Defining the Enemy

[Infanteer]

Well, I figured that it was about time to throw in the hat on this one, so I did some surfing over at Lightfighter (since most of us Canucks are talking from 2nd hand info here anyways).  Since I don't know much about anything, I thought I'd see what the experts had to say, and so I read through this thread:

http://lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/5436084761/m/683101434/p/1

Read the thread.  Pay attention to the posts by Abu Buckwheat, he's an author on terrorism (his book is on Amazon) and has been dealing with this stuff professionally before most of us put on a pair of combat boots.

Anyways, the debate on this link is pretty good - read it for something different:

Hey guys I'm no liberal and I respect all of your opinions but in my view the connection is still deniable, unsupported by intelligence or any evidence. Its just speculation and rhetoric. I like LF and that is the only reason I am posting a contradictory view of the facts ... As any good career intelligence professional deals strictly in intelligence fact, not speculation or FOX/CNN/MSNBC political opinion-fomercials I will tell it like I see it after careful analysis of the sourceable and credible information. We have to get the facts devoid of ideology or RUMINT. There are rarely "Slam Dunks" in this game. #1 - I have been to the Ansar Al Islam's Biyara camp after it was leveled last year (its a rock pile) and it appeared to gets it support from Iran more than Iraq ... it is pretty deep behind PUK/KDP lines (about 7 hours up some tight assed mountains to the North East of Erbil in the furthest most corner of your map). It was a complete Free of Saddam zone and the Kurds kept it that way ... as anyone who has been to Kurdistan knows its another country up there. #2 I have spoke to the head of KDP intelligence in March on this very subject and he says the AAI was well known to belong to Bin Laden not Saddam ... he should know since many of his extended family was killed by an AAI suicide bomber in Erbil and many, many by Saddam. He says Saddam was too afraid to send agents past Sulaymaniyah. If anything AAI work with the Iranian intlligence to get people to and from Afghanistan ... As far as this guy's name being in a phone book, I'll withhold judgement until more evidence comes up ... the FBI track record on this isn't the most sterling. Additionally being an Iraqi in AQ does not mean you were in Saddam's control at all even if you worked for him. There is evidence that Saudi military officials are in AQ but does that mean the King backs bin Laden? Nope. We're all sober, responsible guys who want to see our government do well but on the face of it this is no slam dunk either ...

Iraq did have links to terrorism, Abu Nidal organization, the PFLP, Mujhideen Al Khalq and Iraqi Special Intelligence Service ... all terrorists but the people who did 9/11 ... AQ did that all on their own.

Where did the Iraqis get their experience to attack us? Not from AQ. They had a standing Army of 2 million and a special forces command of tens of thousands and an intelligence force of over 20,000 ... they saw we were coming and buried millions of tons of caches ... don't underestimate them and don't confuse them for AQ. They are smart and resourceful and good at killing without anyone showing them.

Hi Greentimber ... its possible SH sent small teams of agents up there but the CIA/KDP/and PUK did and still own and operate the entire region since 1991 (except for Kirkuk)... check out Robert Baer's book "See no Evil" for a good description of CIA operations there in Post Saddam Kurdistan.

The $20k offered by Saddam was rhetoric he put on the news to show "support" for Palestinians ... no Palestinian family according to the Israelis has ever been proven to collect that money ... now the Saudis on the other hand paid out tens of millions of $ to martyrdom charities. They had a telethon two years ago! Any family that could prove a person was lost in fighting to the Israelis qualified for martyrdom payments. No matter if you were a suicide bomber or just got a Hellfire up your butt... your family got paid.

Yes Saddam operated terrorist training centers ... no one ever disputed that ... he ran a university for terrorism ... like I said the PFLP, ANO, the MUK and other small nationalist groups trained in Iraq but only the MUK (the anti-group) was heavily involved in terrorist operations until the US invasion ... there is no hard evidence that Saddam trained, armed or equipped the Al Qaeda organization. See the 9/11 commission report for more details on contacts. Hope this helps expand your minds to some alternatives about our enemies ... We aren't fighting AQ in Iraq but Iraqis who have some skill in terrorism (except for Zarqawi of course).

No one said Iraq wasn't involved in some old school terrorism but obviously many of you guys think the war in Iraq was a good response to Al Qaeda's attack on 9/11 and nothing, facts be damned, is going to convince you of the fact that we have ignored our real enemy "Al Qaeda." Abu Abbas? I've been to his house in Mansour district ... he was a fat old man retiree with one bodyguard, he was not leading a global jihad with thousands of followers. Lets get Bin Laden before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Capt_M ... I AM an intel type and I had three combat action ribbons in the "old" war on terrorism well before 9/11 ... I stared in Beirut at BLT in 1983 and still fighting so I know a little something about terrorism. I am an intelligence warrior and was fighting the terror war for a long time before it became hip and we all became experts. Thanks from refraining from MOS bashing ... I just spent a year in Iraq and head back tomorrow night. Yes, I've been to Salman Pak, Tuwaytha and other suspected camps and had lunch with a real Iraqi terrorist organizations, the MUK and instructors from the Special Security Service ... I learned one strategic thing in Iraq ... we're stuck in this mess and I take the fact that we have turned our backs on the real enemy, who struck us hard and will again strike us, with deadly seriousness. If you have even the slightest open mind that you may be open to a perspective from what the real professional intelligence community thinks (without politics) go buy "Anonymous's" book "Imperial Hubris" ... its a laundry list of how we are losing the war on terror by leaving Al Qaeda alone and getting our butts whipped in Iraq. Its written by the present CIA Chief of the Al Qaeda Division. The GWOT should be have been called the Global War on Al Qaeda (GWAQ) ... trying to kill off all terrorism is like trying to encourage everyone to be virgins. Often too late and not an exciting prospect to the participants. There is a fourth category of people who know something about Iraq ... those who know the truth and are ready to go after the real enemy. I'm focused on the foe dudes, and ready to grasp to harsh truth about Iraq in order to kill AQ proper-like ... how about you?

Fisterkev you have to be in some state of denial ... better read the 9/11 commission report. We have hurt ourselves immeasurably with this invasion ... it is estimated at 70-80% of AQ and the Taliban have dispersed or are in Western pakistan... untouched and unafraid. Thier terrorist arm, the Covert Combat Command are deployed and continuing ops. Iraq took 200,000 people, resources and systems off line against totally obliterating AQ. We haven't even started going all out on them but are now bogged down in Iraq. Hey man I have lived through all three realities of pre-9/11 Middle East, post-9/11 Afghanistan and Iraq ... the present stat sucks. We have only 10k men in Afghanstan and 140,000 men in IZ? Only a few dozen killed in in fighting against Al Qaeda and 900 against Iraqis? Uh, the army says 2/3rd of all available forces are in Iraq or readying to go to Iraq oir recovering from Iraq. We pulled 3,600 men out of South Korea to go to Iraq and the NTC opfor, Shughart-Gordon opfor and the Ceremonial Honor Guard from Ft. Meyer are deploying to Iraq, the CIA has over 500 people in Baghdad alone and has empitied most overseas stations to handle the rotation and suddenly! we're freaking about about AQ surveillance of financial targets 3 clicks from my house! Whoa I though this was handled!? I think we are pretty tapped out because of Iraq and we don't have enough military forces for a serious global AQ hunt. The FBI is NOT leading the hunt by the way. The argument is not ridiculous, the situation we find ourselves in is very ridiculous.

...and here is a bit pertaining too my arguement with Dare over on this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23864.360.html

Notice my emphasis.

Man I have lived, ate, slept and sometimes prayed with these people ... THEY DO NOT SHARE OUR CULTURE. We have to learn and deifnately PSYOPS should lead the way, that when dealing with other cultures you cannot use your own frame of reference. You must use theirs ... I'll plug myself a little here ... In my book the Terrorist recongition handbook check the chapter on funadmental terrorism intelligence analysis and read the part about common sense. I'll give you a hint ... it says we cannot use mid-western common-sense in analyzing the potenial capacity of the threat forces but we must learn to see it through their perspective. Islam hasn't been hijacked ... it IS what is going on and these men who martyr themselves aren't doing it for fear of death... they LOVE death and honor the men who are brave enough to fight to the death. Kill all you want but you'll only have thousands rushing in to replace the tens we do cap. Our American democratic and socail justice values are not fully compatable with Islam's ... especially politically as conservative relgion is a bedrock of the culture. But socially and economically there is a baseline of similarity -we must look for that baseline. They are pissed at our actions, not at our values. They couldn't give two hoots about McDonalds ... they do care when we claim we kill 300 people in najaf and call it a victory ... then the pictures of the collateral dead come out and we open another recruiting drive. ... we just can't shove our actions in their face and say the natives must be just like us ... resistance is a inherent human trait and applying culturally trained PSYOPs or intell guys into it helps, but as I learned in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan... present day warfaighters tend to not give a damn about "what you intel weenies know". I make ALLOT of money off the Special Operations Forces because they are the only force that WANTS to know and, like well before they go through a door. They think critically and repectfully kill the enmy by using his own tricks... thats where the army should be in Iraq. Unfortunately we are in Iraq ... anyone that thinks the GWOT is about killing ALL terrorist should line up for never ending war and an America that will be hated as the greatest colonial power since England in the 19th century; lets just kill this global insurgency called Al Qeda and call it a day ... OK I'll be in the Middle East tomorrow and will ask a few allied Arab SPECOP types what they think of your theory ... it won't be pleasant, believe me.

....and finally, what seems to me to be the best plan to date for attacking the Islamic Insurgency:

... I only have a few minutes. Let me sum up my view on how the GWAQ should have gone and can still go ... If I were President I'd buy the entire global political and law enforcement system out on my terms. Here is how it works:

1) We'd make dramatic change on policies regarding fairness in Israel-Palestine. A major, unprecedented political offensive to get this issue off the tarble for Islamic extremists. We go 50-50 on support for both Israel and Palestinians. Peace in exchange for land. Nothingmore, nothing less. We'd have Arafat sign it before he croaks ... if we don't HAMAS will take over and that could suck. We'll build the Israeli security wall on the 1968 border FOR THEM , at no cost and to their standards but not the way they are doing it now by stealing land. All settlements must go. Period. (If we support this stupid policy then we support Israeli settlement claims as far east as Naseriyah, (city of Ur) Iraq were Abraham was from.) We back it up with NATO forces deployed to ensure Israel's security. Also an easy 10 billion for small businesses and government infrastructure. Cash loans. That means immediate prospect of hope and money for the Palestinian Arabs ... Hamas would have no one to hit in a Palestine that suddenly becomes as hopeful as Jordan ... they want Malls and Lattes. They have enough Mosques and faith.

2) Declaration for Global unconditional War against Al Qaeda (GWAQ). We declare they will be eliminated as a concept from Islam and as humans from earth. The US Army will deploy world wide to train and support any government's operations against them. Not small, six man MTT missions ... Battalion+ sized missions like in the Phillipines. Iraq? I'd BEG NATO to take over. Start a 50 billion dollar jobs program adminsitered by the Interim government to start Work Projects type jobs on them. Every Iraqi man will be offered a job to work cleaning streets or rebuilding something we blasted. We are a year late on this one. The price is cheap ... its the cost of 6 months US Army operations in Iraq. Oh yeah we withdraw 100,000 men almost immediately and give anyone who remains in the service a 20% pay raise. Combat Action pay goes up 100%. CAR/CIBs come with a one time $500 bonus. Combat vets draw 20% more pay than none combat vets. Re-enlistment bonuses for SF/SOC go up to $100,000 per 2 year enlistment because that is what they could make in 6 months as a civilian contractor. Wounded men could be retained in service stateside. The VA budget would be increased 300%.

3) We open all "perceived" offensive US policies to discussion at a series of agreed upon international forums. Any cheezy small act we can do to get any of AQ's strategic complaints off the table gives the Arab governments prospect of hope. They will start to fully cooperate instead of ignoring us as they are right now. Moslem nations will not cooperate with us if we keep acting like they work for us ... they don't. They work for themselves but our attitude and behavior has offended almost every moslem out there. Thats 1 Billion people. We will make Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya OUR mouthpiece by being all over it everytime UBL opens his mouth and constantly sponsoring conferences and discussions ... Arabs love discussions and we should accomodate them. I would also expand US aide from the 2% of the State Department's overall budget and make it 20%. Carrots. Lots and lots of carrots. - Also I'd re-open the US university system for foreign government member's children in order for them to learn what democracy and freedom really means ... I'd even offer scholarships to the best 10 mid-western universities ... if we can find any.

4) A secret rewards program for government ministers of allied Arab countries. For senior AQ leadership or each cell captured and confirmed (such as in Jordan) - Boom! $100 million to the person or "charity" of your choice. $1 Billion for UBL himself. He is a symbol but a powerful one.

3) Iran and North Korea will be immediately engaged and offered huge financial support and aide to end their weapons program. NK we will outright buy the weapons, equipment and processing systems. Hard cash for money ... we will also push rapprochement between NK and SK, We should even sign a ceasefire but US Forces do not leave the peninsula until the nukes are gone. Iran we will normalize relations with but they must become a playing and paying memebr of the GWAQ ... also full inspections by IAEA and dismantling of any weapons related programs. They'd jump at it.

5) I would consider invading Pakistan. I would ask nice first thatthey givetheir nukes to us ... if not I'd drop the entire 18th airborne corps on it and take it away from them. The Pakistan program is too close for comfort to AQ. Do we lose Pakistan as an ally ... probably but I would prefer a pissed off Pakistan without nukes to a friendly one with nukes.

6) Every piece of nuclear material in this planet would be bought by the US government ... double the market price. Lets just take it off the table.

Thats my idea ... some touchy feely, some HEAVY use of the hammer but fair enough even the Arabs could love it. It will cost us a Trillion dollars but the global economic environment will dramatically jump because the US will be a serious but fair player back in the market and Made in the USA won't be a hated phrase

Happy reading,

Infanteer

 

[Infanteer]

First a correctly political side note: Fascism and Communism both fit into that dictionary definition because they are subsets of Socialism.

Just checked my Political Science textbook (Ideologies: An Analytic and Contextual Approach; Larry Johnston) and there is most certainly a difference between Socialism, Fascism, and Communism - and Fundamentalism is a completely separate animal from the previous three.

I could go into some boring, stuffy academic quotes from said textbook, but I won't - I think it is clear that these various political ideas have distinct historical and theoretical differences, and trying to corner them all into one category of suck ass because they don't jibe with Liberalism doesn't really do any of them a favour (or us, in our analysis of them).

 

[tomahawk6]

Fascism and communism are totalitarian in nature. Socialism is kinder and gentler communism in my opinion or communism light.

 

[mdh]

Fascinating read, Infanteer, thanks,

By the way is this the same book you were referring to in previous threads??  

"Anonymous's" book "Imperial Hubris"

thought it was called "Through My Enemy's Eyes..."

Might be time for me to order it,

cheers, mdh  

 

[Acorn]

I wish I had the time and inclination to add my 0.02, but I think I can safely say my opinion coincides with that of Infanteer.

One thing though: "islamofacist" should be subject to Godwin's Law. It's a barely disguised equivalent of "islamonazi" intended to evoke similar emotions amongst those who watch Springer. It really has no bearing on the reality of Islamic fanaticism or facism (and if you take a close look at what the two represent you'll probably see how silly it really is.)

Acorn

 

[mdh]

I wish I had the time and inclination to add my 0.02, but I think I can safely say my opinion coincides with that of Infanteer.

One thing though: "islamofacist" should be subject to Godwin's Law. It's a barely disguised equivalent of "islamonazi" intended to evoke similar emotions amongst those who watch Springer. It really has no bearing on the reality of Islamic fanaticism or facism (and if you take a close look at what the two represent you'll probably see how silly it really is.)

Acorn

What makes you think that we employ this term loosely? And why the excessive rigidity of definition in the first place (do we really need to rely on the academy that much?) If Bin Ladensim is a new phenomenon why can't we create new definitions to describe it.   It seems reasonable to weld fundamentalism with fascism and use it as a pretty accurate description of AQ.   (It's a bit like the term anarcho-syndicalism - a definition of a political strain of thought that appears contradictory but isn't.)

And one other caveat when it comes to raw emotions. The left is starting to accord "freedom fighter" status to the insurgents, a definition I doubt any of us would agree with, so the next time you hear neutralist terminology being employed remember who may be benefitting.

That said I will agree that we need to have these debates to ensure our definitions don't deteriorate into stereotype - and that we keep a clear picture of who the protagonists are in the GWOT.

cheers, mdh

 

[a_majoor]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953 vb

THE REAL WORLD
Saddam and al Qaeda
There's abundant evidence of connections.

BY CLAUDIA ROSETT
Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:01 a.m.

President Bush has given some good speeches lately, including his talk June 29 at Fort Bragg, N.C., in which he stressed some of the reasons for going into Iraq, and his address this past Monday at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Va., in which he talked about the role of intelligence in defeating terrorists and stressed that "the heart of our strategy is this: Free societies are peaceful societies."

But there's another speech Mr. Bush still needs to give. That would be the one in which he says: I told you so--there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

In some quarters, that would of course provoke the usual outrage. Since the U.S.-led coalition went outside the corrupt United Nations to topple the Baathist regime in Baghdad more than two years ago, it has become an article of faith that there was no such connection. Typical of the tenor in both the media and western politics is an article that ran last month in The Economist, describing Iraq as Mr. Bush's "most visible disaster" and opining that "even Mr. Bush's supporters admit that he exaggerated Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda."

If anything, Mr. Bush in recent times has not stressed Saddam's ties to al Qaeda nearly enough. More than ever, as we now discuss the bombings in London, or, to name a few others, Madrid, Casablanca, Bali, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, or the many bombings in Israel--as well as the attacks on the World Trade Center in both 1993 and 2001--it is important to understand that terrorist connections can be real, and lethal, and portend yet more murder, even when they are shadowy, shifting and complex. And it is vital to send the message to regimes in such places as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran that in matters of terrorist ties, the Free World is not interested in epistemological debates over what constitutes a connection. We are not engaged in a court case, or a classroom debate. We are fighting a war.

But in the debates over Iraq, that part of the communication has become far too muddied. Documents found in Iraq are doubted; confessions by detainees are received as universally suspect; reports of meetings between officials of the former Iraqi regime and al Qaeda operatives are discounted as having been nothing more than empty formalities, with such characters shuttling between places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, perhaps to share tea and cookies. Any conclusions or even inferences about contacts between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda are subjected these days to the kind of metaphysical test in which existence itself becomes a highly dubious philosophical problem, mired in the difficulty of ever really being certain about anything at all.

Certainty is then imposed in the form of assurances that there was no connection. This notion that there was no Saddam-al Qaeda connection is invoked as an argument against the decision to go to war in Iraq, and enjoined as part of the case that we were safer with Saddam in power, and that, even now, the U.S. and its allies should simply cut and run.

Actually, there were many connections, as Stephen Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn, writing in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, spell out under the headline "The Mother of All Connections." Since the fall of Saddam, the U.S. has had extraordinary access to documents of the former Baathist regime, and is still sifting through millions of them. Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn take some of what is already available, combined with other reports, documentation and details, some from before the overthrow of Saddam, some after. For page after page, they list connections--with names, dates and details such as the longstanding relationship between Osama bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Saddam's regime.

Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn raise, with good reason, the question of why Saddam gave haven to Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the men who in 1993 helped make the bomb that ripped through the parking garage of the World Trade Center. They detail a contact between Iraqi intelligence and several of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Malaysia, the year before al Qaeda destroyed the twin towers. They recount the intersection of Iraqi and al Qaeda business interests in Sudan, via, among other things, an Oil for Food contract negotiated by Saddam's regime with the al-Shifa facility that President Clinton targeted for a missile attack following the African embassy bombings because of its apparent connection to al Qaeda. And there is plenty more.

The difficulty lies in piecing together the picture, which is indeed murky (that being part of the aim in covert dealings between tyrants and terrorist groups)--but rich enough in depth and documented detail so that the basic shape is clear. By the time Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn are done tabulating the cross-connections, meetings, Iraqi Intelligence memos unearthed after the fall of Saddam, and information obtained from detained terrorist suspects, you have to believe there was significant collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda. Or you have to inhabit a universe in which there will never be a demonstrable connection between any of the terrorist attacks the world has suffered over the past dozen years, or any tyrant and any aspiring terrorist. In that fantasyland, all such phenomena are independent events.

Mr. Bush, in calling attention to the Iraq-al Qaeda connection in the first place, did the right thing. For the U.S. president to confirm that clearly and directly at this stage, with some of the abundant supporting evidence now available, might seem highly controversial. But reviving that controversy would help settle it more squarely in line with the truth.

Ms. Rosett is a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Her column appears here and in The Wall Street Journal Europe on alternate Wednesdays.

Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[Acorn]

What makes you think that we employ this term loosely? And why the excessive rigidity of definition in the first place (do we really need to rely on the academy that much?) If Bin Ladensim is a new phenomenon why can't we create new definitions to describe it.   It seems reasonable to weld fundamentalism with fascism and use it as a pretty accurate description of AQ.   (It's a bit like the term anarcho-syndicalism - a definition of a political strain of thought that appears contradictory but isn't.)

That said I will agree that we need to have these debates to ensure our definitions don't deteriorate into stereotype - and that we keep a clear picture of who the protoganists are in the GWOT.

I didn't suggest that the term was being employed loosely, simply that it is incorrect, and perelously close to Godwin's Law. "Bin Ladenism" is also inaccurate, as the philiosophy of Bin Laden is hardly new, and the fundamentals of it, Wahhabism, pre-date Fascism. From my perspective it is inaccurate to suggest that AQ's philosophy is a welded form of funadmentalism and fascism. What I see is fascism tack-soldered onto Wahhabi fundamentalist theory in order to put it into a context that Westerners might understand. Unfortunately it's not accurate.

We also have the blinders of growing up under a system of separated church and state. In Islam, all forms, there is no such distinction. "Church" and state are one, and this is a fundamental since the 7thC - way before the concept of Fascism was considered.

More another day.

Acorn

 

[Andyboy]

So if AQ is eliminated will the threat of terrorism be eliminated?

 

[dutchie]

My grade 11 Socials teacher had a way of describing the 'Political Spectrum' as not a line, with 'extreme left' (Communism) on one end and 'extreme right' (Fascism) on the other, but rather, as a circle. Somewhere near the top of the circle is the 'centre' (Liberal Democracy?), and the bottom is where extreme left and right meet. This makes 'Communism' and 'Fascism', while still being extreme left/right respectively, right next to each other. Seems simple, but that's how I view it.

So if AQ is eliminated will the threat of terrorism be eliminated?

No. Just as the elimination of the IRA will not result in the end of the threat of terrorism. Ditto for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al.

I think it would be foolish to think that all who wish for the destruction of our culture are card-carrying members of AQ - those people will always exist, even if the group dies. AQ gives them the opportunity, yes, but it's elimination does not eliminate the sentiment of a large number of anti-west Muslims. Of course, it's tough to fight 'sentiment', and easy to fight 'people', so AQ is the target. Basically, AQ is fighting on behalf of a lot of Muslims, even if many of those Muslims don't support them overtly.

To answer the question another way: Would the elimination of the entire US military mean the elimination of America/Americans? No, elimination of the nations/groups 'soldiers' does not eliminate the people or their ideals.

 

[a_majoor]

For a discussion of the political "spectrum, see here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23744.0.html

As for eliminating the threat of terrorism, that isn't possible so long as humans can experience the "Will to Power" (the root cause of crime and terrorism), but eliminating the AQ will stop the threat of terrorism from that front, and certainly discredit that cause. The elimination of the Waffen SS did not eliminate National Socialism, but they certainly are not a big part of the political landscape anymore. Other movements, people and ideas have been similarly pruned from the landscape by the destruction of their armies and ability to project power (We are not bothered by Spartan Helotry, Carthaginian Mercentilism or Confederate slave owners, to pick a few random examples).

As a counter example, the decline of British Imperial power also coincided with the growth of despotism throughout the Commonwealth and former Empire; the British either lacked the will or means to support Westminister style democracy across the globe. American power is a curious anomaly; for much of her history, the Flag followed the trade (American sailors and Marines being dispatched to rescue Yankee traders and missionaries who got in over their head), and much of American power throughout the world is of the "soft" variety. The Al Qaeda and their friends correctly view America as a commercial Republic, and attacking tourists, businessmen, embassies etc. is an attempt to cut the true source of American power.

 

[Andyboy]

Thanks both of you for the replies, the question was directed more towards the posts that infanteer referred to. Here is a post from a different board (Belmont Club) that I find fairly convincing.

" TigerHawk said...
If it commits brutal offenses such as this, what is the source of al Qaeda's strength? The answer, I think, it that al Qaeda's form of jihad is the product of more than 70 years of ideological development. That ideology has appeal for all kinds of reasons rooted in ancient Arab and Muslim failures, including their failure to found legitimate governments and engage successfully with the modern world. But the ideology of jihadism also -- perhaps primarily -- succeeds because it competes against essentially nothing. There is no meaningful competing ideology in the Arab world, which sustains its rulers in the barren soil of monarchy or rank authoritarianism.

Just as communism's intellectual roots stretched back decades before the establishment of the first communist state, jihadi ideology is a coherent and highly developed political philosophy with roots long ante-dating the state of Israel, Western dependance on Middle Eastern oil, the presence of American soldiers in the region, or the first jihadi state -- the Taliban government of Afghanistan. As was the case with communism, it will take a long time to discredit and destroy this ideology.

How, then, do we destroy both al Qaeda and the jihadi ideology? The answer is, just as Wretchard suggests, that "we" -- meaning the West -- cannot. Just as the citizens of communist regimes did more to destroy communism in the end than the United States, only Muslims, and particularly Arab Muslims, can destroy the jihad. They will do so only when it is worth their great personal sacrifice to ruthlessly pursue the people in their own world who promote this ideology. (And in case it needs to be said, a settlement between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel will not motivate that sacrifice, and neither will the withdrawal of American soldiers from Arab lands.)

As with the decades-long war on communism, the war on Islamic jihad requires strategy that both contains the advance of the jihad as much as practical and motivates its most direct victims -- in this case Muslims -- to destroy it from within (as the Russians and the Chinese have both, in quite different fashion, destroyed communism). Containment, in this case, requires passive strategies (such as homeland security) and the active participation of the existing governments of the Islamic world. American strategy -- including, in my opinion, the war in Iraq -- has been constructed around coercing those otherwise uncooperative governments into that active participation. The demands of containment require us to coerce and cajole fundamentally hideous governments, including especially Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as other tactics, such as our flowering alliance with India and our careful diplomacy in Central Asia) have put us in a position to do that.

Unfortunately, steps we take to coerce the autocracies of the Muslim world also make us less popular among the Muslim masses. This is not different from the Cold War, in which active American efforts to contain communism -- the Cuban embargo, the military defense of South Korea and Vietnam, support for the insurgents in Angola, support for Taiwan, and support for Israel in 1967 and 1973 -- enraged the otherwise oppressed populations of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and so forth. As we learned during the Cold War, containment alone cannot dispose of an enemy founded in a well-articulated political philosophy. We therefore must combine containment of the jihadis with a long-term plan to motivate the Muslim world to discredit and destroy the jihad from within. This is the purpose and promise of the Bush Administration's "democratization" strategy.

Muslims need serious motivation to discredit and destroy the jihad because the jihadis are extremely dangerous and ruthless people. They have demonstrated their capacity for breathtaking brutality not just on September 11 and in the Sunni Triangle, but across the world over a period of at least twenty years. None of Western coercion of Israel, the retreat of the United States from the region or promises of Western aid or free trade will provide that necessary serious motivation. The only way to inspire Muslims to fight the jihad is to invite them to embrace a competing ideology that can fill the empty void of their civil society and give them something in defense of which they are willing to risk war with the jihadis. Moderate Islam -- the widely-proclaimed "religion of peace" -- might have filled that void, but it has not thus far and shows no prospect of doing so any time soon. The idea of popular sovereignty -- the philosophy of John Locke, if you will -- is the only political philosophy available in the West that holds any promise of competing with the evil coherence of Islamic jihad. It is also a wonderful thing to fight for.

The "democratization" of the Muslim world, therefore, is critical to the destruction of the jihadi ideology for at least three reasons. Least important is the reason most often given -- that it will "drain the swamp" of Muslim rage that festers under the heel of Muslim authoritarian and monarchical regimes. Far more importantly, popular sovereignty is an ideology that can compete with radical Islam. Indeed, with the death of communism, which was a sort of perverted version of popular sovereignty, it is the only ideology that can compete with radical Islam. Finally, and most importantly, democratic governments are governments worth fighting for. Generally speaking, Muslims are not going to turn in the jihadis in the back of the mosque because a monarch or a dictator threatens them or gives them money. They will, though, if those jihadis threaten an idea that they hold dear. Moderate Islam has failed to supply that idea. Communism is dead. The only alternative is the guiding light of the Englightenment, the idea of the social contract. John Locke will fuel the counterinsurgency within Islam.

Sorry for the long comment, but I thought it was germane. I also confess that I have written the same argument in a somewhat longer form previously. "

Thoughts?

 

[Infanteer]

Thanks both of you for the replies, the question was directed more towards the posts that infanteer referred to. Here is a post from a different board (Belmont Club) that I find fairly convincing.

I broached the "Containment" approach in a post once, in an attempt to rationalize the current strategy:

I am not to sure exactly what you're asking me here, but I'll try to answer it.

What I said in that link still seems to me to be a plausible route to victory, but I do hold the factors in the last few pages of discussion here to be very valid as well.   That's what discussion is about I guess, exploring different frameworks and approaches to the problem and figuring out the best COA.

However, I will nitpick on a few points in "Tigerhawks" otherwise good post:

1)   He mentions that the people within Communist regimes did more to destroy Communism than the West.   I'm not sure that is entirely how it went - Kennan himself (In the X article) says that Communism contained the seeds to its own destruction (rough paraphrase).   It was a defunct socio-economic system which, in the end, would wilt away - especially when plastered upon a group of Western nations with deep history and traditions that never supported it.   It wasn't so much that people actively destroyed it, rather it seemed that when it came to crunch time, people didn't give a fuck and went for Greener pastures (hence, the Soviet Union imploded rather than exploded).   As for China, people within China didn't destroy Communism - it has merely evolved in its own, Sino-centric way there.   Anyways, the point for picking up on this one is that I'm not sure we can say that "Islam contains the seeds of its own destruction" in the same way Communism did (see below).

2)   I think the "Abu Buckwheat" quotes were important in highlighting culture as a vital "frame of reference" - this is where I can see another weakness in ascribing the weaknesses of Communism to that of Islamist thought.   One is a socio-economic system (and a shoddy one at that) while the other is a Faith.   It's hard to use the same frame of reference when one looks at 2 left shoes and the other looks at the well-being of a believer's soul.   Marx/Lenin tried to ignore Faith (which is one of the reasons it did contain the seeds of its own demise) while Bin Laden and Co. make Faith the center of their being.

3)   As it pertains to Faith, I'm not to sure of the veracity of the "poverty" argument.   Sure, it will be a factor, but I don't think it is The Factor.   From what I understand, history is all one step away for many Muslim people/nations.   They talk about Mohammed/Saladin/Suleiman like they talk about Osama bin Laden, Israel, and the Gulf War.   Even when Islam was at the top of the heap in civilizational thinking (8-10 centuries, 15-17 centuries) they were fighting as hard as they are now, when they are at the bottom of the heap in terms of prosperity and well-being (well, not at the bottom of the heap, I think Africa has that real-estate covered for along time).   If history is a current dialogue for them, than poverty probably isn't a huge factor to many who talk of the Ummah of the 8th century as if it was yesterday.

Just some thoughts,
Infanteer

 

[Andyboy]

Infanteer,

To reply to your points,

1. "He mentions that the people within Communist regimes did more to destroy Communism than the West." The way I look at it Communism died not due to outside pressure but due to the choices the people within the countries and systems made. Star Wars wouldn't have worked if the Commies hadn't have taken the bait. The wall wouldn't have come down had the people not madeit do so. I think that is what he means, similarly Islam is threatened not by the actions of the West, but by the actions of Muslims themsleves (Osama et al), as well as their inaction in rooting it out and reforming. Just a thought.

2."One is a socio-economic system (and a shoddy one at that) while the other is a Faith." I have sometimes heard Communism/Marxism described in religious terms which seems to fit. Replace "God" with "Communism", "Jesus" with "Marx", and "The Church" with "The Party" and you start to see some similarities. Faith in God, Jeus and the Church is repalced with faith in Communism, Marx, and The Party. I might not have it exactly right but you see what I'm getting at.

3. I agree with what you said here, although I wonder if they look at how"easy" we have it at the top of the heap compared to when they were at the top of the heap, like you say they were fighting just as hard then as they are now. I wonder if they look at our wealth and success and attribute it to our exploitation of them. I wonder too if they long for the glory of their past combined with the wealth and comfort of our present, I have no idea really, I do think though that being poor isn't so bad if everyone is equally poor. Once you see that there is someone better off than you you begin to resent them and resent your poverty.

Thanks again for the discussion.

Andrew

 

[a_majoor]

Most of the collapse of Communism was due to internal rot; only the rueling class received the benefits of the system, the rest of the people drifted into apathy and there was simply less and less "horsepower" available to the various communist regimes to advance on any front, much less meet a sustained advance on all fronts (economic, military, cultural and political) that the United States under the Reagan administration was able to mount.

Similarly, most of the regimes opposing the United States are fairly brittle authoritarian regimes, and can be fairly easily "stressed out" by dynamic American power. The key difference which Infanteer pointed out is the underlying foundation of "Faith" (as well as an underlying social structure based on "tribes"), which will fill the vacuum of failed authoritarian Secular, Theocratic or Royal regimes. This is the rather messy stew which the US is probably trying to season with "Cedar" revolutions, in an attempt to create or encourage liberal democratic regimes, where people's energies are turned inwards to securing better lives for themselves.

All I can say at this point is "Godspeed". Even postulating two terms of a Rice administration to follow the Bush administration would only see the beginning of the process, if it could happen successfully.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Sorry, getting caught-up after some vacation:

I've understood theofascism to be the conjunction of Theocracy and Fascism: there is no implication that they are the same thing (indeed, the implication is that they are different), but rather the ******* [Hey, that's not a pejorative!] child of the two.  Islamofascism in that context makes sense to me (I know what I mean and I know what other people mean when the term is used).


WRT snakes in the grass, the insurgency, etc. ... a thousand words:

Regarding the supposed the causal link between terrorism and support to the invasion of Saddam's Iraq:

1. When did Egypt join the Coalition of the Willing?

2. John Howard's comments on :

PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don't want to add to what the prime minister has said. It's a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter.)

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_17_corner-archive.asp#070312

3.  This editorial (yikes, I'm quoting an editorial from the Guardian) also concerns the London Bombings specifically, but addresses Leftist myopia in a larger context:

Comment: There are apologists amongst us

The 'We told you so' lot have been bleating on about Iraq ever since the atrocities of 7/7 - it is time to fight back
Norman Geras
Thursday July 21, 2005

Guardian
Within hours of the bombs going off two weeks ago, the voices that one could have predicted began to make themselves heard with their root-causes explanations for the murder and maiming of a random group of tube and bus passengers in London. It was due to Blair, Iraq, illegal war and the rest of it. The first voices, so far as I know, were those of the SWP and George Galloway, but it wasn't very long - indeed no time at all, taking into account production schedules - before the stuff was spreading like an infestation across the pages of this newspaper, where it has remained.

No words of dismay, let alone grief, could be allowed to pass some people's lips without the accompaniment of a "We told you so" and an exercise in blaming someone other than the perpetrators. No sense of what such a tragedy might call for or rule out on the first day. Exactly as if you were to hear from a distraught friend that her husband had just been murdered while walking in a "bad" neighbourhood, and to respond by saying you were sorry about this but it was foolish of him to have been walking there by himself. We had the same after 9/11; still, one nurtures the illusion that people learn. Evidently some don't.

It needs to be seen and said clearly: there are, among us, apologists for what the killers do. They make more difficult the fight to defeat them. The plea will be - it always is - that these are not apologists, they are merely honest Joes and Joanies endeavouring to understand the world in which we live. What could be wrong with that? What indeed? Nothing is wrong with genuine efforts at understanding; on these we all depend. But the genuine article is one thing, and root-causes advocacy seeking to dissipate responsibility for atrocity, mass murder, crime against humanity, especially in the immediate aftermath of their occurrence, is something else.

Note the selectivity in the way root-causes arguments function. Purporting to be about causal explanation rather than excuse-making, they are invariably deployed on behalf of movements or actions for which their proponent wants to engage our indulgence, and in order to direct blame towards some party towards whom he or she is unsympathetic.

A hypothetical example illustrates the point. Suppose that, on account of the present situation in Zimbabwe, the government decides to halt all scheduled deportations of Zimbabweans. Some BNP thugs are made angry by this and express their anger by beating up a passer-by who happens to be an African immigrant. Can you imagine a single person of left or liberal outlook who would blame this act of violence on the government's decision or urge us to consider sympathetically the root causes of the act? It wouldn't happen, because the anger of the thugs doesn't begin to justify what they have done. The root-causers always plead a desire merely to expand our understanding, but they're very selective in what they want to "understand".

If causes and explanation are indeed a serious enterprise and not merely a convenient partisan game, then it needs to be recognised that causality is one thing and moral responsibility another, though the two are related. The fact that something someone else does contributes causally to a crime or atrocity doesn't show that they, as well as the direct agents, are morally responsible for that crime or atrocity, if what they have contributed causally is not itself wrong and doesn't serve to justify it. Furthermore, even when what someone else has contributed causally to the occurrence of the criminal or atrocious act is wrong, this won't necessarily show they bear any of the blame for it.

The "We told you so" crowd all just somehow know that the Iraq war was an effective cause of the deaths in London. How do they know this, these clever people?  ...

· Norman Geras is professor emeritus in government at the University of Manchester; a longer version of this article can be found at www.normblog.typepad.com

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5243795-103677,00.html


According to this article, the invasion is starting to realize it's intended consequences:

Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 15, 2005; A13

Osama bin Laden's standing has dropped significantly in some pivotal Muslim countries, while support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence has "declined dramatically," according to a new survey released yesterday.

Predominantly Muslim populations in a sampling of six North African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries share to a "considerable degree" Western concerns about Islamic extremism, according to the poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted by the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization.

"Most Muslim publics are expressing less support for terrorism than in the past. Confidence in Osama bin Laden has declined markedly in some countries, and fewer believe suicide bombings that target civilians are justified in the defense of Islam," the poll concluded.

The one exception is attitudes toward suicide bombings of U.S and Western targets in Iraq, a subject on which Muslims were divided. Roughly half of Muslims in Lebanon, Jordan and Morocco said such attacks are justifiable, while sizable majorities in Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia disagreed. Yet, support for suicide bombings in Iraq still declined by as much as 20 percent compared with a poll taken last year.

The results, which also reveal widespread support for democracy, show how profoundly opinions have changed in parts of the Muslim world since Pew took similar surveys in recent years. The poll attributed the difference in attitudes toward extremism to both the terrorist attacks in Muslim nations and the passage of time since the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

In May 2003, many Muslims "saw a worldwide threat to Islam and [bin Laden] represented opposition to the West and the United States," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center and project director. "Tempers have since cooled."...

Three factors, Kohut said, contributed to the notable shift in views on bin Laden and suicide bombings: incidents of terrorism in Muslim countries, an increase in positive feelings about events at home, and the passage of time since the 2003 survey conducted after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The decline in support for suicide bombings was largest in Indonesia, which has witnessed deadly bombings at a Marriott hotel in Jakarta and at a Bali tourist hotel -- attacks that seriously affected tourism and foreign investment. Jordan was the only country where the majority surveyed -- 57 percent -- still support terrorist acts in defense of Islam, possibly because the majority Palestinian population is tied to the conflict with Israel, Kohut said.

But Norton also noted: "As the events in London show, it does not take too many people to cause big problems. If only 1/10,000 of 1 percent [of the Muslim world] is inclined to terrorism, that is still 1,200 potential mass killers."

One of the starkest findings was the divide in views on religion. Most of those surveyed in nine Western countries -- including the United States, Britain, Canada, France and Russia -- said they have favorable views of Muslims, although the non-Muslims surveyed were more likely to say Islam is more violent than Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism.

The Muslims surveyed had mixed views on Christians, and anti-Jewish sentiment was "endemic," the survey reported.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030_pf.html




Finally, WRT to the plan to address the Islamofascism/insert-your-term-here on the prvs. page (not sure of the source of your quote, Infanteer):

1) We'd make dramatic change on policies regarding fairness in Israel-Palestine. A major, unprecedented political offensive to get this issue off the tarble for Islamic extremists. We go 50-50 on support for both Israel and Palestinians. Peace in exchange for land. Nothingmore, nothing less. We'd have Arafat sign it before he croaks ... if we don't HAMAS will take over and that could suck ...

Obviously this is a little dated, but Palestinians are showing clearly that their support is for HAMAS (and thus it's 'solution').

2) Declaration for Global unconditional War against Al Qaeda (GWAQ). We declare they will be eliminated as a concept from Islam and as humans from earth. The US Army will deploy world wide to train and support any government's operations against them...

This is pretty much what the US is already doing, but it's effectiveness is hampered by reflexive anti-Americanism (and even by partisanship and myopia of the American (and western) Left).

3) We open all "perceived" offensive US policies to discussion at a series of agreed upon international forums. Any cheezy small act we can do to get any of AQ's strategic complaints off the table gives the Arab governments prospect of hope...

We already have this: it's called the UN.  These 'discussions' almost invariably lead to a vetoed motion of censure of the US and/or Israel and a call for more monetary aid for the Palestinians.  Why should we expect it to be any different 'this time'?

4) A secret rewards program for government ministers of allied Arab countries...

Realpolitik was disavowed by the Bush admin. because it doesn't work (remember the Taleban?)

3) Iran and North Korea will be immediately engaged and offered huge financial support and aide to end their weapons program... 6) Every piece of nuclear material in this planet would be bought by the US government ... double the market price. Lets just take it off the table.

Assuming you could find them, what happens if they don't want to sell at any price?  Even if you could, how much do you think the UN/European Left is going to like the idea of the US as the sole nuclear superpower?  IMHO, this idea is pure fantasy.

5) I would consider invading Pakistan. I would ask nice first thatthey givetheir nukes to us ... if not I'd drop the entire 18th airborne corps on it and take it away from them...

This would be quite a lot more problematic than the Iraq invasion (even if the manpower and national political will were available).

 

[Infanteer]

I've understood theofascism to be the conjunction of Theocracy and Fascism: there is no implication that they are the same thing (indeed, the implication is that they are different), but rather the ******* [Hey, that's not a pejorative!] child of the two.   Islamofascism in that context makes sense to me (I know what I mean and I know what other people mean when the term is used).

How can it be a step-child?   The lines of thought expressed by these Islamists (unified Caliphate, ulema, rule of Shari'a, etc, etc) are all notions that existed long before Fascism stepped onto the Poli Sci circuit and they seemed to thrive within some/many circles of Islamic thought without needing a Western idea to foster its growth.

3.   This editorial (yikes, I'm quoting an editorial from the Guardian) also concerns the London Bombings specifically, but addresses Leftist myopia in a larger context: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5243795-103677,00.html

The "Iraq apoligists" are a pack of wankers, I saw news footage of some of these people marching in Toronto saying "I told you so".   If they had bothered to look at Al Qaeda's immediate objectives, they'd have seen that Iraq is only one of many items on the list (hence John Howard pointing out that Sept 11 was before all of this).

According to this article, the invasion is starting to realize it's intended consequences:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030_pf.html

Go to the source, the author of that article seems to be cherry picking the good parts of the study.   I have confidence in the Pew Center (I posted some work by it earlier), so I went and found the document in question:

This is actually a pretty interesting read, I recommend it

The optomistic quote you posted is followed by:

- Nonetheless, the polling also finds that while Muslim and non-Muslim publics share some common concerns, they have very different attitudes regarding the impact of Islam on their countries. Muslim publics worry about Islamic extremism, but the balance of opinion in predominantly Muslim countries is that Islam is playing a greater role in politics â “ and most welcome that development. Turkey is a clear exception; the public there is divided about whether a greater role for Islam in the political life of that country is desirable.

Also worth noting are:

-  The latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted among more than 17,000 people in 17 countries this spring, finds that while many Muslims believe that radical Islam poses a threat, there are differing opinions as to its causes. Sizable minorities in most predominantly Muslim countries point to poverty, joblessness and a lack of education, but pluralities in Jordan and Lebanon cite U.S. policies as the most important cause of Islamic extremism.

This doesn't seem to bode well for the notion that liberal democracy will flower in the Islamic World:

-  A complex set of attitudes about the place of Islam in politics emerges from the findings. Most people surveyed in predominantly Muslim countries identify themselves first as Muslims, rather than as citizens of their country. Moreover, except in Jordan, there is considerable acknowledgement that Islam is playing a significant role in the political life of these countries.

  Worries about extremism are often greater among those who believe Islam has a significant voice in the political life of their country. This is particularly the case in Turkey and Morocco. The polling finds that those in Turkey who self-identify primarily with their nationality worry more about Islamic extremism than do those who think of themselves first as Muslim.

  However, Muslim publics who see Islam's influence in politics increasing say that this trend is good for their country, while those who see Islam's influence slipping overwhelmingly say it is bad. Turkey, whose EU candidacy is weakened by European worries about Islamic extremism, has the least clear cut opinions on this issue. An increasing role for Islam in politics in Turkey, a country that has been officially secular since 1923, is seen as a bad thing. Those in Turkey who see Islam's influence diminishing are divided over whether this is good (44%) or bad (47%).

As well, Anti-Semitism remains pretty unanimous, which is an unfortunate turn of historical trends when you consider that Judaism flourished in Islamic Empires while being persecuted in Christendom:

-  Anti-Jewish sentiment is endemic in the Muslim world. In Lebanon, all Muslims and 99% of Christians say they have a very unfavorable view of Jews. Similarly, 99% of Jordanians have a very unfavorable view of Jews. Large majorities of Moroccans, Indonesians, Pakistanis and six-in-ten Turks also view Jews unfavorably.

Finally, at first glance the drop in support for bin Laden sounds pleasing, but we see that they are largely in areas where he never really had a huge following anyways.   Places like Pakistan and Jordan have seen increases in support for bin Laden, so I'm guessing that the report is comme ci, comme ca regarding him.

-  While support for suicide bombings and other terrorist acts has fallen in most Muslim-majority nations surveyed, so too has confidence in Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. In Lebanon, just 2% report some or a lot of confidence in bin Laden, and in Turkey only 7% do so.

  In Morocco, just 26% of the public now say they have a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, down sharply from 49% in May 2003. In Indonesia, the public is now about evenly split, with 35% saying they place at least some confidence in bin Laden and 37% saying they have little or none; that represents a major shift since 2003, when 58% expressed confidence in bin Laden.

  In Pakistan, however, a narrow majority (51%) places some measure of confidence in bin Laden, a slight increase from 45% in 2003. And in Jordan, support for the Al Qaeda leader has risen over the last two years from 55% to a current 60%, including 25% who say they have a lot of confidence in him. Unsurprisingly, support for bin Laden in non-Muslim countries is measured in the small single digits.

  Declining support for terror in a number of the Muslim countries surveyed tracks with previously reported dramatic increases in favorable views of the United States in Indonesia and Morocco. Favorable opinions of the U.S. surged most among younger people in Morocco, but were equally evident among both the young and old in Indonesia. The polling also found that in most Muslim countries women were less likely to express an opinion of the U.S. than were men, but when they did, they held a somewhat more positive view.

Finally, the Pew Center just issued another study on American attitudes towards Iraq and its impact on the "War on Terror":

-  The public is growing more skeptical that the war in Iraq is helping in the effort to fight terrorism. A plurality (47%) believes that the war in Iraq has hurt the war on terrorism, up from 41% in February of this year. Further, a plurality (45%) now says that the war in Iraq has increased the chances of terrorist attacks at home, up from 36% in October 2004, while fewer say that the war in Iraq has lessened the chances of terrorist attacks in the U.S. (22% now and 32% in October). Another three-in-ten believe that the war in Iraq has no effect on the chances of a terrorist attack in the U.S.

This War may be doing more harm than good if it is indeed undercutting general support against fighting a global effort against an Islamic Insurgency.   As "Abu Buckwheat" pointed out, is the US (and the West in general) really getting the best use out of its military forces by wearing them out in Iraq?   This was the general concern I raised a few pages ago - as Vietnam showed, it is easy to have the feet cut out from underneath you when the war loses support at home.

Finally, WRT to the plan to address the Islamofascism/insert-your-term-here on the prvs. page (not sure of the source of your quote, Infanteer

Those viewpoints are of Mr "Abu Buckwheat" of the Lightfighter.net forum, you can chase him (along with the quote) down with the link I provided in the thread.   I'm not going to argue over his points because they are his and I don't pretend to know how he would come to those conclusions.   However, as I said in the post, he backs his posts up with decades in the CT/intel game, military service, he is fluent in their languages, has travelled and lived among these communities, and has written a few books on the subject (which can be found at Amazon).   His "cred" is backed by other operators over at the site, so I'm inclined to look to people like him for their thoughts (as opposed to news pundits writing from the comfort of home).

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

How can it be a step-child?  The lines of thought expressed by these Islamists (unified Caliphate, ulema, rule of Shari'a, etc, etc) are all notions that existed long before Fascism stepped onto the Poli Sci circuit and they seemed to thrive within some/many circles of Islamic thought without needing a Western idea to foster its growth.

Very true ... however, to my knowledge Islam didn't typically include "an authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism" (Dictionary.com definition of Fascism), most of which I think is also characteristic of the enemy we face.  Moreover (also Dictionary.com):

Islamism:n.
  1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.
  2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.

theocracy:n. pl. the ·oc ·ra ·cies
  1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
  2. A state so governed.

YMMV, but I don't really think that these definitions capture the fascist characteristics of "Islamofascism" that are not typically Muslim.  The association probably really started in WW2 with Nazi and "All Palestine" "President" Amin al-Husayni (wikipedia's got some bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni ).

I will admit that given the proclivity of the Left to overuse "fascist" as an epithet, they could easily misunderstand the term to be equating Islam with Fascism.  Then again, I don't have much empathy for their "understanding" of a lot of things.

Go to the source, the author of that article seems to be cherry picking the good parts of the study.  I have confidence in the Pew Center (I posted some work by it earlier), so I went and found the document in question:

Haven't had time yet to review, so I will defer to your comments for now (at least) ...

Those viewpoints are of Mr "Abu Buckwheat" of the Lightfighter.net forum, you can chase him (along with the quote) down with the link I provided in the thread.  I'm not going to argue over his points because they are his and I don't pretend to know how he would come to those conclusions.  However, as I said in the post, he backs his posts up with decades in the CT/intel game, military service, he is fluent in their languages, has travelled and lived among these communities, and has written a few books on the subject (which can be found at Amazon).  His "cred" is backed by other operators over at the site, so I'm inclined to look to people like him for their thoughts (as opposed to news pundits writing from the comfort of home).

Interesting ... I still stand by my criticisms, though ... maybe I should start lurking over at Lightfighter ...

 

[Infanteer]

Very true ... however, to my knowledge Islam didn't typically include "an authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism" (Dictionary.com definition of Fascism), most of which I think is also characteristic of the enemy we face.   Moreover (also Dictionary.com):

Islamism:n.
   1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.
   2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.

theocracy:n. pl. the ·oc ·ra ·cies
   1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
   2. A state so governed.

YMMV, but I don't really think that these definitions capture the fascist characteristics of "Islamofascism" that are not typically Muslim.   The association probably really started in WW2 with Nazi and "All Palestine" "President" Amin al-Husayni (wikipedia's got some bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni ).

I will admit that given the proclivity of the Left to overuse "fascist" as an epithet, they could easily misunderstand the term to be equating Islam with Fascism.   Then again, I don't have much empathy for their "understanding" of a lot of things.

See, this is where I have a problem with use of the term "Fascism" - you are linking a Western political concept to something that is completely foreign and alien to much of the Islamist framework in question.   As Acorn mentioned (here or elsewhere) it is inappropriate as it introduces irrelevant or inaccurate subject matter into the discussion and idea of what the enemy is seeking to accomplish.

You mention the terms "authoritarian", "dictator", "political dissent", and "industrial and economic activities" which do indeed seem to be the historical focus of Fascist groups.   However, these concepts seem out of place when discussing the Islamist movement.   They are all secular terms, and seem to fall short of describing an outlook that sees Religion and State as one and the same; that sees a Ruler is justified not by popular sovereignty but by his ability to promote and protect the Shari'a; which sees morality and all social activities (including industry and economic) as being properly defined by Shari'a and the Hadith (the actions of the Prophet Mohammed); that all Islam is a single community (ummah) residing within a House of Submission (Dar al-Islam); and that within this community, that political legitimacy is heavily grounded within the community of religious scholars (Ulemma) who are supposed to ensure that political leaders remember that "Caesar and what is due to him all belong to God".

These concepts are typical and very real parts of Islam and are all as old as Islam itself and seem to do a very good job in describing where much of the current Islamist viewpoint is derived from.   Osama bin Laden didn't study Mein Kampf when he went to King Abdul Aziz University, he looked at the Qu'ran, so we don't need to be fishing for some injection of a relatively new Western concept to define notions of Islam within a modern framework of political thought.   As well, these terms are all unique due to their origin within political Islam, just as many of our political terms (liberalism, common law, universal sufferage, secular state) are all unique to our own brand of Western, liberal democratic political thought.   I use the Arabic terms (since Arabic is the acknowledged language of the Prophet) not to sound smart or witty, but for the very reason that they are unique ideas that need to be defined as they are within their Islamic construct, and not confused or cross-pollinated with irrelevant references to Western ideas of authoritarian regimes in conflict with our general liberal outlook.

Finally, I believe the mention of Husayni is a curve ball meant to bolster the claim of tieing fundmentalist Islamist groups to Fascism, and from my understanding he has little or nothing to do with the current Islamist movement that is headlined by organizations such as Al Qaida.   There may be some similarities between his political viewpoint and that of organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood (which fuse Nationalism and Islamist thought into one), but AQ and Co. have built there organizations and viewpoints around the writings of Islamic scholars such as Taqi al-Din Ibn Tammiyah, Mohammmed Qutb, and Shaykh Abdullah Azzam.   They are quite apt to condemn and fight again both Islamic states that appear to bend to outside influence (Saudi Arabia) and what they consider to be apostate secular regimes who replace God's Law with Laws of Man (Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey).

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

You are ignoring the militarism, police-state mentality and acute anti-Semitism (pretty much) unique to post-WW2 "radical" Islam: there are degrees of authoritarianism in Islam, none of which (except the one under discussion) approach the malevolent tyranny that is suggested by using the term "Islamofascism."  Moreover, I discern a pretty big difference between allowing 'people of the book' "Dhimmi" status and wiping tem off the face of the earth.

al-Husayni (and others) imported European anti-Semitism (and other fascist ideals) that first manifested in the pogroms in Algeria, then the Farhud, and later in Libya and Iraq: I find it rather difficult to believe that those ideas suddenly disappeared while simultaneously an incredibly totalitarian, violent and anti-Semitic strain of Islam (that no-one has any memory or record of) was spontaneously 'rediscovered'.