Cenk Uygur 08.12.2006 The Better Way of Fighting Terrorism There are two schools of thought in the country right now. One is the Republican idea that we are fighting against Islamic fascism (whatever that is) and that we need to go on the offense against Muslim states that support the Islamofascist terrorists. It's hard not to laugh as you say it. Islamofascists? The second school of thought is that we can fight terrorism better by isolating the terrorists from the rest of the Muslim population, finding them and neutralizing them. The idea here is that instead of fanning the flames of hate and helping the Muslim fundamentalists spread their ideology to others, we work with the majority of Muslims in rooting out the extremists in their midst. I can see Republicans reflexively getting ready to shout now - you can't work with Muslims, they're all Islamofascists looking to destroy our way of life. Other than being painfully stupid, that is incomprehensibly wrong. A great majority of Muslims have nothing against our way of life. They have no desire to take over Kentucky or to make sure the people of Alaska don't have freedom. The idea that Muslims are looking to take over the world and are on the precipice of dominating militarily as the Nazis did is so laughable that I can't quite believe they're saying it out loud. Nazi Germany took France in five days. Are Islamic fundamentalists about to roll their tanks in to Paris and Prague? These conservatives want to pick a fight - not just with the Muslim terrorists - but with all of Islam. Hardly has there been a more dangerous idea. A majority of Muslim countries have absolutely no intention of taking over the West, even if it was remotely possible. But they will fight to the death if you needlessly invade them. But there is a better way. And ironically, we are implementing the better way right now in Pakistan. Pakistan is a country that probably has more Muslim fundamentalists than any other nation on earth. They don't just have a WMD program, they have nuclear weapons. And they have spread their nuclear weapon technology to other countries. And to top it all off, Osama bin Laden is sitting comfortably in northern Pakistan. If the Republicans were honest and they actually believed in their own so-called principles, the most ideal country on earth to attack would be Pakistan. They have a thousand times more WMD than Iraq and Iran combined (which is pretty simple, since that number is just about zero). And they shelter the biggest terrorists in the world. On the other hand, they don't have much oil and they are not a direct threat to Israel. But the reality is our strategy in Pakistan, while lacking in intensity and focus, is roughly the correct one. We are trying to isolate the Taliban and Al Qaeda sympathizers in northern Pakistan while working with the Pakistani government. If we invaded, we would have nuclear war with a country that has hundreds of millions of Muslims. Instead, we cooperate with them and they help us to foil the bombings in the London airport. If we had chosen the route of "going on the offense" against Pakistan, there is an excellent chance we would have lost ten airplanes full of passengers this week. This strategy has its clear downsides. We have to put more pressure on Pakistan to find and turn over Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. We have to have tighter controls over their nuclear technology. But at least, this path is smart and doable. And ironically, it is being pulled off by the very administration that is touting this nonsense war against Islamic fascists. It is clear that the administration doesn't even believe its own talking points. Otherwise, the 101st Airborne would be in Waziristan right now. So, why don't they apply this smarter strategy with the rest of the Muslim world? I'm afraid it's because there are hardliners inside the administration that want to invade Iran - no matter what. So, they paint them as Islamic fascists and try to stir up more war fever. Just look at this ridiculous clip from Hannity and Colmes. It appears that Sean Hannity believes there is only one strategy for fighting against a couple of thousand terrorists spread out throughout the world - start a war with a couple of hundred million Muslims in select countries. But, of course, there is a better way. The Democrats need to explain to Americans that war is not the only answer. The smarter strategy is to isolate the extremists and build up our relationship with moderate Muslims. Enlist the moderates to help us locate the terrorists and neutralize them - just like we did in the London plot we just foiled. The American people are sick of war, just as the conservatives plot for even more wars. Democrats have to realize that pursuing the "isolate and neutralize" strategy against terrorists is not only sound policy but, at this point, also sound politics. People are eager for a better, smarter way of fighting terrorism. This is the time to finally offer it as an alternative to the endless wars the Republicans promise instead. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-better-way-of-fightin_b_27143.html
First off, let me say I'm not a Republican and I'm anti-Bush to the very fiber of my being. The Iraq war is a disaster. But this article is total rubbish. This guy implies geopolitics is as simple as a coloring book. Hope he keeps his day job as a kindergarten teacher.
I have to somewhat agree with you, but especially on this point: While I don't think Democratic leadership would have gone on the offensive like the neocons did, at this point I think it's pretty hard to discern between the two parties when it comes to foreign policy. Judging by their unbridled support early on to send troops into Iraq and now to aid the Israeli offensive in Lebanon, its plain as day that while they aren't corrupt like their counterparts, they are completely spineless and just as inept.
cabbage, they need to get to the 'root' of this terrorism problem. saudi arabia gives refuge to scholars so they can preach hate and then bring it back to their country. its about the kids, you need to stop them from learning the idiology. in fact, you need to stop them from learning religion all together in school. you cant blame the american public for their support of the iraq war. saddam also easily helped bring support. its not like we were attacking sweden or finland. any country or regime that hates the USA, the USA public would be happy to throw them on the grill and top them with saurkraut.
Want to cut terrorism? Quit killing thousands of innocent Muslims, taking over their countries, raping them of their resources and dumping on their Korans. There's not a military large enough to accomplish what this would.
cabbage, I disagree. Democrats were mislead about Saddam, same as the American people. Now, they should have asked more questions, spoken out against Bush's rush to war. I'm only talking about Iraq, and if we had had a Democratic President, I don't think there would have been an invasion of that country, certainly not when it happened, and in the way it happened. Democrats would have reacted similarly to 9/11, going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan, had Gore been President. Who knows, maybe the pre-9/11 intelligence would have been paid attention to a little more closely. Obviously, we'll never know, and it most likely 9/11 would have happened anyway. Why anyone would think Democrats would have reacted differently to 9/11 is a mystery to me. Invading Iraq when we were still trying to find, capture and kill those responsible for the tragedy? It wouldn't have happened. That was a war drawn from the fevered minds of Bush and his cabal of, "we can never do any wrong, and if we do, we'll get promoted!" bunch. Most of the wars in modern history were begun under Democratic Presidents. Military buildups occured under Democratic Presidents. The Cold War was fought by Democratic Presidents, as well as Republican ones. Nothing spineless there. Now, I know your last comment was in regard to Lebanon, and the Israeli response to a border incident. Support for Israel in the American Congress is a long tradition, and despite justifiable outrage at what is happening to Lebanon, I don't see why Democratic support of Israel would be any surprise at all. What can they do? They don't control Congress. They don't control the Presidency. Do you seriously expect them to be outspoken against Israeli policy to the extent you would like, with an election coming up in about 2 months? Do you really think they would just hand the GOP the means to run on, "Democrats have abandoned Israel! Democrats have left Israel alone in their fight against terrorism!" I don't think so. Now, if Democrats controlled the White House, I think you would have seen a different response. I understand your passion, but you have to be realistic if you want a change of government in Washington. Keep D&D Civil.
We bomb countries and terrorists, they bomb us. Does it matter which came first? Until this cycle of hate is replaced with a cycle of mutual understanding and cooperation, nothing will *ever* change except violence's escalation. History and common sense show us that violence only leads to more violence, which leads to more violence. Governments don't care about escalating violence because it leads to more authority, more power and more money. But people should. Because we're the ones fighting, dying and living in fear. Is it naive and unrealistic to imagine an honest trust between us and our enemies? Maybe. But we know one thing for sure -- *this* sure the hell isn't working.
I agree most Democrats have been a disgrace in this regard. I still think the author's point of view is the way to combat terrorism. One thing is for sure voluntary wars that make tens of millions hate our guts is not the way to fight terrorism.
OK. Violence begets violence. Then what should we have done in response to 9/11? What should we have done in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? Were we correct in attacking North Korea after they invaded South Korea? Should we have just negotiated with Japan after Pearl Harbor? I'm not saying force is always the right thing. But sometimes there is no better alternative. Just because force fails to work quickly doesn't mean there was a better option. I repeat: I'm not a neo-con who thinks the U.S. is almighty. Very interested in your reply.
Strange that there was as much if not more terrorism before we were in Iraq or Afghanistan or before there were detainees in Guantanamo. Violence begets violence. What a tired and overused phrase, especially when the even the initial article talks about neutralizing people. Not every conflict is a simple 'misunderstanding' that can be worked out if people really just got to know each other. However, the government should definitely speak with the author since he apparently knows where Osama bin Laden is located.
GreenVegan, maybe one day our enemies and us will gather for a peaceful bar b q, with beef brisket, pork ribs, chicken, and sausage. cause food brings people together.
Most statistics indicate there has been more terrorism since. If I recall 2004 was the worst year on record for terrorists acts even discounting acts in Iraq. I agree that there is a time for violence and in the principle of a just war. At the sametime there is a lot to be said for that phrase and the natural response to a violent act is to be violent.
This is the one main part that I would disagree with this article with. We're supporting a military dictatorship with little regard for human rights and very unpopular with many of its citizens. If Musharraf is ever overthrown, as he once came close too, things could be much worse for the US as the US was looked upon as propping Musharraf up. IMO the country that was showing solid progress in the fight against Islamic extremism was Lebanon. The Cedar Revolution was the first major salvo in fighting both Islamic extremists and countries supporting terrorists groups when Lebanese peacefully stood up to Syrian and Hezbollah interests. Obviously this is a very slow process and wouldn't have led to the immediate disarming of Hezbollah and other groups but was exactly the kind of change through democratization and westernization that so many claim to want to want to see in the Middle East. Unfortunately instead of giving that process more time Israel has very shortsightedly set back the possibility of a democratic secular Lebanon by destroying the very infrastructure that would've made that possible.
We're using old diplomatic paradigms to confront a problem that can be considered uniquely modern. Both parties seem to follow it. Both sides of the Atlantic alliance still follow it. No wonder the hawks are scared ****less. They're picking up Toynbee's model and are assuming that guns are the solution. The article is garbage. It conveys the war as being misguided, yet throws out the suggestion of a better front elsewhere. If there's such thing as armchair patriots, the writer would be armchair critic that's usually paired with them. You can't isolate terrorists from the populace because they're like fish in water. Short of Minority Reporting everyone within city limits...
What a great article. It should be easy to get the general populace in terrorist havens like Palestine to turn on the terrorists since they are sooooo unpopular. Wait a second. I'm sorry, I've just been informed that terrorist organizations are incredibly popular, and that after 9/11 the people the author thinks we should join together with were dancing in the streets. Well, that dampens my enthusiasm for his plan quite a bit. I've also been informed that prior to our invasion of Iraq or even Afghanistan the US was referred to as the Great Satan. It must be that the Muslims, unlike the Christians and the Jews, don't think Satan is bad, right? Oh, they do think Satan is bad. I'm at a loss.
What Creates Terrorisim? poverty, injustice and lack of understanding from the western nations . how to combat it? fix the problem i stated above. fanatics who are in a place of leadership pray on the poor communities and try to blame there situation on the western infidels. they claim the western nations are stealing there countries wealth, ok in somecases it maybe true , but they should also look at there own backyard as well. corrupt leaders and so on. BTW, the exteremly silly war in iraq has'nt exactly dimished the numbers of terrorists. somnething it was intended to do so. if anything it has given more ammunition to fanatics to recurit more young, Naive and religious muslims youths.
I understand the idea of cooperation and attempts at honest understanding are considered naive concepts in the terrorism debate. I understand it's much easier to fight violence with more violence. It's easy to dismiss other ideas as silly and not possible. But, really, is what we're doing now making us safer? Is what we're doing now making us safer in the future? Really? What we're doing now is not working -- world politics have never been more fragile, people have never been more scared, and there are countless innocent people dying every day. If we can't even imagine -- can't even imagine -- the possibility that maybe there are different ways to address terrorism and violence in the world than bombing and fighting, there's no chance of cutting either. Zero. Because our so-called enemies are driven by the same ideas we are -- they want to "win." What is terrorists' greatest weapon? Indignation at the perceived arrogant American imperial war machine. That's what they believe and that's how they get support. Imagine if we took that idea away from them by telling the world, "You know what. We all play a role in this war. America wants peace. We will meet you halfway. Let's talk." Think that would shock a few people into thinking differently? Think it might turn even more people against the terrorists? Will terrorism or violence completely end? Of course not. Political ambitions and ego-driven human nature will always spit out idiots. There will always be a need for self-defense. There will always be terrorism. There will always be violence, but it doesn't have to escalate or turn into endless war. There is a better way. There is a middle way. If Americans can't even imagine a chance at peace, why would our enemies?
wanna know what scares me the worst?? that this might not be true. the guys who pulled off 9/11...yeah, they weren't guys living in poverty. they were fairly well-to-do. the guys who they just arrested in the UK??? yeah, they weren't impoverished, desperate people, either. i find that to be pretty scary.
