived.
I think we can survive limited elimination.
In any case enemy combatants never had the right of habeas corpus. They still don’t. Fine with me. Drum head courts followed by firing squads would be OK with me.
Did I mention drug prohibition? It affects a lot more Americans than the Torture and Detention Act. When are the Dems going to do a full court press on that one?
We have lost many times the rights we have lost to the terror war to the drug war. Where are the Dems? Why is the Terror war which affects a few thousand Americans a big deal while the Drug War which affects millions hardly worth a mention?
Where was the Dem Outrage on this
case? We had not just a report of torture, but an actual recording.
All the rights you claim to have lost to the terror war were lost a long time ago to the Drug War while you weren’t looking. The terror war is just an expansion of established practice.
Its the old “First they came for…”
So my attitude today is: if it is good enough for druggies it is good enough for terrorists.
“If we’re not there for the oil, what possible reason could we have for staying?”
How about this- do you think America’s interests would be best served if we werent in Iraq? IE- isnt it possible that staying in Iraq isnt pleasant, but leaving would be disasterous? Because that is what our intelligence agencies are actually saying that you hold so dear. Try not to just read the leaked NYT attack ads. I know that you are obsessed with oil and there is some sort of projection going on, but the math isnt that difficult. Stayin sucks, leaving would suck much worse. That get through at all? No oil involved!
“Let’s let the people of Iraq vote on our continued occupation of their country…while we still can.”
Let me walk you through this real slow like. How exactly are we ‘preventing’ the Iraqi people to vote us out one way or another? THEY WROTE THE CONSTITUTION AND RADIFIED IT, YES OR NO? THEY ELECTED THEIR CURRENT GOVERNMENT, YES OR NO? THEY WILL VOTE AGAIN AND _HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY_ YES OR NO?
Its called a republic. Believe it or not, thats how we ourselves run things. We dont have a referendum every time we need to decide something. WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT THEY ELECTED NOT ASKING US TO LEAVE? WHY ISNT ANYONE ORGANIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THEIR CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW FOR THE REFORENDUM YOU DREAM OF?
Its funny that you have this vision of the US controlling everything in Iraq- when in fact YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE SUGGESTING DOING SOMETHING THEY THEMSELVES HAVENT PROVIDED FOR. Thats the thing about cultural imperialism- its always what the other guys does. You are trying allowing your hatred of all things Bush to claim its a good idea to force the Iraqi people to have some sort of special election they havent provided for and no-one is asking for. Think about the hypocracy in that.
Im sorry for the yelling, but wanton idiocy has pushed me over the edge today.
The relevancy of Foley is this: The Republican Congressman in charge of the oversight group is being whispered about by Democratic bloggers as a “closet gay.”:http://illinoisdemnet.com/node/2712#comment-392 The witchhunt has begun.
BTW Lincoln did it by fiat.
The current administration got a law passed. Some Dems voted for it.
Mark,
Only self-interested people cling to the thought that Iraq would be worse off without our troops there.
People also said Hezbollah wouldn’t keep a ceasefire, but they did.
Bush’s lawyers wrote the Iraqi Constitution, btw…hehe, poor Iraqis.
monky,
I’m told the Iraqi people voted for the Constitution Bush (through his advisors) wrote.
In fact the American Constitution was ratified in a country where most were not allowed to vote. How has that worked out?
Pretty well so far, M.Simon.
But I don’t remember the French hanging around after they helped us defeat the British.
I think if they’d tried to stay, we’d have begun an insurgency to kick them out.
#30 monky,
Wasn’t that the same rationale used for abandoning Vietnam to the communist despots?
The cut and run folks are going to get blamed if after withdrawal there is a blood bath that makes the current carnage seem like a picnic.
So I’m rooting for the cut and run Democrats. A genocide in Iraq/Afghanistan will be worth it if the Dems as they now exist are destroyed. Not too much different from the Dems who are in effect saying that even genocide will be worth it as long as Americans are not involved.
“Only self-interested people cling to the thought that Iraq would be worse off without our troops there.”
Big on unsubstantiated absolute statements, arent we? How in gods name can you blast Bush for allowing a virtual civil war to develop, and then with a straight face say Iraq wont be worse off without our troops there to prevent it from losing the virtual label? I’ll tell you how- _Fundamental Unseriousness._ You know full well Iraq would descend into a full blow ethnic cleansing civil war of the Bosnia if not Rwanda type- but you in face welcome it becuase you will have the golden opportunity to blame Bush for it. How freaking sick is that? Seriously, how disgusting are you? You know full well that what you are prescribing will make the present bloodshed look like a fond memory. You know it will lead to another Hussien. But you just dont care, because you get to blame Bush for it.
monky,
The French didn’t need to stick around. We had a government in place.
OTOH we dissolved the Iraqi government. (why would we want a bunch of genociders in charge?) In the same way we dissolved the German government as WW2 ended.
We stayed in Germany for the same reason we stayed in Iraq. To help the democrats in Iraq take over governing. I have seen an Iraqi trade unionist ream out the left for abandoning its principles and the Iraqi democrats. They deserve it.
How you coming on the drug war BTW?
#34 Mark,
Excellent.
As Ralph Peters puts it:
“The subjugation of women.” Is one of the tests for failed states. Which means for all you progressives out there, the ME states ALL meet that definition.
Get over it.
Let’s see how the right calculates things:
1. Imagine the very worst case scenario.
2. Assign a probablity of 100% to that scenario happening.
3. Use this faulty calculation to justify almost infinite government spending.
Our presence in Iraq is causing more problems than it’s solving.
The Iraqis are adults.
It’s time to let them shape their own future.
Pretty simple.
M. Simon – so then you are saying that the vote of the Iraqi people for American soldiers to stay should over-ride a vote by American taxpayers if we should decide by a majority vote to pull out? That doesn’t seem right, even if you throw in guilt trips about Vietnam which really doesn’t speak to the current situation.
IF a majority of Americans don’t want to support this war, financially, emotionally or physically as would be proven by a national vote – then what possible reason could a bunch of Muslims bent upon murdering each other have that would over-ride that personal decision by American citizens on what the United States of America should or should not be doing?
You know, monkeyboy, you’re boring me.
“Let’s see how the right calculates things:”
Why bother reading the posts or threads? You could do a ‘bot – “Right-wingers evil and bad. Left wingers the only hope for the human race. Follow us if you want to live.”
The reality is that the midless advocates on both side are dolts. Is that what you want to be? Ali – the guy the post is about – is wrestling with the substance of the problem and acknowledging the pitfalls along the way. That path leads to understanding, and fruitful action.
Yours? Not so much. How about tryng something different?
A.L.
Exactly how is “Stay the Course!” the path that leads to understanding, A.L.?
Our goal is for the Iraqis to govern themselves.
Why not give them a chance to do just that?
It might lead to increased violence, but judging by Maliki’s allies, Hezbollah’s actions…it might very well lead to peace.
OK, improvement. Why is that a “right/left” argument? Why isn’t it a “here’s the best thing for the US and for Iraq and here’s why” argument?
A.L.
I use the term “right” as a shorthand for those who are making a profit off our occupation of Iraq…and would suffer some kind of direct loss if we pulled out.
You know, A.L., you’re boring me.
Why bother reading the posts or threads? You could do a ‘bot – “I’m a liberal but I criticize liberals all the time for their own good!”
The reality is that you are a willing or unwitting tool of an authoritarian, rightwing agenda.
Is that what you want to be?
Other fairminded critics – such as Kevin Drum – state values and principles they care about, and then praise or criticize people, and those in power, based on how those values are supported or thwarted. That path leads to understanding, and fruitful action.
Yours? Not so much. How about tryng something different?
H.R.
I disagree with A.L. about ‘liberating’ women in the Islamic world.
The assumption there is that they want to be liberated.
In our eyes, they are brutally oppressed and nearly slaves. But in their eyes, that is normal, and Western Women are sinners.
Think about it – if women in Islam actually wanted Western freedoms, they would teach their young sons to respect women and treat their future wives as equals. Islamic women in the US would have organizations that are very vocal about women’s rights violations in the Islamic world. Ayaan Hirsi Ali would be admired by most Islamic women in the US.
But this is not the case. From hating Israel to believing that 9/11 was a justifiable reaction to US policies to outrage over the Danish cartoons, Islamic women probably have the same opinions as Islamic men.
To think they are waiting to be liberated is very naive of us. They think their way is what is best for them, even if burqas, stonings, genital mutilation, lack of permission to drive, work, etc. is part of that.
NahnCee,
OK then why even ask the Iraqis to vote on the question?
So here is my position: if leaving Iraq multiplys the death toll I’m against it. If it makes most Iraqis deleriously happy I’m for it.
If I was betting I’d say that leaving will cause the bodies to pile up much faster. I’m against that.
Ok… how about…
“This?”:http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=031103A
That’s better.
So hypocracy, if I’m boring you, the door’s just over there…
…or better, take the (minimal) effort you’re spending here and contribute (here or via Kevin) to the canonical set of information I’m trying to assemble on Democratic defense policies.
A.L.
Think about it – if women in Islam actually wanted Western freedoms, they would teach their young sons to respect women and treat their future wives as equals.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is utter, patronizing, chauvinistic crap. They would teach their sons something they’ve never experienced and, given the abysmal levels of female education in the Muslim world, may well never have even heard of? And that’s presuming they A) have any say in what they’re allowed to teach their sons and B) they could counteract the teaching of every adult male in the boy’s life. Boys usually obey/respect their mothers when they’re very young, but even in a fairly gender-egalitarian society like the US, a boy will almost invariably model his behavior on that of his father (or some paternal ‘stand-in’).
Do you know how long it took for Western women, with access to education and books, and with strong female role models, to get the vote? And you’re saying “Well, Muslim women haven’t managed to overcome centuries of socio-religious casting of women as mere chattel, so that proves they’re okay with being chattel.”
One of the paradoxes of liberty is the freedom not to take it. Nobody serious is proposing ripping off their hijabs (in fact, I work with a Muslim woman who wears one), dictating the men they marry/divorce, forcing them into beauty contests, or insisting they abandon their faith. Nobody’s going to drag them down to the polling place and pelt them with rocks until they vote. What is being offered is the choice.
The Hijab, and in general, the burka and other excessive coverings actually do not protect a woman’s modesty.
There are two components to male attraction to the female, in my mind. The first is similarity. Things such as similar experiences, etc. This is a kind of platonic/friendship bond. The second attraction is the woman’s otherness.
Certainly, there is something to be said for modesty in dress; if not only for style, for protection from weather and from the lecherous sorts.
But the burka does something entirely different. 1. It convinces the woman that she is protecting her chastity and modesty at the same time that 2. It makes her so utter alien and other and mysterious, that she is craved all the more, especially by the men who have not the standing to have a wife.
Modesty is, respecting others. The burka is respecting no-one, but perhaps her overprotective husband. Its not respecting herself; it, in the same way that nudity and lavasciousness might, objectifies her.
This is the crux of this insane ideology, isn’t it? Note that the Burka is not really traditional dress of any kind. It is the ultimate objectification of the woman. This creates a covetousness in the men, which they will do anything, including blow themselves up, for. Because she is unseen, she becomes whatever the man imagines her to be.
Its totally, completely sick. Deluded, evil, faceless… this is not the soul of the Arab people, nor the soul of any people. It is an abomination.
I’m dead tired of people apologizing this madness. We can nitter on about the history of Islam, and the life of Muhammed, (who lived reprehensibly, nonwithstanding…) but what really matters is what Islam is BECOMING. It is certainly not a ‘civilization’ in our conception of the word, but with oil money and enough satanic fantasies to last a thousand lifetimes, peppered with a few WMD, who needs civilization? Really.
As for the democratic policy for national defense, or for combatting the war on terror? All outmoded ideas. At least Joe Lieberman is willing to consider new ideas; thus why he voted for the war. (What, you say, isn’t War as old as dust? So is talk, you twits. That’s not what I’m talking about.)
Here is the ‘Democrat’ plan in a nutshell: 1. Honorific National Sovreignity/Popularity Contest/Sell Western Culture[to someone who will not accept it] if that fails, 2. Realpolitik.
Both were old in 1920. [That is, as of the end of WWI more or less; WWII showed the danger of both ideas – ‘self’ determination without checks & balances, and the utter failings of ‘realpolitik’.]
Both ideas work fine if your opponent wants to play by the rules.
But the radical strain that we spent 30 years emboldening with our cowardice; it is not going to play by the rules. If blowing up an American city is the goal, what does it gain them? ‘honor’? Really? How? It doesn’t. It doesn’t gain them anything materially. Their goal is a fantasy; there is no rationality. [I’m implying, quite correctly, that most of us westerners have no clue what honor really is. I’m not suggesting all of us do, as there are some who understand it.]
As Swift said, (And I believe ‘Iraq the Model’ has as his motto) “It is impossible to reason a man out of something he was not reasoned into to begin with.”
Democrats better get this through their head, or the two party system is going to be Republicans and Libertarians. I won’t really miss ’em.
Sorry for the brusqueness, but we should not entertain imaginations that are pointless. Democrat foreign policy is one of them.
[Also, apologies for not really adding to your list, A.L. I did enjoy your post, though!]
AL,
With all due respect (it’s your site, even though not your post), I think the better course is to just ignore the simian troll. Let those who are willing to actually discuss and debate, do so.
Yeah, River,
The Republicans and Libertarians are gonna have a stellar November.
If this is just a religious thing, shouldn’t the churches fund the crusade?
I’d prefer the money to go towards updating America’s third-world power grid.
_…if women in Islam actually wanted Western freedoms, they would teach their young sons to respect women and treat their future wives as equals._
The point of seeking divorce reform is that women do not have the freedom GK assumes. They are not equal in matters of divorce and divorce is a good way to lose custody of the children. Teaching sons that women don’t like genital mutilation might mean never seeing the children again.
monkyboy:
You might try to keep at least two wheels on the ground. At the moment, you’re scraping guardrails and knocking over pedestrians, with little to show for it.
It probably feels dramatic, but is that enough?
Hehe, NM.
I guess I was being too subtle.
I think America and Iraq should get a divorce.
There’s been some abuse.
There’s been some appropriating of property brought to the marriage.
And nobody is looking out for the kids.
But, just like some poor Pakistani woman seeking a divorce…America and Iraq’s divorce isn’t being handled by a neutral judge applying fair laws.
Instead, America and Iraq’s divorce is being decided by a self-interested judge whose main goal is maintaining the power of his political/religious/financial gang of thugs…
Pakistani woman deserve an equal say in their marriage.
The people of Iraq deserve an equal say in our occupation of their country…let’s have that referendum.
monkyboy, I am afraid the problem is that Islamic extremists won’t divorce from America, so either you fight them in a foreign land or you do it at the front door of your home. You decide.
Oh I see _la gauche americaine_ getting closer and closer to Europe’s. I hope they do not copy such a liking for “explosives”:http://www.news.com.au/story/0,4057,20509975-401,00.html.
Well, j,
We might have at least asked the Iraqis if they wanted to host the war between Islamic extremists and…whoever we’re supposed to be this month.
Just another example of the similarities between Sharia divorce law and the arguments being made to stay in Iraq…
monky,
It is what comes after November that will destroy the Dems if they win. If they force a pull out from Iraq and refuse to support the Iraqis (ala ‘Nam) the genocide that starts up will be laid at the feet of the Ds. It will not be hidden. Reports will come back at once – we have the ‘net now.
The Dems will be seen as enablers of genocide (as they were in ‘Nam). In ‘Nam it took a while for the word to filter out. Feedback will be much faster this time. Thus its impact will be greater.
Who is going to vote for genocide enablers a second time? Ever?
Monky: Great diversionary tactics.
Classic, by which I mean ANTIQUE, right out of the marxist playbook. Got anything better? Because over here, I’ve got extremist Islamist crazy, that wants to kill both of us, no matter what we agree or disagree on. So tentatively, I might assert, that we ought to agree on defeating and exterminating our enemies.
But that’s just me.
Of course, then again, you might fancy the crazies your ALLIES, which would in fact make you a traitor.
Now, if you’d like to give the enemy more reasons for believing an insane fantasy about our weakness, you’re free to want that. But its not gonna happen. Guess what? Whine all you’d like, but we’re staying in Iraq until its done.
I guess in your mind you’ve already lost the war…. can’t you imagine? No borders, no nations no religions… except Islam. And not even, sadly, the Islam that conquered much of Europe and subjugated and destroyed many successful peoples, no, -that- Islam might give us hope for reason and dialog– though limited, as even they fantasized about a Caliphate that will never exist. No, this is the Islam of insanity, wherein every man is an object or an idol; either eminently worthless or exalted above any possible worth.
Eteraz reminds me that among men of conscience, there exists no hierarchy; while I disagree with his characterization of America and its motives, I’m sure in turn he disagrees with some of my characterizations of his Religion, or some of its followers. But he is a reasonable man, capable of conscience and not corrupted by fantastic pleasures.
You know what’s even more sad? Those guys who are ‘martyrs’? They’re not getting anything. They’re simply dead.
Also, by the way, the number of people that have heard the ‘stink’ surrounding the republican party and actually ‘care’? Probably so few that it doesn’t matter. I’m disappointed in the party I voted for, but you’ll not see me pull a lever for the Popularity/Realpolitik machine. Knowing a bit about the culture of Americans in general, I’d say that they feel the same way (though perhaps for not the same reasons.)
As for the church funding a crusade? Which church are you referring to? The REAL church has no boundaries, and no buildings. No, I’m not crazy, I’m just reading the operator’s manual. There are no ‘church funds’ to buy a crusade with. There are organizations who fancy themselves to be ‘the Church’ and think that they are fulfilling the Word of God. As for your comment, it only sounds clever. I remember an old phrase, from one of the great masters of the art of aphorism. Read carefully, monky, here it is:
.bq There are those who look on the outside as a mansion, but on the inside are as a small cottage. In them there is not rest, and yet they are continually resting.
Your head is empty. Please go fill it with something useful at least.
_We might have at least asked the Iraqis if they wanted to host the war between Islamic extremists and…whoever we’re supposed to be this month._
Sure, you might have asked the southern Shia or the northern Kurds, who after the First Gulf War were prompted to fight Sadam and then were left in his hands.
Sooner or later there will be another attack on U.S. soil, M. Simon. As you say, it is not a question of “if”, but of “when”. Far left theories of _preventive surrendering_ will prove false but a lot of people will already be dead by then.
There might very well be another attack on U.S. soil, j.
But America taking a couple of Muslim countries by force to be our brides, then beating the hell out of them, won’t do anything to prevent that attack.
In fact, it will probably be the cause of it.
Monkey Boys mode of argument:
-Attack what the Bush administration has done in the most outrageous and egregious of terms.
-Be sure to espouse nonsensical motives such as vampiric lust for oil. This is required by the anthologic principle of attacking Bush: ie, anyone so EVIL who commits such wantonly dispicable and murderous acts MUST have some motive. And the guy is from Texas. Hello? What Texas oil tycoon _isnt_ thrilled to kill thousands of American soldiers for a taste of the black gold? YEEEHAAAAWWW *bang* *bang* *bang*.
-When called upon for actual ideas instead of simple criticism, provide the most base, 3rd grade, cliffs notes ideas plausible- the kinds of things that even Jimmy Carter would roll his eyes at.
-Anyone challenging those proposals based on their inanity is dismissed out of hand for ‘assuming the worst case’. When in fact they are ‘assuming what is universally acknowldged by those not inhabiting Venus’.
-Feel no need to reply to legitimate factual challenges to said inane ideas, because after all no matter what the consequences _Bush will be blamed for it!_ Ta-da!
Give me a break, Mark.
You’re not supposed to actually believe the spin being put out by the Republicans to minimize the blame for the Iraq mess, btw.
If the Bush administration had had a logical reason for invading Iraq, or had at least pretended to have a post-invasion plan, or had at the very least pretended to care about Iraq, nobody would be floating “nonsensical motives” as the “real” reasons we invaded that poor country.
Monkeyboy,
Basing one of your comments on actual, factual events would be a start.
American oil tankers are indeed being filled with Iraqi crude around the clock, SPQR.
American defense contractors in Iraq are indeed getting billion of dollars a month with very little oversight, SPQR.
And Bush and the Republicans are indeed pitching the Iraq War as battle between good and evil to America’s Christians, SPQR.
Factual enough?
Off topic – SPQR, did you watch the Rome mini-series from HBO? I just bought it…quite a disappointment.
“If the Bush administration had had a logical reason for invading Iraq, or had at least pretended to have a post-invasion plan, or had at the very least pretended to care about Iraq, nobody would be floating “nonsensical motives” as the “real” reasons we invaded that poor country.”
That may be true- but why do you feel the need to embellish legitimate criticism with nutty conspiracy theory and ridiculous rhetoric? It _clearly_ backfires, which you will discover once again this November in all likelihood. You are going down the same road as most zealott movements- you are so convinced of your singular claim to truth that you assume anyone who disagrees with you is either an idiot or EVIL. Everything out of your mouth reflects this, which alienates the vast majority of your countrymen, who then vote against you. Then you blame your opponents for fighting ‘unfairly’, the system for being ‘rigged’, and finally and pathetically democracy itself for empowering those who arent smart enough to know their own best interest. The left of your party has sped past the first 2 and is well on the way to 3, which dead-ends in a thing called Fascism.
You are so consumed with your own self-righteousness and hatred, you dont even realize the inherint contradictions in your arguments. Look at what you just wrote above. If Bush really invaded Iraq to steal oil, _why did he do it without a plan to stabalize his ‘investment’._ Your talking points run into each other. If this man was ruthless enough to start this war for his own personal gain- an already incrediably wealthy man mind you(and oh, and at what point do we see his tax returns skyrocket with his newfound oil wealth btw?) _how can it be that he isnt ruthless enough to stabalize the nation whatever it took?_
How can you be an evil genius, and yet entirely inept? Trust me, its quite enough and more to argue that Bush is inept. That argument says it all. Win that one and you win your battle. What could it be but blind emotionalism and hatred that creates these oil fetishes? ITS NOT HELPING YOUR ARGUMENT, ITS KILLING IT.
What it truly betrays about you, at the end of the day, is that you have no plan, no ideas, no way to fight this war or destroy these enemies, and so you have built a straw enemy you can convince yourself is the true danger. One you can fight, ironically, because of the very freedoms you falsly claim he has usurped. You can write and print and yell and scream whatever you want about Bush in this nation, because of the very freedoms we represent. And yet you have nary an honest (much less interesting) word to say about the enemy that has sworn to destroy that freedom at any cost. Pathetic indeed.
Who ever said an aristocracy has to be clever to prosper, Mark?
Bread and Circuses works just as well today as it did 2000 years ago.
The aristocrats just have to careful not to let plebs twig to fact their fate doesn’t matter at all…
Ah- and dont forget to duck every uncomfortable question with some non sequitar equally pointless and untenable.
Hehe Mark,
“You are so consumed with your own self-righteousness and hatred””
“The mean old Muslims are gonna nuke my town.”
Psychic predictions aren’t arguments.
Paranoia isn’t logic.
If you could state you question in a form that doesn’t require either, I’d be happy to answer it.
Very good.
-Do you feel it is necessary to ‘take the fight’ to Al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations? If not, how should they be dealt with- if at all? (please note nothing I asked involves a time machine, please do me the favor of limiting your answer to what we should do from today forward, not what has already occured)
-Judging by your past statements, I take you advocate US withdrawal from Iraq in the very near if not immediate future. If im wrong please correct me. The elected Iraqi government, US intelligence and analysis, and the vast majority of foriegn government and international experts- including the UN believe this move will precipitate a full blown civil war. Do you agree this is a plausible scenario? A likely scenario? Very likely, or very unlikely, or somewhere in between?
– _If,_ (whatever the likelihood you judge it to be) Iraq erupts into full blown civil war/ethnic cleansing, what should our reaction be, if anything?
-As a general principle, would you agree that a more violent, chaotic Iraq is liable to become an even more virulent breeding ground for international terrorism?
-If we did withdraw from Iraq, can you envision any scenario in which you would advocate US forces returning?
Mark,
I believe the level of violence in Iraq would drop substantially if we pulled out of Iraq.
I think America should always invade a country that attacks us, or is about to attack us.
As for al Qaeda, of course we should “take the fight” to them.
But we should do it in a cost efficient manner that minimizes the potential for anti-American and terrorist recruiting propaganda.
In other words, let’s stop invading and occupying entire countries just to catch a couple bad guys.
Monky
_But America taking a couple of Muslim countries by force to be our brides, then beating the hell out of them, won’t do anything to prevent that attack._
Sure it does:
1. Iraq attracts most of the Islamic extremist fighters who want to die for Islam, diverting them from trying to infiltrate in the Western world.
2. Muslim citizens see what is happening in Irak. Such high death toll among Muslim civilians simply plays against extremism.
_American oil tankers are indeed being filled with Iraqi crude around the clock, SPQR._
America has enough oil in her soil, in Canada and Mexico. Who really needs the middle east oil, m?
*Europe*, China, Japan…
monky
_I believe the level of violence in Iraq would drop substantially if we pulled out of Iraq._
Sure, after surrender to the Extremist, it will drop indeed. That is the _preventive surrendering_ strategy of the left. _Don’t you want violence? Surrender then._ A plan good to know for America’s enemies.
_I think America should always invade a country that attacks us, or is about to attack us._
No country would openly attack America, therefore no country will ever be invaded.
_But we should do it in a cost efficient manner that minimizes the potential for anti-American and terrorist recruiting propaganda._
You, d*** infidel, who not believes in the Prophet, you that deserve being ruled by us, the true believers, you dare to think that anti-American propaganda would be reduced after fleeing from Iraq? On the contrary!! Another great victory for Islam! What’s next?
Why do you think Islamists are like us? You probably would be jailed or killed if you dare to critize their policies. They won’t stop blaming America (in fact, no matter what it happens, most Europeans also blame America).
_In other words, let’s stop invading and occupying entire countries just to catch a couple bad guys._
Iraq wasn’t invaded to catch a couple of bad guys, Iraq and Afganistan were invaded, first of all, to deny the enemy its use as base. And secondly, to build a better alternative system for Muslims than despotism and extremism.
It is much better for the Western World to fight our battles there than at home. Our troops don’t belong to our home, as some leftist _slogans_ says. Our troops should be deployed and fight far away our borders, the contrary is a sign of a wrong policy, either against terrorism or against hurricanes.
bq. either against terrorism or against hurricanes.
I advocate pre-emptive surrender to hurricanes! Unless, of course, they have the audacity to invade. Then, _Full nuclear arsenal_.
This will obviously have the greatest success in eliminating hurricanes and getting me re-elected.
No, I am not an alcoholic.
For those who don’t follow such things Iraq accounts for less than 6% of our total oil imports. Right now we import approximately the same amount of oil from Iraq as we did prior to the invasion in 2003. Our imports accounts for something like 25% of Iraq’s total production. We’re not their largest customer. And oil is fungible. It trades on the world market and markets respond very rapidly to price changes.
I don’t know how that translates to the U. S. looting Iraq as a commenter above implies. What it does imply is that, since Iraq’s major source of foreign revenue is by exporting oil, U. S. purchase of Iraq’s oil is a good thing, providing the country the revenue it needs to rebuild.
“Mark,
I believe the level of violence in Iraq would drop substantially if we pulled out of Iraq.”
Ok, you are certainly not alone in thinking that. A lot of people also disagree. Now, what if you happen to be wrong? What would your contingency be if horrific levels of violence, tribal warfare, and ethnic cleansing did take place? Should we rush troops back in to stop it? I think its fair to ask what your reaction would be to a scenario that a great many people believe is very probable if your course is followed. After all, the facts are that thousands of Iraqis are being killed by fellow Iraqis every month. What makes you think that will lessen instead of intensify if we pull out?
“I think America should always invade a country that attacks us, or is about to attack us.”
We agree on that.
“As for al Qaeda, of course we should “take the fight” to them.
But we should do it in a cost efficient manner that minimizes the potential for anti-American and terrorist recruiting propaganda.
In other words, let’s stop invading and occupying entire countries just to catch a couple bad guys”
What, exactly does that entail in practice? Should we leave Afghanistan as well? It seems likely with our experience in Iraq that our invading/occupying days are over, at least for now. What other ideas would you propose for fighting international islamic terrorism? I’m seriously asking, because it seems to me that the ‘Bush way’ has about run its course, and im curious what will be next.
What comes next? Mark, I took a stab at that more than a year and a half ago and I think my conclusions are still the most likely.
I agree with Dave.
Mark,
I think what we need is the ability to act, without warning, against terrorists anywhere in the world.
Which means we would have to make it politically possible for all the world’s leaders to survive an attack on their country by America.
How?
Get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Be willing to defend our actions somewhere neutral, say the world court.
monkeyboy, you’ve just expressed the core military response rpoposal from the Democratic party for four years. And it’s delusional.
We’re going to unilaterally take military action wherever and whenever we think we need to in any other country in the world??
And do it with the support of the Hague??
a) it won’t work militarily;
b) it’s an act of war each time we do it;
c) the other nations of the world would do anything in theit power to unite and make sure we couldn;t and wouldn’t do it.
That’s not policy, that’s a bad Tom Clancy book proposal…
A.L.
Not as delusional as “We’ll be greeted as liberators!”
Nice to see an admission the Democrats have a decent plan to fight the terrorists.
And it would work…
monkeyboy, you’ve got to do your homework if you’re going to play…
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008238.php
A.L.
Hehe, A.L.,
I’m not talking about doing an Iraq redux in these countries, I’m talking about killing the terrorists and then leaving…within a few hours.
Not with “Special” Forces or Armed Foleys, but with the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions…
…and humans would fly out of your butt.
Seriously, if a country is harboring terrorists do we want the particular “world leader” in charge to remain in charge? I don’t think so!
Hypothetically, let’s say Hugo Chavez announces he’s letting the hypothetically-alive Osama Bin Laden relocate from his cave somewhere in Central Asia to a nice tropical villa with thousands of acres where his followers can work on their bridge game. What is the benefit of ensuring that old Hugo gets to keep his job when we send our hypothetical Ninjas in to say “Boo!” at OBL so that he’ll convince his followers to switch to gin rummy?
As to increase or decreas in violence after a U.S. unilateral withdrawal from a hotzone, there is historical precedcence: Remember Year Zero!
monkeyboy, I’m tired…please go read the link before making comments that show that you haven’t.
A.L.
I read your link, A.L.,
It seems like you have given up and ceded to the terrorists safe havens around the world.
We have the capability to go into those safe havens…we just need to smooth out the ruffled feathers after we leave.
The $100 billion a year we’re wasting on Iraq each year could easily smooth those feathers…with plenty left over for things like improved intelligence and border and port security.
“I’m talking about killing the terrorists and then leaving…within a few hours.
Not with “Special” Forces or Armed Foleys, but with the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions…”
Monkeyboy, i’m not going to say your idea doesnt have some merit, but it doesn have some real issues.
– It takes several weeks to deploy a military division, even an airborne or light division. It takes several weeks to remove them as well. There is no question of dropping thousands of men into remote places and pulling them out all within a day or so. Now the seed of your idea is valid- but you _must_ have a local base to operate. Air assault units do what you are talking about, jump into helicopters fly in and fight and then leave. But their reach is relatively shorter. They need on the ground intel, logistics, clear landing fields and all of that requires them to be local. Which is what works in Afghanistan, and why we have killed thousands and thousands of militants. We cant do that off of carriers or bases thousands of miles away. Its simply logistically impossible.
– How do you find them? We know Bin Ladin and a whole lot of bad guys are in the Pakistan-Afghan border area, but where? You could spend literally years looking for them, even with thousands of men, which is precisely why we havent tried. I think we will both agree relying on the CIA for anything at all is a recipe for disaster. The closer you are physically, the more likely you are to have actionable intelligence. Again, we’ve killed a whole mess of terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, whatever else can be said.
– Somalia. Your strategy sounds strikingly similar. That doesnt mean its a nonstarter, just that if we are going to go stick our fingers into some nasty places without overwhelming force we risk higher casualties. Thats just the nature of the beast. Are you willing to accept, not just casualties (which certainly we are suffering currently), but the very real prospect of an isolated US military unit being decisively defeated on a foriegn battlefield? History is rife with exposed units getting overwhelmed in some far away place.
Mark,
Our Airborne divisions were capable of deploying anywhere in the world in 24 hours…before the Afghanistan and Iraq fiascos…they can get back to that level.
They can be removed just as fast…there are few places in the world where our troops can’t construct an airfield usable by our transport aircraft in a few hours.
Instead of cloaking our missions in secrecy, we would do the opposite…show why we went in to the whole world. If we’re wrong…billions of dollars in apologies.
I seem to remember the problem with Somalia was than Clinton wouldn’t let our troops go in with tanks…we won’t make that mistake again.
I agree with that, and ironically that has been Rumsfelds greatest crusade- getting the military light and fast. But its not just about parachuting troops into Pakistan, yeh thats easy to do. How do you find who you are trying to kill? And what if they dont play ball and simply run away and hide in the civilian populations? Again, if you dont have local presence on the ground you cant cultivate relationships and allies to know the ground well enough to launch strikes.
Somalia wasnt a nightmare purely because the troops didnt have the proper equipment, it was a nightmare because they didnt have any particular mission. It was freelancing the pissed off the local warlords and turned a relatively benign situation into a horrific firefight in hours.
It goes back to the main question- if you only intend on raiding into these places, what can you hope to accomplish assuming the enemy isnt eager to help you by sticking around?
Mark, the idea of an airborne division simply parachuting into Malaysia, kicking some ass, and then being withdrawn is one that doesn’t pass any kind of functional plausibility test. I’ll ask that some of the military-logistics experienced folks step in here and inject some reality.
The local knowledge/operational intel etc. issues are also far beyond being raised – we’d need a worldwide STASI.
Politically, it’s a complete nonstarter. Short of a stolen H-Bomb, I can’t imagine a circumstance in which the US wouldn’t be facing immense, serious international pressure to apologize, pay reparations, and promise never, ever, to do such a thing again.
It’s patently ridiculous. Somalis doesn’t even come into it – we didn’t fly into the country, raid, and plan on flying out of the country – look how well that worked vide Iran, BTW – we flew into a neighborhood, and had a battle there.
A.L.
Mark,
Hopefully, dropping our troops on the terrorist’s heads unannounced would minimize their ability to “simply run away and hide in the civilian populations.”
What do we accomplish by sticking around?
Insurgents who were never a threat to America rise up to counter any long term mission anyway. And the costs of supporting our deployed troops are enormous. We’re spending $800,000 per troop per year in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The thing about quick strikes is that we can do them over an over many times for the cost of a single occupation.
Occupations just bog us down.
As for how do we find them, that’s a different question, isn’t it.
But if we are ready to admit mistakes and compensate the victims when we’re wrong…our level of certainty can be set at an effective level.
Monkyboy:
Rapid deployment, heavy armor. Choose one.
Not that I inherently disagree with an argument for changing strategies, but any proposed strategy has to conform to the known laws of physics.
I’m in agreement that occupation doesn’t play to the US’s strong suit. It was worth a try, but sometimes the best play is to fold a losing hand.
I’ve thought about a stratgey of declaring militant mosques as enemy command and control centers and bomb them during Friday services. Nasty backlash, though.
Can’t we make it some kind of standard blog policy to dismiss out-of-hand anyone who seriously advocates Clinton’s super-secret ninja commandos approach?
If we could literally drop a couple hundred pounds of US Marine directly onto a terrorist’s head, sure. And if you think that’s even remotely possible, you need to stop playing video games and watching action movies.
More charitably, perhaps you think it’s a simple matter to drop a couple of Marines miles away from the target, have them infiltrate without any in-place ground support or friendly connections, and take out terrorists conveniently lounging around in the open. Then exfiltrate through hostile territory, avoid state-based defenders (this little excursion is a blatant act of war, after all), and be home in time for dinner while Uncle Sam throws a few billion at the local strongman to cover it all up. Keep in mind that in this insertion scenario you are essentially ruling out any kind of pursuit if the initial strike isn’t 100% successful, since the targets can easily retreat into the populace and said Marines will have no ability to pursue while in hostile territory.
Tom Clancy might think it’s doable for another book, but I doubt you’ll get any real-world military commanders to buy into that as an actual strategy. I’d be surprised if they didn’t laugh you out of the room, maybe with a crack about Murtha and Okinawa.
Of course there’s always the option of sticking to only missile and helicopter strikes against possible targets. But that requires heavy assets close to the target zones–and I’d argue if you wanted that, your best bet would be to invade a hostile country and setup bases there; preferably some place central like, oh I dunno, Iraq… And besides which, Israel’s had a similar “targeted strike” policy for years; how’s that been working out for them in the court of world opinion?
Well for one thing, it lets us chase the terrorists your fantasy raids missed, by going into the population instead of treating it as an impenetrable black box.
The other thing about quick strikes is that they miss quite a lot. Or shall we replay the stories about being half an hour too late to hit bin Laden’s convoy?
No, in your proposed scenario, it’s the central question. You assume perfect intelligence and rapid access to “perishable” actionable intel–an assumption no one is willing to grant in these situations. (Like the proverbial economist stranded on a desert island with a sealed can of beans, who says “First, assume a can opener!”)
The troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan are getting intel and tips directly from the populace, helping them to track down the terrorists who are hiding within the populace. How do you propose to get such specific, low-level intel without establishing the many contact points the “occupiers” have made over the past 3-5 years?
There’s nothing secret about what I propose, Un.
I’m not talking about a few “ninjas,” but 10,000 troops.
Why do people who still cling to the impossible dream that we have a hope of salvaging Iraq think a simple airdrop of the sort the U.S. military used to do routinely is impossible?
Your choice:
1. One disaster like Iraq or Vietnam every 20-30 years.
or
2. As many rapid strikes as we need.
AL, I understand the logistics involved, im working with his premise, he gets to set the ground rules. Theoretically you could just drop airborne units anywhere in the world, and that was indeed once a sort of selling point. Realistically I recognize that that this is entirely outside of military doctrine, but to let the premise breath i recognize that it is not impossible to give those orders. Whatsmore we could indeed devote our Pentagon resources to devising an army cabaple of this kind of operation. Like I said, its not entirely dissimilar to what Rumsfeld’s dream has been.
“Hopefully, dropping our troops on the terrorist’s heads unannounced would minimize their ability to “simply run away and hide in the civilian populations.”
But the problem has always been that we dont know where their heads are, and they are careful not to keep them too close together. Think about it, if we had such a good idea of where the bad guys were we wouldnt need the troops to begin with, a few tomahawks would end our problems.
Take the Pakistan Tribal Region where we think OBL is hiding, and where we know the Taliban is operating out of. Its a 10,000 square km area of the most harsh mountain terrain on earth with a population of over 3 million. Imagine trying to track some people down in an area the size of Massachusetts with the topography of Colorado where you know no-one and everyone hates you and is probably shooting at you on principle. What are the odds you get the folks you are looking for?
monkeyboy, let’s have some fun.
Write up 500 – 800 words talking about how your approach would work in a relatively easy area, like say Malaysia. Drop in your 10,000 troops, have an action, get them out. Talk about how you’ll do those things a little bit – neither of us is a professional military logistician.
I’ll put it up as a guest post, and we’ll play the scenario out and see what hapens.
A.L.
Why not take the word of the pros, A.L.?
Here’s their mission stement:
More space, just in case…
http://www.bragg.army.mil/18abn/mission.htm