Kevin Drum asks a serious question that we who support the war have to answer. He’s wrestling with the issue of why Democrats do so badly on issues of defense, and responding to Peter Bienert’s article that I praised so much.
Kevin says:
That’s the story I think Beinart needs to write. If he thinks too many liberals are squishy on terrorism, he needs to persuade us not just that Islamic totalitarianism is bad — of course it’s bad — but that it’s also an overwhelming danger to the security of the United States.
and follows up in a later post (in which he responds to attacks from his left that he’s a dupe for even considering this issue) saying this:
…and finally, when I suggested that I wanted Beinart to write an article spelling out the danger of Islamic totalitarianism, I wasn’t taking sides. All I meant was that I’d really like him to write the article. Why? Because I’d really like to read it.
For what it’s worth, I think any honest account needs to address at least the following four items:
* Nuclear terrorism. A terrorist group with a nuclear weapon poses an entirely different threat than one without, so this needs to be treated as a danger all its own. How likely is it that a terrorist group could really acquire a nuclear weapon? And deliver it? And what’s the best way to stop it? The fact that the Bush administration has been so lackadaisical on this score is going to make this a hard argument to deliver convincingly. If they don’t take it seriously, why should anyone else?
* Garden variety terrorism. Aside from the nuclear scenario, what’s the actual danger from terrorist groups like al-Qaeda? 9/11 was due to luck and poor foresight, but now that we know the danger how much military harm can they really do to us? How much economic harm? And how likely is it?
* Expansionism. Do Islamic extremists really have much interest in anyplace outside the Middle East? To the best of my knowledge, no Islamic country in the greater Middle East has ever invaded or shown the slightest interest in invading a country that wasn’t a neighbor. Is Islamic extremism fundamentally expansionist, like fascism and communism, or not?
* Oil. Nobody wants to talk honestly about this, but it’s obviously the reason we care about the Middle East in the first place and don’t care much about, say, sub-Saharan Africa — and therefore care about Islamic totalitarianism but not sub-Saharan totalitarianism. The problem here is shared by both liberals and conservatives.
On the left, “no blood for oil” is childishness. Economic interests are and always have been a legitimate concern of national governments, and a steady supply of oil is plainly vital to the industrialized world. If a Taliban-like regime deposed the House of Saud and took over Saudi Arabia, for example, they might decide to tighten the taps because they figure they only need half as much oil money as they currently receive — after all, most of it just went to those decadent westernized royal princes anyway. The resulting oil shock would almost certainly cause a global depression of enormous magnitude. This would be a disaster, and one that would hurt the poor far more than the rich.
On the right, conservatives hypocritically refuse to admit that oil has anything to do with anything. It’s all about democracy promotion, you see — despite the fact that our national policies have virtually nothing to do with genuinely promoting democracy. What’s more, conservatives make a bad problem worse by practically sneering at the idea that anyone should take seriously the idea of greater energy conservation or alternative energy sources. Squawking endlessly about ANWR — which contains a minute amount of oil — just trivializes the whole problem.
You’ll note that I’ve said nothing about the humanitarian case for intervening (or not intervening) in the Middle East. One thing at a time. I think the first step is for some credible liberal to construct the most compelling argument they can that an aggressive, militant policy toward Islamic totalitarianism is necessary simply because any other policy will end up with a lot of dead people. If that argument is successful, then we can argue about means and methods.
I’ll skip the requirement for ‘a credible liberal’ to make the case, and suggest that as much as I’m willing to push for a Democratic Party that burns the phone numbers of the MoveOn folks, I’m also willing to face the legitimate question of ‘why’?
I’ve criticized Bush in the past for doing a bad job of articulating the ‘why’.
So I decided to spend a couple of minutes and try and make an argument.
I wanted to start with the numbers, because I think they’re significant, so I went to the Department of State, and looked up a page on ‘Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003: A Brief Chronology.’ Then I loaded it into Excel and started to do some quick numbers. I removed all the incidents in Iraq – arguably those are part of an ongoing war.
Just for starters, from 1961 to 2003:
|Total Terrorist Incidents|229|
|Total Fatalities|7,071|
|Total Islamist-Sponsored Incidents|136|
|Total Islamist-Sponsored Deaths|5,921|
|Total Palestinian-Sponsored Incidents in Israel|49|
|Total Palestinian-Sponsored Deaths in Israel|381|
|Total Islamist-Sponsored Incidents Outside Israel|87|
|Total Islamist-Sponsored Deaths Outside Israel|5,540|
*edited ‘Muslim’ to ‘Islamist’ and ‘Palestinian’; that was careless on my part – A.L.
I’m going to work up a time series, and obviously the numbers are rising. But – and it’s an important one – as a public health issue, terrorism (as defined on this particular list) barely registers a blip. Worldwide, approximately 8,000,000 infants die before their first birthday.
So why is it, exactly, that terrorism deserves such an expensive (in blood, treasure, and goodwill) response?
I think it does, and will try and set out some arguments why. I think that our team – the ‘pro-liberation’, ‘pro-intervention’ team – needs to make these good arguments, and that we probably need to acknowledge – as I think the left needs to acknowledge it’s flaws – that we haven’t done a good enough job on this yet.
…to be continued…
No amount of conservation will reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
1) Conservation and increased efficiency reduce the cost of many activities. However, people respond by consuming more of those things and other things. Nearly everything takes energy, however. Conservation thus makes us richer, but rarely in the long run actually reduces total oil use. Instead, we get more bang for our buck.
2) Middle Eastern oil remains the cheapest in the world to extract. If we decrease our oil usage along with the rest of the world, then the price will fall. If the price falls, it becomes unprofitable to extract oil in many places outside the Middle East. Result: An even greater percentage of oil consumed would come from the Middle East than before. At $60/barrel, a high percentage of oil would be coming from outside the Middle East. At $20/barrel, nearly all would come from the Middle East. People who claim that reducing oil usage would reduce dependency on foreign oil and then use the percentage of oil consumed which is imported from the Middle East are either ignorant or misleading.
Part of the answer to Kevin’s question may be found in the first back-and-forth on the new Becker-Posner blog. See esp: “Preventitive War – Becker”:http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2004/12/preventive_war.html
As for issues re: expansionism, this is what happens when you don’t read LGF. There are organized Islamist campaigns for imposing shari’a on Britain, the 3/11 attack included manifestos that wished to make spain an Islamic country again, SE Asia is an ongoing scene for forced conversion and ethnic cleaning in even partially Muslim countries, and Africa is demonstrating similar patterns. Not only is Islamism expansionist, it provides strong justification for ‘punishing’ and preying upon any society that has not succumbed or lives in ways they do not aprove of (like, say, offering equal rights to women & gays, and packaging that culture and ethos attractively).
To wonder if Islamism is expansionist, as Kevin seems to, makes me wonder too. Gotta pay attention, dude, even if it isn’t something that can be used as a lever in your country’s domestic politics. Having said that, the expansionism/hostility quotient is an important part of the argument and it’s worthwhile to make that case s part opf the larger argument.
I notice that some are wondering whether Islamism is expansionist. Kevin, particularly, asks whether the Islamists have any aspirations outside the Middle East, and whether any Islamist country has ever invaded any other.
The answer to the first question is obviously yes. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh, Chad, Guinea, Indonesia, the Maldives, Mauritania, Turkey, Tunisia, Niger, Morocco, Somalia, and Sudan are all outside the Middle East; they’re all Muslim countries with either an Islamist regime in place (Iran, Sudan) or a strong Islamist movement (Indonesia, Pakistan).
And the answer to the second question is also yes, though not in the way you’d normally think. How do you think all those countries got to be either wholly Muslim and pro-Islamist or Islamist? Islamism is half politics and half religion, and the movement spreads through madrasas and mosques. It’s an invasion just like any other; it’s just a slow invasion, and a comparatively peaceful one. But it’s still an invasion.
I think yes, Islamism is clearly expansionist.
But that’s just my opinion.
On the issue of Islamist expansionism, just read Sayyid Qutb – he’s remarkably clear-cut on what he wants to do.
Also, your figure on the number of the dead from terrorist attacks is erroneous – al-Qaeda’s Algerian GIA slaughtered over 100,000 during the ongoing civil war during the 1990s, almost all of them fellow Muslims. If that’s what they did to their own, you really want to think about what they’d do to us if given the option and the capabilities?
I’m not convinced that Kevin’s question is such a good one. I’m not sure that it’s right, or possible, to make a case based purely on bodies and dollars. I think there are some “trivial solutions” to the terrorism problem that could well “work” (in terms of preserving life and prosperity), and that don’t involve “an aggressive, militant policy toward Islamic totalitarianism”.
What is sacrificed in these trivial solutions is not blood, or treasure, but who we are and how we live, and it would therefore seem imperative to address these issues in making the case for an aggressive policy toward Islamism.
Kevin states:
Kevin apparently rejects everyting written by Berman, Hitchens, Geras, et al, either because they consider factors other than body count, or because they are they are not “credible liberals”. I would submit that the consideration of factors other than body count is no reason to reject their arguments, and further, that if these folks are no longer considered “credible liberals” it is precisely because they have made the argument for “an aggressive, militant policy toward Islamic totalitarianism”.
So, why is Kevin’s question so important?
The State Department body count obviously doesn’t include state-sponsored terror against the Kurds (only one example out of many) and non-Western victims of Islamic terrorism are massively undercounted.
But yes, very few people from Georgetown or Scarsdale have been killed by terrorists. Which is why people like Drum feel justified in saying “… he needs to persuade us not just that Islamic totalitarianism is bad — of course it’s bad — but that it’s also an overwhelming danger to the security of the United States.”
Like what, apartheid? Or the fate of the Alaskan caribou? I thought we were supposed to care about what happened to people in other countries – but if not, I would think that the possibility of a terrorist nuke being used against a US city – or any city – would be of some concern. Somehow I doubt that Drum would even notice that, unless it went off in a blue state, right under his butt.
And I just can’t suffer this kind of foolishness any more: “Do Islamic extremists really have much interest in anyplace outside the Middle East? To the best of my knowledge, no Islamic country in the greater Middle East has ever invaded or shown the slightest interest in invading a country that wasn’t a neighbor…”
Clever of Drum to notice that Islamic extremists do not yet have strategic air and naval assets that would allow them to invade Brazil. Is invading neighboring states not bad enough? Assuming that the Islamic extremists don’t have any maps that extend past Turkey (false, but let’s pretend), aren’t their Middle East ambitions bad enough? Aren’t their designs on Israel bad enough? Aren’t Iran’s nuclear wet-dreams bad enough? Isn’t the oppression and brutality of dictatorial Islamic regimes bad enough?
It’s way too late in the day to be giving remedial lessons to Kevin Drum. He’s missed every class and the dog ate his homework.
lewy –
I certainly agree that it’s not a matter of body counts; I’m working on an explanation today.
But it is damn important that we answer this question. Our ultimate victory will require patience and determination. A sharply (and almost evenly) divided electorate in the Coalition countries is a good way to risk losing it.
Protecting the things you need to win wars is good policy.
A.L.
“How likely is it that a terrorist group could really acquire a nuclear weapon? And deliver it? And what’s the best way to stop it? ”
It’s interesting to me that Kevin requires a liberal expert to address these apparently objective questions. If Condi Rice or Jerry Pournelle comes up with the figures, that’s of no interest. But if Madeline Albright or Barbra Streisand should weigh in on the questions Kevin would eager to read and discuss the notion with other liberals and Democrats.
I don’t pretend to have Condi’s expertise but I guess I could match Barbra’s …
Aum Shinrikyo and the serin attack in Toyko’s subway system suggests to me that the likelihood is near-certainty that terrorists can obtain some form of WMD — including nuclear “dirty bombs” but perhaps excluding Hiroshima-style super-critical nuclear chain reactive explosions. That other avenues of destruction like crashing airliners, mailing anthrax, and detonating well-placed conventional explosives at particularly vulnerable infrastructure (Madrid) are nearly as bad as nukes tends to make me lean toward assuming a probability of “one” to the first question.
The chance of delivering such a weapon are, thank God, smaller. But not zero. And the costs of delivery are cheaper the smaller the weapon. Again, anthrax spores mailed to office buildings for less than a dollar per envelope has already been demonstrated. What would it cost to ship a lead-lined crate or pallet load of pulverized plutonium salts from, say, France or Holland to ports in Los Angeles or Houston?
What did is cost Timothy McVeigh to deliver his load of destruction to a federal building in Oklahoma?
Anyhow, I take the issue VERY serious and I never got the impression the Democrats in general matched me, or Shrub, in doing so. I’m please Kevin is at least asking the questions but he’s late to the party.
It’s quite simple: technology and globalization have made it more feasible for a small group of people to disrupt the global economy and/or inflict mass casualties. That’s bad.
Anyone that doesnt take the expansionism of Islamo-Fascism as a given is not to be taken seriously. Its part of their charter. Remember the classic liberal screed about taking the terrorists’ demands seriously? Why take the demand to remove infidels from Arabia seriously but not the demand for the restoration of Spain to Islam? And anyone that doesnt believe Islamo-fascists have Europe squarely in their sites is not paying attention, ask the local film makers.
As far as extraterritorial adventures by the greater middleeast, how has everyone forgotten the various invasions of Israel? Dont they count? Israel is and always has been the front line of this war, particularly in 1973 when forces from Egypt, Syria, Lebannon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, and Kuwait poured in.
Ah, my fault. This was a liberal thread and Israel doesnt count.
Interestingly enough, it was the Bush administration that met Osama bin Laden’s demand that the U.S. withdraw its forces from Saudi Arabia.
AL,
A while back I wrote a post titled “Why Terrorism and not Car Accidents”:http://billroggio.com/archives/2004/08/why_terrorism_a.html in response to a reader’s comment about the low number of deaths caused by terrorism, and that we should focus on domestic causes of death. Basically, if you let a totalitarian ideology thrive, you can guarentee that the body count will rise astronomically. I cite numbers of the body counts from totalitarian conflicts as a historical guide, and mention the added threat of WMD (as praktite mentions here).
Also, I agree with other commenters here that the Islamofascism is expansive and death numbers are under reported. These numbers do not take into account Algeria, the Philippines, Chechnya, Pakistan, Kashmir, India, Darfur, the list goes on….
praktite,
I view the withdrawal from Saudi Arabia as an “part of the strategy to contain Saudi Arabia”:http://billroggio.com/archives/2004/12/a_new_containme.html and put further pressure on the government.
To recap:
Interuption of the Oil Supply = Global Depression = Wars & Totalitarian Movements
Liberals DO have a dog in that hunt.
Patrick
“Interestingly enough, it was the Bush administration that met Osama bin Laden’s demand that the U.S. withdraw its forces from Saudi Arabia.”
Removal of our forces from Saudi Arabia was demanded in the context of full military withdrawl from the region. Shifting our forces to Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq, while removing Saddam’s regime from power an attempting to set up a representative democracy in Iraq may indeed meet the isolated demand of removal of troops from SA. However, it is no more a compliance of the demands of OBL than spinning around and attempting to disarm an assailant who had put a gun to your back and told you to “Move” would be.
Kevin Drum says: _On the right, conservatives hypocritically refuse to admit that oil has anything to do with anything._
I consider myself a neo-con and am fully willing to admit the importance of oil in Middle East policy.
I think what the Left in general fail to understand is that oil provides terrorists with the financial means to fund their actions, and our walking away from the ME and forsaking their oil will only worsen the problem by causing a glut of available oil on the world markets. John Thacker understands and explains this well. This would only provide more funds to terrorists by making the world dependent on Islamofascist oil.
Bill Roggio certainly has a new twist on the Law of Supply and Demand. Are you suggesting that by buying lots of oil and thus indirectly financing terrorists, we are saving the world from cheap oil that would result in even more money to terrorists?
That would be like reasoning that if the USA was able through some excellent program to eliminate the domestic demand for heroin, heroin pushers would make even more money.
Would you like to illustrate this with some supply and demand curves? I think you’ll find it unlikely that the numbers work out.
Andrew J. Lazarus,
Despite your snarky tone, I try will answer your question.
I agree my last post was poorly stated, so let me attempt to clarify. If we *abandon* the Middle East, we increase the likelihood of the current crop of oil producing states becoming full fledged terrorist states. It is doubtful the American public would condone purchasing oil from bin Laden’s handpicked governments. If we come up with an alternative energy source (let’s just say we decide to go all nuclear for grid power to relieve problems with oil [the horror, the horror]) our demand for oil decreases, thus freeing up supplies and lowering the cost of oil on the world market. As oil from the Middle East is the cheapest to extract, the Middle East would reap the benefits.
No doubt there are holes in this. I am not an economist, nor do I play one on TV.
Bill’s chain of events makes perfect sense to me.
Canada has as much oil as Saudi Arabia… in our tar sands. Unless oil is around $40 a barrel, we shut them down because it doesn’t pay to develop them. Result? Proportionally more mideast oil on the market, even if their actual output is unchanged.
I’ve worked with oil companies as clients, and the key figure is the cost to extract and transport. All decisions revolve around that. Saudi Arabia’s cost is something utterly ridiculous like $4/barrel, and much of the mideast is also lower than other regions can match.
Where I think Bill mis-steps a bit is assuming that greater percentage = greater dollars. We might see a greater proportion of Islamofascist oil on the market, but they’d still be making less money overall. A bigger piece of a smaller pie, and all that. They’d make some money is on the upswing, because ease of access and low production costs mean middle eastern countries (esp. Saudi Arabia) can ramp up production very quickly as demand rises. But it probably wouldn’t equal their losses.
The way to make money in that kind of game, BTW, is to ramp up production because you know it’s profitable even if the result is another price drop. This squeezes even more oil producers out of the market, and lets you make up in volume what you lost on price. OPEC was created to counter precisely that temptation, and ensure that its members made more money over the long term.
If you think of alternative energy sources within OPEC’s frame, as a similarly long term play that may depress OPEC’s long term income, the benefits are more obvious.
(I say “may,” of course, in a nod to “John Thacker’s excellent points”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/005985.php#c1 in #1. Though you can get ahead, John – invent a more energy-efficient process for a huge consumer like aluminum manufacturing, and you can walk away with a net energy drop even after the saved monies are spent elsewhere.)
Joe,
Fair point.
Just one item of note. I am making the assumption that al Qaeda would have complete control of a country’s (or countries) oil supplies if we pulled out of the Middle East. Let’s use the case of Saudi Arabia. Instead of skimming money from the royals, they would have the full oil income of the state, and therefore a greater percentage of the profits from oil than today.
Of course the question remains whether they could actually extract oil and transport it. But based on the willingnes of nations like France, Russia and China in cooperating with the likes of Saddam, I think it is safe to say they would assist the Islamofascists in their endeavors.
“I am making the assumption that al Qaeda would have complete control of a country’s (or countries) oil supplies if we pulled out of the Middle East.”
Whoa.
Where the heck does that assumption come from?
praktite,
I assume you think it is unreasonable that al Qaeda could gain control of a Middle Eastern nation if the United States withdrew from the region?
We’re in the area of conjecture here, I am sure we could each reasonably make our cases. Obviously there is no way of knowing how this would play out without actually withdrawing from the Middle East.
The belief that if we left the mideast alone, al-Qaeda could probably pull off a coup in Saudi Arabia and divert far more of its oil funds to terrorism, with Frasnce, Russia et. al happily providing the extraction expertise and revenue cuts. Though that wasn’t the scenario I was discussing.
It’s not wholly unreasonable – but remember, Bill, power has its fees too. There would be much more money for terrorism than is paid at present, but you might be surprised at the low percenatage of oil revenues available for such uses even if al-Qaeda ran the place. Look to Iran as a good comparative here.
I wouldn’t discount Bill’s scenario, praktike, but Bill we also need some perspective re: the actual magnitude of that outcome. Big, yes, but not as big as you thought.
Joe,
Sorry for any confusion, it stems from my initial misworded comment…
I do realize that al Qaeda would have to run the state and that this comes at a cost, but I believe this would be a net gain, and a significant one. While I do not have actual number on this, I believe the money filtered to the thousands upon thousands of Saudi royals is quite a hefty sum. Iran is a very good example. They frighten the hell out of me, are a state sponsor of terrorism, successfully run their oil fields and are close to building a bomb. Not bad for a low percenatage of oil revenues.
If an al Qaeda controlled Afghanistan was threat enough to be overturned, then an al Qaeda ran Saudi Arabia is an order of magnitude (or two) worse.
I’m not ruling it out … but nor am I assuming it would happen, either. That seems absurd to me. We aren’t there to protect the regimes from Al Qaeda, but from each other (and Iran).
OK, praktike. Imagining a scenario where al Qaeda could take over a Middle Eastern nation is _absurd_. Terrorist could never gain control of a state. Except in Afghanistan. Or in Iran. Or in the Palestinian territories. All of this while the United states was engaged in the Middle East. _Absurd_ indeed.
Part of our mission in the Middle East is to prevent the rise of al Qaeda and other terrorist entities. Which would mean we have a vested interest in not allowing them to gain control of a state.
Bill: can you understand the difference between “imagining” and “assuming?”
pratkite, how very pedantic of you.
“How likely is it that a terrorist group could really acquire a nuclear weapon? And deliver it? And what’s the best way to stop it? ”
It’s interesting to me that Kevin requires a liberal expert to address these apparently objective questions. If Condi Rice or Jerry Pournelle comes up with the figures, that’s of no interest. But if Madeline Albright or Barbra Streisand should weigh in on the questions Kevin would eager to read and discuss the notion with other liberals and Democrats.
Unfortunately, liberals have learned to distrust anyone even tangentially associated with the current administration. The WMD debacle taught us that we can be sure any intelligence analysis disseminated by Condi Rice will be heavily salted with misinformation and a political agenda. That’s why Drum needs a liberal to state the case — so much about the WoT has become heavily politicized (thanks to GWB wielding it mercilessly as a political tool). We need to be certain any reasoned argument for the immediate threat of global terrorism isn’t colored by political concerns; thus, we need its author to be someone with liberal credentials.
Personally, I’m desperate for this argument. I have a few smart friends who are very aggressive proponents of the WoT as it is currently waged, and frankly their lines of reasoning make little sense to me. Mostly, what I saw in Iraq was chaos and despair, with no hope or possibility of success in our (vaguely) stated goals.
I want to believe that all of these kids are dying for something, and I’m tired of people like Joe telling me how stupid I am for not understanding it. Tell me what the world would look like in fifty years if we didn’t invade Iraq, show me some plausible evidence for your claims, and help me understand why that world is a bad thing for my kids.
PS: Oh, and why exactly should Kevin Drum read LGF anyway? It’s just a mirror-image of stormfront.org with bonus cattiness directed towards Charles’ personal enemies.
Why is Darling referring to Algerian Islamists as members of al Qaeda?
Sorry, my above comment had a misleading attribution. My text starts in the third paragraph.
This makes sense:
(This makes sense means I agree with it.) However, we should by no means equate reducing our demand for oil with abandoning the Middle East politically. And I even think we would need to assist in the financial stabilization of the oil kingdoms to help develop a sustainable economy, because the economic contraction of reduced oil revenues does have some possibility of increasing the terrorists’ political power (but not economic, at least in any direct way)
SAO,
An exlanation can be found here.
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/003621.php
thanks.
This was interesting. A total non-sequitur, but interesting:
“We need to be certain any reasoned argument for the immediate threat of global terrorism isn’t colored by political concerns; thus, we need its author to be someone with liberal credentials.”
Then you’re out of luck. It will be colored by political concerns, or else they can’t have acquired liberal credentials in the first place. What you seem to mean is “We need to be certain that any argument regarding the threat of global terrorism is colored by political concerns that we’ve decided we like, and made by someone with a track record along those lines, because otherwise we can’t evaluate it.”
An extreme statement of a natural human tendency, and as such a bit odd, but at least it states the issue clearly and forthrightly.
Personally, I favour ignoring the requirement; it’s irrelevant.
Whether or not Kevin Drum (or anyone else on the other side of any argument) is smart enough to listen, the important focus is the argument itself – which can be made to others who will listen. One with the right credentials may even repeat it later 🙂
STEP #1: SERIOUSNESS
* Why is terrorism a threat to the USA?
* Why is this threat “suddenly” so serious?
* What’s the “event horizon” timeline range we’re working with (i.e. how much time do current trends give us before really bad things begin happening, as an approximate range)?
* What is the nature of our enemy?
* What are the goals of our enemy?
* What role does oil play in this?
Kevin misses a few things in a complete argument, but the above are an important base that establishes the seriousness of the situation.
STEP #2: SITUATION
The next step engages an argument about the mechanisms underlying the current situation. WHY is it like this? This may be necessary for some people to take them to “OK, it’s serious, AND war is the proper response.” One will need to address issues like:
* What drives the phenomenon of modern Islamic terrorism? (speaks to “can it be appeased”, and also short-circuits the “it’s all America’s fault!” response that maliciously or onanistically excludes the other as a serious actor)
* The role and dynamics of state sponsorship and/or sanction for terror in the Mideast, and in the chain of carefully organized hate that underlies it. Having noted this, we need to talk about…
* History, and what happens when whole cultures become irrational or hostile (it happens), and how “fixable” this is, and by what means. This is closely related to…
* The role of pretext in war and diplomacy. Having an understanding of classical history, as folks like Victor Davis Hanson do, helps immensely. I find it very weird that people who find their fellow Americans impossible to believe and think we invaded Afghanistan to lay an oil pipeline there will swallow the assertions and problem definitions of an Edward Said, or of dictatorial rulers of Islamic countries, without batting an eye. Gotta bust that and come back to root causes. Fortunately, it isn’t hard. A related issue is…
* What are the limits of diplomacy? People who think the world is one big reflection of their faculty club, and have limited deal-making experience for real stakes, often don’t understand where these limits are or even acknowledge that they exist. Qualify to see if this is a religious belief before arguing (if it’s an article of faith, find someone else to argue with), though for some it dissolves once the “thwarted superiority + organized hate + pretext” chain is laid bare. I recommend hammering at this theme often using historical examples and analogies people can relate to, especially examples that show the cynical side of this or illustrate how it is used to do nothing but seem to be doing something.
That’s a lot.
But… you’ve probably got to handle all of that or have someone in sync on those points just to get people to a base of “yes, we need to fight”.
STEP #3: STRATEGY
Once you’re into the question of “fight it as a war, but how?” you’re into tactics and strategy. Part of this debate is already addressed by the level of threat and risk discussion earlier, and part by the roots of Islamic terrorism argument. Those answers automatically suggest (and rule out) ceryain priorities and strategies, so make sure they’re solid.
Likely additional propositions include:
* What is the point of war in general? (No, I’m serious, it’s a good idea to explain it).
* When fighting a war, what are the keys to success? Seems trivial, but many people have limited or no experience or knowledge in this area. Hey, how much do you know about synchronized swimming? Probably zero, unless you see a swimmer you really want to meet. Same principle. Explain, preferably using historical examples and analogies they can relate to. Sports analogies work if they play and compete to win; sometimes business analogies do too. This is one of the most important points to spend time on. A.L. does a very good job of this, as a consistent theme running through many posts that I’ve seen.
* So… given everything we’ve covered so far, what’s the point of this war in particular? (Or, turn it on its head, start with that, and bring in backup as needed)
Those are kind of important for intelligent conversations about strategy.
If one believes as I do, add a few more propositions. Like:
* The massive and consistent failure to date of the “international order” in 3 key areas: addressing terrorism, containing WMD, and nation-building.
* Why is a pre-emptive strategy important? Why can’t we just play defense?
* When fighting a war, what are reasonable expectations re: success, failure, planning, etc.? The last is tougher with liberals and leftists, who believe implicitly in central planning and often find it hard to grasp its limitations. Sports or competitive/strategy games like chess or go are a good bridge to understanding in that area – if they play.
MAKING THE CASE
Just looking at all that is probably scary to contemplate if you’re thinking of arguing to convince. Fortunately, each issue may only require a very short answer for some people (like, one sentence). And, many of you have already answered many of these questions for yourselves. Take a second look and see.
Making this case successfully is the next step. It requires a keen sense of audience, a broad base of knowledge to tap and/or possess, and the time and permission to cover all of the required bases. Remember that a lot of the discussion’s flow depends on your counterpart’s prior understanding or beliefs, some of which may be challenged in the course of argument. Those will be the sticking points worth more time. Remember, too, that people come to you from 3 different perspectives:
People being people, some will already be farther along than others and jump way ahead, or need just one key point to crystalize a lot of other understandings on their own. Try to figure out how to help them.
Some will have missed class for a long time, and are just paying attention for whatever reason. They deserve patience. Learn their reason, hook their interest, explain, and point them to sources. ‘Drip irrigation’ by blog works well in these cases.
Some pretend to be interested in the answers, but aren’t. Their real is goal is feeding an obsession, or a domestic political agenda to which all else is secondary, or something else. Filter them out quickly but politely – if something makes them genuinely interested later you want them to come back to you, but until then it’s a waste of your time.
Hope this helps some.
This entire conversation is missing the most important lesson on the nature of war ever voiced, “War is the continuation of politics by other means – Clausewitz”. Trying to seperate the two is futile and counterproductive.
This was interesting. A total non-sequitur, but interesting:
Then you’re out of luck. It will be colored by political concerns, or else they can’t have acquired liberal credentials in the first place. What you seem to mean is “We need to be certain that any argument regarding the threat of global terrorism is colored by political concerns that we’ve decided we like, and made by someone with a track record along those lines, because otherwise we can’t evaluate it.”
Whee! A response from Joe wouldn’t be the same without backhandedly belitting my intelligence and rationality.
I’ll try and restate my summary of Kevin’s position. Liberals do not trust conservatives in this country. You lie to us, over and over again. You had a reason to lie to us: George Bush’s reelection. Another liberal who’s arguing for the current conduct of the WoT has less to gain by lying to us, as he’s defending the Administration’s current policy.
Yes, it sucks that it’s come to this. I truly wish liberals in general could trust a conservative on this issue, but our policy dialogue has become so polarized and vituperative that they can’t. The leaders of both parties have paralyzed honest discussion, and we are the poorer for it.
In any event, that’s a great outline for an argument that I would find convincing. Thanks.
Mark Buehner: ““War is the continuation of politics by other means – Clausewitz”. Trying to seperate the two is futile …”
But there’s a distinction to be made between politics and ideology. (A.L. – Making that distinction ought to be on the “Democratic Reformation To-Do List”).
Obviously Kevin is looking for guidance to someone with the proper ideological credentials. Maybe the American left needs to organize a Commissar system.
Matt McKeon: “why exactly should Kevin Drum read LGF anyway? It’s just a mirror-image of stormfront.org with bonus cattiness directed towards Charles’ personal enemies.”
Yes, Stormfront is anti-Semitic and anti-war, and LGF is the opposite, so it is a “mirror-image” in that sense. I, too, am a mirror-image of David Duke’s smelly little crew, and thanks be to Almighty God for it.
As for Charles, he doesn’t go looking for enemies. The poor things generally volunteer.
Yes, Stormfront is anti-Semitic and anti-war, and LGF is the opposite, so it is a “mirror-image” in that sense. I, too, am a mirror-image of David Duke’s smelly little crew, and thanks be to Almighty God for it.
So you support a Jewish Israel from the Jordan to the sea, statements like “Arab women are too ugly to breed, but I guess they’re better than camels”, and rejoicing in the deaths of people that disagree with you? Nice.
As for Charles, he doesn’t go looking for enemies. The poor things generally volunteer.
Ah, I see. So when he encourages his readers to go trolling on liberal blogs so he can engage in a furious pep-rally-slash-wank-session on LGF, that’s volunteering?
#40 Matt –
This has been endlessly hashed over elsewhere and is OT here. People who read LGF know better, those who don’t read it are entitled to their uniformed opinions.
But just so you know – I do indeed support a Jewish Israel, from the Jordan to the sea. Pretty scary, huh? I hope you were wearing a crash helmet and lap restraints when you read that, because we don’t want anybody to get hurt.
Also, in my opinion, calling Atrios a “liberal” is a gross insult to liberals everywhere. What did they ever do to you to deserve that?
This has been endlessly hashed over elsewhere and is OT here. People who read LGF know better, those who don’t read it are entitled to their uniformed opinions.
I did read LGF, fairly regularly, until I realized it was mostly to perpetuate my own caricatures of what pro-war conservatives are like. I stopped, and started reading WoC for my dosage of how the other half thinks, because people here don’t make me sick to my stomach.
If it’s OT to talk about this, then why did you reply to that element of my post? Personally, I don’t think it’s OT to take issue with Joe’s reference to LGF. If he wants to refer to it in an argument with a liberal, he’d better be prepared to saddle himself with all the baggage that entails. Charles may or may not be a racist, but he sure as hell encourages it among his members. LGF is an echo chamber full of psychotics who indulge in violent fantasies about brown people, and I think both you and he demean yourselves by associating with it.
Matt,
[1] You’re welcome for the framework.
[2] Irony of ironies, a number of the rational and moderate commenters you come here for instead are also regulars at LGF. Slandering them as you did isn’t going to get you anywhere productive, and besides it’s wrong. WRT crazies in the comments section, BTW, have you read Kevin Drum’s (unpoliced) peanut gallery lately? Gee, the guy must be some sort of Kim Jong-Il disciple or something; ditto anyone who comments there. Yah, whatever… there are ways to say “I think Charles has a problem with his comments section” without coming off the way you did.
[3] RE: Distrust and ideological vetting to hear arguments. That’s interesting. Conservatives distrust the left because they have a proven record of lying to us, all the way up to a consistent record of lies about things as big as genocides (note the multiple use of the term). But you know, at some point you have to grapple with the other side’s arguments, not just your own.
For instance, let’s take homelessness. We know that many homeless advocates, not to put too fine a point on it, lie like cheap rugs. Ditto many anti-povery activists. We know the media lie, consistently, by omission.
Should our response be…
* “Well, we really don’t see an issue here. They lie, we can’t trust them. I’m waiting for Ralph Reed or Rush Limbaugh to explain to me why this is a problem we can’t ignore. The number of middle class people facing home foreclosures is probably larger, why don’t we deal with that instead.”
Or…
* “Hmm, they’ve raised this. A quick scan of the issue says it could be important. We know they lie like cheap rugs. Unfortunately, we haven’t got a lot of experts on call for that issue. That means some of us are going to have to do a lot of fact-checking, consult people on the front lines, and see if we can come up with a working thesis over time of what’s going on here, what the drivers are, and what ought to be done about it. Until we do, we’re going to be at a disadvantage on the issue and need to keep a low profile on it. We may also have to talk to Democrats and leftie-types along the way; listen, but remember The Gipper’s (pbuh) line about verifying.”
You’d probably think me a bit of a boob if I relied with response #1 instead of response #2. You’d probably be right.
_LGF is an echo chamber full of psychotics who indulge in violent fantasies about brown people, and I think both you and he demean yourselves by associating with it._
Matt, this is just wrong. Did you know Wretchard started at LGF? Lewy and Joe have both commented there extensively. And what Joe says is true, Colt, Glen, and I are long time LGFers (well, they’re both far more longtime than me :)). Charles is the absolute best purveyor of unbiased information in this place. He editorializes very rarely, (and it’s always a treat when he does). He has a million comments a month. Even so, his comments section is moderated far better than say, DU, or my recent visit to Atrios ::shudder::.
Echo chamber? There are many dissenting views there. I’ve seen some great discussions.
Violent fantasies about brown people? Some of the regular posters are “brown”. LGF is truly hetereogenous.
I think Joe’s framework is helpful, especially considered together with “John’s (comment #1)”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/005985.php#c1 plainly accurate point. I’d go further to note that the market itself will address energy scarcity–if oil prices (or risk) increase, tar sands in Alberta and nearly dry wells in Texas enter the market.
Further, I think radical Islam is a grave threat. Why? Well, start with what the terrorists themselves say, i.e., with the Koran:
The Catholic Answers Organization says this means “Endless Jihad”:http://www.catholic.com/library/endless_jihad.asp
Remember, before submitting to Islam, North Africa and Persia didn’t seem to share much with what now is Saudi Arabia. But, Islam came, and conquered, nonetheless.
Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists. But, “nearly all terrorists are Muslim”:http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2004/09/some-ms-are-ts-all-ts-are-ms.html. And, globalization and mass media alerted radical Islam to the infidels (which they define as “ALL the West”:http://www.steynonline.com/pageprint.cfm?edit_id=69 , not just America and Israel). So they declared war on us–as the Koran requires.
In sum, we don’t have to decide whether radical Islam is expansionist. Radical Islam already said so. And opposition, without action, won’t stop ‘um.
Joe, may I suggest an addition to your framework? I’ve observed that there appear to be quite a few people who take the threat at least somewhat seriously but maintain the position that the War on Terror should be “primarily a law-enforcement matter”.
There’s a flaw in that line of reasoning. In this country the objective of law-enforcement is not primarily to prevent crime but to apprehend and prosecute criminals after the crime has already been committed.
Consequently, the law-enforcement approach to the War on Terror means either that: