Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

[MissMolsonIndy]

Foreign Policy is an expression of interests.  When foreign policies clash (with either state or sub-state actors), then you have a power struggle (politics...or war, which is merely an extention of politics by other means... ).  So sure, US Foreign Policy, like any other interaction between two competing groups, is essentially based upon power.

Absolutely.

However, I don't think that US Foreign Policy is rooted in aggressive imperialism, which the tone of your question seems to suggest (if you weren't, then I apologize).  US policies, like the policies of any other state, are geared towards the promotion of self-interest.  As I said in the big spiel above, the US seems to be pursuing the policy of intervention in the Middle East to secure itself from attacks which could reach catastrophic proportions and to force behaviour modification in a region in a geopolitical region that has traditionally been unfriendly to Western interests.

I disagree. If the United States were pursuing the policy of intervention solely on the grounds of "securing intself from attacks which could reach catastrophic proportions and to force behaviour modification, in a region, in a geopolitical region that has traditionally been unfriendly to Western interests," then why has the United States not deemed it in its best interests to secure itself from political violence within its own hemisphere, where the majority anti-U.S. incidents have occured and continue to occur (most likely until the United States began to penetrate the Middle East)? I think that in addition to combatting terrorism, there are greater interests looming here, namely in the oil that drives an ever-expanding American industry, and this is largely seen through the selective nature of the United States in targeting terrorist activity. From a point-of-view that involves pure interests, you're right, why should the United States implement the same "war on terrorism" within Latin America? They would be filtering billions of dollars into a war that would gain them very little in return (in terms of material interests).

In short, I don't disagree with you that the United States is pursuing anti-terrorism tactics in the Middle East, I'm simply challenging the notion that that is all they in fact have interests in doing.

However, they don't appear willing to want to stay in the Middle East any more then they were willing to expand control over previous conquests, almost all of which the pulled away from (Philippines, Cuba, etc, etc).

Assertive?  Yes.  Aggressive, expansionist, and imperialist?  No.

Only until their long-term interests in the war run short, and the situation has been deemed to have radically stabilized in the Middle East.

Assertive? Yes. Aggressive, expansionist and imperialist? Yes.

The West solemnly looks upon Western action and intervention as "aggressive, expansionist and imperialist," but are quick to label others as such: "we aren't destroying the lives of innocent civilians, we're liberating them from previous assault." While this may be true to a certain degree, it is commonly used straight across the board.

You have to understand, Infanteer, that more than just a Western perspective on American policy need be applied here. To those who do not fall within the West, American foreign policy is all of the above, and more, and for good reason.

 

[Infanteer]

Hatred for the West has very little do to do, if anything with "who we are," it has everything to do with what we do.

"What we do" is defined by "who we are".

The September 11 attacks were not targeting "free and prosperous" America, they were attacks on the major economic and military institutions within the United States, which dictate foreign policy to some extent. Had they been attacks on our values and freedom as individuals living within a democracy, they would have easily driven a plane through the Statue of Liberty.

Well, if you want to play the symbolism game, the WTC and the Pentagon represented the key institutions that underscored the preponderant military and economic power that the Western liberal democratic order possess.  By not only destroying them, but destroying them from within, the terrorists aimed for a moral victory against the West by showing the weakness of the infidel state.

Look further into the political violence that characterizes much of Latin America in this day and age. In 2000, Colombia generated 106 acts of political violence against the United States, Argentina generated 4, and Ecuador generated 4. Of those 114, 105 of them were directed at U.S. businesses, 1 was directed at the U.S. government, 3 were religiously provoked, and 5 were directed at private institutions.

What does this have to do with the war on terror?  Pointing out that an apple is green has nothing to do with understanding the qualities of an orange.

I don't understand how you could possibly conclude that anti-American incidents are directed at the freedom and prosperity that individuals enjoy in the West, if anything those generating the terrorist activity are struggling to obtain the very freedoms that characterize the West, and are reacting violently to years of foreign policy that has exacerbated the conditions of their lives (in political, social and economic terms).

Think about it for a second.  Look at the leaders of terrorist organizations.  Often wealthy, well-educated (often in the west), intelligent.  What do they care about the plight of the masses of individuals who toil under the boot of despots or the book of Mullahs.  The leaders of hostile groups are either bumbling crooks, like Yasser Arafat, or very smart and very cunning power players, like Osama bin-Laden.  If you think that the prime motive of terrorists is some sort of struggle for freedom and prosperity, then you should put the glue away.

As well, look at the tenets of the Wahabbi sect, which a good percentage of the Jihadi factions follow out to the point of immolating themselves to prove their point.  Sounds like a "struggle to obtain" freedoms to me  :.  Freedom to stone women who discard the burqa, hang a Shi'ites and Jews, and expell Westerners from the Middle East completely.

These organizations have interests at stake.  They see the involvement of the West - with, as I said in an earlier post, a more robust civil society that is better at providing basic needs to its citizens - as a direct threat to their nodes of power and influence and hence, their well-being.

They are either fanatical, like the Al Qaeda, which would see women banished from civil society, or it is criminal, like the PLO, who thrive off of the plight of the Palestinian who has been used, cajoled and sacrificed by his fellow "Muslims".

The dumb fighter at the bottom is merely a pawn who has bought into the premise that the sole source for their shitty lot in life is due to America and the Jews.  He has been offered the tonic of a fundamentalist faith and the goal of the wounding of Western society in order to improve his lot.

Delve a little deeper into foreign policy, specifically in Latin American, and you'll gain a better understanding of why these attacks occur so frequently. I use Latin America, because in 2000, the United States Department of State reports that 114 of the 177 anti-U.S. incidents occurred within the Western Hemisphere.

Enlighten us to the nuances of Foreign Policy - or should I just read the latest Noam Chomsky trash on the market.

You seem to be assuming that all "anti-US incidents" are the same in terms of motive, execution, intended audience, etc, etc.

Rwanda may have taken its place. Regardless, that in no way undercuts the significance of the event, despite how poor you think my sources of information are.

It undercuts your attempt to place complicity on the United States in what you state is "the worst campaign of ethnic cleansing and destruction to occur in the 1990s."

Furthermore, by making comment on my sources, and excluding comment on the issue altogether tells me that you're one of many that refutes to acknowledge, and or does away with information on the basis that "the information source must be poor," because it fails to fit into your line of thinking/argument.

Debate and critique the issue, don't try to to undercut my opinions on the basis of my sources (which are all strictly academic, as a result of research for my report).

I am attacking your sources because you are trying to foist a statement upon us that is wrong.  The Turkish-Kurdish problem is not the worst episode of ethnic cleansing in the 90's, either in absolute terms (body count) - which I say Rwanda holds that claim - or qualitative terms (destruction of civil society) - which probably occured in the Former Yugoslavia.  As well, I know some US Special Forces soldiers who have a different outlook on the status of the Kurds, seeing that they worked side-by-side with them to usurp Ba'ath power in Northern Iraq.

I would attempt to debate the issue, but the only issue you seem to want to put forth is one that is based on "evidence" that is tarnished with the usual supply of anti-US and anti-Western rhetoric. Give me something original.

 

[Infanteer]

I disagree. If the United States were pursuing the policy of intervention solely on the grounds of "securing intself from attacks which could reach catastrophic proportions and to force behaviour modification, in a region, in a geopolitical region that has traditionally been unfriendly to Western interests," then why has the United States not deemed it in its best interests to secure itself from political violence within its own hemisphere, where the majority anti-U.S. incidents have occured and continue to occur (most likely until the United States began to penetrate the Middle East)?

When was the last time FARC murdered thousands of civilians in the US?

As well, you're ignoring important things like the US involvement in Columbia, the Patriot Act, and the Department of Homeland Defence - measures which all shoot down your theory that American policy is focused upon internal aggression.   Here is something you should look at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

Discount it as propaganda of "the Bush Regime" if you like, but the millions of people in the government of the United States who move both Foreign and Domestic policy along have to follow some semblance of doctrine, and this is what it is.

Unless they're all part of the Haliburton Conspiracy too.... :

I think that in addition to combatting terrorism, there are greater interests looming here, namely in the oil that drives an ever-expanding American industry, and this is largely seen through the selective nature of the United States in targeting terrorist activity. From a point-of-view that involves pure interests, you're right, why should the United States implement the same "war on terrorism" within Latin America? They would be filtering billions of dollars into a war that would gain them very little in return (in terms of material interests).

Again, if the US Government was following some subversive attempt to corner global oil stocks, why did it take September 11 to trigger the US to embark on their assertive intervention in the Middle East.   Why didn't they do it before?   Since you seem to want to shift the argument to South America for some reason, why hasn't the 82nd Airborne dropped into Venezuela, an OPEC country, yet?

Remember, before 9/11 Bush was pegged as a President keen on disengagement from Clinton's "NWO exploits".   Perhaps Bush staged the attacks to further his own secret agenda.   Tin-foil hat time....

In short, I don't disagree with you that the United States is pursuing anti-terrorism tactics in the Middle East, I'm simply challenging the notion that that is all they in fact have interests in doing.

Of course there are many interests - nothing is ever black and white.   But I will state, again, that intervention in response to terrorist threats is the over-arching driver of policy right now.

Only until their long-term interests in the war run short, and the situation has been deemed to have radically stabilized in the Middle East.

Assertive? Yes. Aggressive, expansionist and imperialist? Yes.

The West solemnly looks upon Western action and intervention as "aggressive, expansionist and imperialist," but are quick to label others as such: "we aren't destroying the lives of innocent civilians, we're liberating them from previous assault." While this may be true to a certain degree, it is commonly used straight across the board.

You have to understand, Infanteer, that more than just a Western perspective on American policy need be applied here. To those who do not fall within the West, American foreign policy is all of the above, and more, and for good reason.

???

What are you trying to say here?

 

[48Highlander]

48 Highlander, As far as the obscure reference to skirts provoking rape, I'm not sure that's even worth responding to...I don't know how my comments of admitting both parties have contributed to the present "West" vs. "Extremist Islam" conflict could be connected to a justification for a woman's dress instigating sexual assault.  Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum fell insultingly short...

    No problem man, I'll take the time to explain it to you.

"How exactly has the West provoked the conflict?  Because of our "capitalist decadence" and "immoral behavior"?  Are you the sort of person who thinks a woman wearing a short skirt is provoking potential rapists?"

    When you stated that "the west", this Monsterous and nevery clearly defined grouping of nations, had done it's part to provoke the attacks against the US, you adopted a strategy of blaimg the victim for the crime.  Claiming that the Crusades, which occured centuries ago and had nothing to do with America, are part of the justification for current attacks on the US, you....well, I have no idea how to classify such an accusation.  It seems that you beleive the actions of a third party hundreds of years ago can somehow justify violence today.  So, instead of taking it in that way, I offered to accept the possibility that maybe you considered "our 'capitalist decadence' and immoral behavior'" as justification for the war.  I know you never made such a statement, however, that's what the US is most often acused of by these people so I figgured if I was going to interpolate your position on what their justifications may be, I'd at least give you some credit for understanding their causes even if it did demonstrate a complete lack of morals.  It seems I gave you too much credit.  In either event, there's pretty much only two possibilities to be seen in your (and Miss Molsons) attempts to show that the US has done a lot to provoke these people.  And here they are:

1)  You beleive the claims of the leaders such as Sadam, Osama, and the various militant clerics, that the US is a decadent moraly bankrupt zionist backed impetrialist nation and must be attacked in order to be taught a lesson.  In which case you are blaming the extravagance of the victim for the crimes being perpetuated against her.

2)  You beleive that unrelated actions - such as the Crusades, the US invasion of Nicaragua, and the US backing of one group of Muslims against another - can somehow be considered justification for the violence perpetuated by the extremists against the US.  In which case you are taking turns at blaming quetsionable but unrelated actions of the victim and unrelated actions carried out by others for the crimes being perpetuated against her.

      I know you had problems earlier so just in case my phrasing is too confusing I'll offer examples of both:

1)  This is where my question about blaming the woman for being raped comes in.  Some men in North America still beleive that a woman who is openly flirtatious, promiscuous, or dresses too revealingly, deserves to be raped.  Doubtless the muslim extremists would agree, judge her to be immoral and stone her to death.  If you agree with their view that the US deserves to be attacked for being immoral and decadent, then perhaps you'd like to grab a couple stones and join in.

2)  I can't really come up with a decent example for this because I can't even grasp what logic-loops a mind must run itself through to accept something like this as a possibility.  Still, here goes.  I go over to your house at some random evening, and detonate a 500lb bomb in your driveway.  I then go on to make a public statement blaming my actions on the following:
  - Last week you started a bar fight.  I didn't know the people involved, but that's not important.
  - The week before that you gave my friend Bob a large stick, which he then proceeded to use to beat the crap out of Fred.  I wanted to kill Fred myself too, but that's not important either.
  - Some guy with the same last name as you killed my great-great-grandfather in 1837.  You're probably barely related, but that's not important either.

    So anyway, I'd really appreciate it if you'd tell me which of these possbilites is the one that you and Miss Molson are getting at.  I guess I'm not edymecated enough for her to bother responding to, and I certainly don't expect you to answer for her, but I'd be curious to know what your opinion is anyway.

 

[McG]

In short, I don't disagree with you that the United States is pursuing anti-terrorism tactics in the Middle East, I'm simply challenging the notion that that is all they in fact have interests in doing.

It was interests of national and international security that lead the US into Iraq.  Any other interests, which may have been reached through the war, were tangent to the objective (and not a part of it).

 

[Britney Spears]

Question to all the Pro Iraq Invasion types: Suppose that GWB decided to invade Iraq on Sep. 11th 2000, Would Sept. 11th 2001 still have happened?

 

[McG]

Question to all the Pro Iraq Invasion types: Suppose that GWB decided to invade Iraq on Sep. 11th 2000, Would Sept. 11th 2001 still have happened?

That trivializes things a bit don't you think?

The US could have invaded Afghanistan on 11 Sept 2000 and still have been attacked a year later.  That is because the attack had been planned so far in advance and the wheels had started turning years before.

 

[Infanteer]

The "What If" game is irrelevent.

You could play it forever and nothing would come out of it.  "Suppose the American's never supported Tel Aviv - would September 11th have happened?"

However, I can divine the point you're trying to get to.

As I said above, the Invasion of Iraq is a response to Sept 11, part of a larger strategy to reduce the threat terrorism poses to Western interests.

Have we had any more incidents of large scale terrorist attacks since:

A) September 11, 2001?

B) The Iraq War (March 2003)?

 

[Britney Spears]

Meh, i remember in the aftermath of Sept 11th, there was some speculation in the popular press that perhaps, Iraq could be a possible target for military intervention.

"Huh? What drivel!" I thought, everyone knows that Iraq was the only Arab nation without a powerful fundementalist clergy, the only Arab nation where Shar-ia law was considered a throwback to the 11th century, where women could drive, go to university...... This was just an attempt to feed ignorant "all them ay-rabs are the same" racism. They must think the US public to be fools! Good thing I know better.

and boy, was I right or what? 

Have we had any more incidents of large scale terrorist attacks since:

A) September 11, 2001?

B) The Iraq War (March 2003)?

Well, I don't watch TV or read the newspaper when I'm not in Wainright, but Madrid and Istanbul come to mind after a few seconds of thought. Should I go do a google search too?

 

[McG]

This was just an attempt to feed ignorant "all them ay-rabs are the same" racism. They must think the US public to be fools! Good thing I know better.

Are you blaming the US New/Entertainment media for the invasion of Iraq?

 

[48Highlander]

"Huh? What drivel!" I thought, everyone knows that Iraq was the only Arab nation without a powerful fundementalist clergy, the only Arab nation where Shar-ia law was considered a throwback to the 11th century, where women could drive, go to university...... This was just an attempt to feed ignorant "all them ay-rabs are the same" racism. They must think the US public to be fools! Good thing I know better.

They replaced Shair-ia law with Sadam law, which, while not as discriminatory towards women, was quite a bit more arbitrary and oppressive.

They had no powerful fundamentalist clergy because Sadam had a nasty habit of killing anyone he didn't directly control who started to get too powerful.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, I don't watch TV or read the newspaper when I'm not in Wainright, but Madrid and Istanbul come to mind after a few seconds of thought. Should I go do a google search too?

Sorry, I should have specified against the US, a followup to the September 11 attacks.  As this thread is oscillating between US Policies and definitions of the West, wires are getting crossed.


But you're right - terrorism hasn't subsided in it's lethality or its capability - but uprooting Al Qaeda did nothing to decisively stop it either.
Obviously, the campaign ahead will be long and tedious.

 

[Britney Spears]

Are you blaming the US New/Entertainment media for the invasion of Iraq?

Well, I think we can agree that prominent sectors of the US media have more than just fair and objective reporting in mind.

But no, that wasn't my point, I was merely musing about a forecast which in late 2001 sounded absolutely ridiculous actually coming true.

 

[mdh]

Obviously, you've never been to the Balkans.

Besides, I think Rwanda holds that prize.

Wherever you're getting your information from stinks

I quote Infanteer in another attempt to get MissMolsonIndy to reveal her sources - especially the "strictly academic" ones.

 

[McG]

I was merely musing about a forecast which in late 2001 sounded absolutely ridiculous actually coming true.

It does sound foolish when put into your pristine bubble with no mention of US political efforts to force Iraq to meets its obligations imposed by the UN after the first Gulf War, or that Afghanistan was the state that actually first felt the wrath of a post 11 Sept 01 United States. 

 

[Britney Spears]

They replaced Shair-ia law with Sadam law, which, while not as discriminatory towards women, was quite a bit more arbitrary and oppressive.

So what on earth does this have to do with The War Against Terrorism (TWAT)? Last time I checked iwe were fighting fundamentalist Islam, and not arbitrary and oppresive regimes in general yes?

They had no powerful fundamentalist clergy because Sadam had a nasty habit of killing anyone he didn't directly control who started to get too powerful.

Who is it we're suppose to be fighting again? I could have sworn it had SOMETHING to do with fundementalist clergy...... I guess it's a relief that when Saddam killed Mohammed Al-Sadr, he didn't follow through and take out the whole family.

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

"What we do" is defined by "who we are".

On an individual level, I couldn't agree more: the actions that one pursues reflect the values, principles and customs that one adheres to.

In making that statement, however, what you have just presented paves the road to justifying the slaughter of innocent civilians who have no decision-making power in foreign policy; on a much larger scale, "what we do," does not define "who we are." A small governmental sector of American society that dictates America's course of action in the global arena, reflects which candidate/political backdrop the American populace voted for in the most recent election. While it is true that American values, beliefs and attitudes are the driving force behind selecting a candidate in the electoral process, and therefore many American values are indirectly represented in foreign policy and political intervention, American citizens cannot be held accountable for policies they had no hand in.

By insisting that "what we do," determines "who we are," on the larger political spectrum, only justifies the bombing of Joe Blow on the streets of New York, because the U.S. government executed orders to bomb thousands of innocent civilians in a country that most wouldn't be able to even pronounce.

What does this have to do with the war on terror?  Pointing out that an apple is green has nothing to do with understanding the qualities of an orange.

Anti-U.S. terrorism that happens to be situated in other parts of the globe has everything to do with a war on terror that isn't specific to the Middle East. Make note that President Bush set forth the "war on terror" as having the mandate to combat terrorism on all continents. I'm not comparing apples and oranges, here, I'm comparing anti-American incidents on different continents that happen to have roots in American foreign policy. Terrorism is terrorism, simple as that.

Enlighten us to the nuances of Foreign Policy - or should I just read the latest Noam Chomsky trash on the market.

The sarcastic undertones in your statement reveal that you would not even be willing to hear or acknowledge information presented, and would most likely dismiss it like the rest of the "trash on the market" that counters your opinion. I never made the claim that all terrorist activity is in direct response to foreign policy and political intervention, but you'd be alarmed to learn how much of it actually is, particularly in Latin America. If you want statistics, fact, and academic opinion on the matter, I'd be more than happy to fire it your way, but if you already have your heart sold on the issue, then you're truly wasting everyone's time by asking me to present you with alternative information.

You seem to be assuming that all "anti-US incidents" are the same in terms of motive, execution, intended audience, etc, etc.

See above. Not all anti-U.S. incidents are the same in terms of motive, execution and intended audience. Many of these incidents do, however, reveal similar underlying patterns, particularly with respects to American foreign policy abroad: I fail to see the "coincidental nature" of terrorist activity directed at American political and economic institutions abroad.

I am attacking your sources because you are trying to foist a statement upon us that is wrong.  The Turkish-Kurdish problem is not the worst episode of ethnic cleansing in the 90's, either in absolute terms (body count) - which I say Rwanda holds that claim - or qualitative terms (destruction of civil society) - which probably occured in the Former Yugoslavia.  As well, I know some US Special Forces soldiers who have a different outlook on the status of the Kurds, seeing that they worked side-by-side with them to usurp Ba'ath power in Northern Iraq.

I agree with you, the Turkish-Kurdish episode may not have been the worst episode of ethnic cleansing in the 1990s, and in that respect, my statement is clearly invalid and my source incorrect, but you are using the "invalidity" of one aspect of my statement to dismiss the entire purpose of the claim: the United States has in the past sponsored the elimination of one or more groups of people, and has therefore perpetrated terrorist activity itself. What I thoroughly enjoy about your posts is that you tend to draw out the specifics in an attempt to disprove the picture at large. Meaning: while it may be incorrect that this particular episode may not have been "the worst episode" to occur in the 1900s, it still occured, and the U.S. head of state actively sponsored the slaughter of innocent civilians in another state.

I would attempt to debate the issue, but the only issue you seem to want to put forth is one that is based on incorrect evidence that is heavily-laden with anti-US and anti-Western rhetoric.

First and foremost, one aspect of the statement was false, an aspect that I believe had little effect on the overall significance of the larger picture. The issue that I have, and continue to put forth is that the sponsoring of terrorist activity is not something the United States, and many other states in the West have been excluded from. Debates cease to be productive when the other party colours all of history to suit their viewpoint, and otherwise deems it incorrect, and or pickled with "anti-U.S. and anti-Western rhetoric."

 

[Britney Spears]

It does sound foolish when put into your pristine bubble with no mention of US political efforts to force Iraq to meets its obligations imposed by the UN after the first Gulf War, or that Afghanistan was the state that actually first felt the wrath of a post 11 Sept 01 United States.

So then, you're claiming that the US invasion of Iraq was an effort to force iIraq to meet its UN obligations? I'm afrad I'm not really versed in what exactly those obligations are, but I don't think that's relevent in our current context, is it.

And I never denied that "Afghanistan was the state that actually first felt the wrath of a post 11 Sept 01 United States.". So what?

 

[48Highlander]

Who is it we're suppose to be fighting again? I could have sworn it had SOMETHING to do with fundementalist clergy...... I guess it's a relief that when Saddam killed Mohammed Al-Sadr, he didn't follow through and take out the whole family.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.  I'm not suggesting the US invaded Iraq because of those things.  I'm simply pointing out that the reason for Iraq's lack of "fundamentalist clergy" and Shair-ia law was not that they were a progressive country championing personal freedoms in the Arab world, but rather an opressive regime which refused to share power.  So I fail to see why you think the lack of those two things was relevant to the US invasion.  The Americans clearly stated their reasons for going in, and nowhere in their declaration will you find the words "fundamentalist clergy" or "Sahir-ra law".

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

Obviously, you've never been to the Balkans.

Besides, I think Rwanda holds that prize.

Wherever you're getting your information from stinks

I quote Infanteer in another attempt to get MissMolsonIndy to reveal her sources - especially the "strictly academic" ones.

I have no problem presenting my sources. Give me some time, and I will gather them together for you.

Something to think about:

Why is it that I need to justify the accountability of my sources, when many others (particularly those with opions running concurrent to mine) have made claims that equally should have been backed by sources, and nothing has been demanded of them? Like others, I am drawing on opinion and fact of third-party sources, and not wholy on personal opinion.

Furthermore, what more will presenting my sources provide you with other than another set of grounds upon which you will discredit a perspective that runs counter to yours, by "dismissing" my sources as "nonacademic", "biased", "unaccountable", and or plainly "incorrect"?