I completely agree. The invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake. But my point is sometimes military action is needed. You cannot always negotiate. Al Qaida cannot be negotiated with. Just saying "Violence begets violence" doesn't mean military action is always wrong.
What good does it do to "make peace" with moderates when the extremists are attacking you? When the moderate Palestinians take control, there will be peace. Not the other way around. This is a very simplistic way of summarizing that very complicated issue. If a negotiated settlement is possible, land for peace will be a part of the solution.
I was playing devil's advocate back then trying to see if I could make the conservative argument work and see if people could poke some holes in it that I had missed. I don't think their perspective is entirely invalid and I can understand the thinking. But current evidence suggests that it is a failed path. I've always been a moderate. I just know that when you have a determined foe, they will eventually succeed. We can't stop them forever. They will hit us, harder and harder. Everyone knows it. We need to try something different. Before they get nukes.
It's all about perception. The Arab/Muslim world needs to feel that they "won"....only then can the extremists claim victory and lay down their arms. The west really needs to understand this. It has nothing to do with Islam, and everything to do with a people who have felt belittled and forgotten by the world and in desperate need of something that shows they are equal to the west.
The masses can't tolerate terrorism either. A less aggressive policy might seem smart, but if Americans, Euros, or Israelis are getting blown up, they're going to vote in someone who can deliver quick results. As for increasing prevention, terrorists have proved far more determined than any other criminal type. It's mention is no better than rhetoric once a terrorist slips through the cracks and succeed. Just bringing up the other angle because it's always ignored. The not-Bushes are lining up to be the next Jimmy Carter.
Well, you have to do what you can to prevent and disrupt terrorist activity. But the "war on terror" will be no more successful then the "war on drugs" has been. Ultimately, we need to disengage from the region. There will be no purpose for a terrorist to strike the u.s. if we are no longer involved the regional politics on a military level. So clearly, regional stability is a key way to end the terrorist threat...problem is that our actions have contributed to regional instability. There's no doubt that groups like Hezzbelloh can not be handed an olive branch. But the sword doesn't work either. There needs to be real compromise. Israel must understand that it has more to lose then gain at this point...a few scraps of land aren't worth it. I think Sharon began to see this. But a withdrawl must be accompanied by the world investing in places like Gaza. If the Hamas come to power - so be it...it was democratically elected. The world should act to prevent a need for israel to ever reoccupy gaza. One good thing that has come out of this conflict, I think both Hezzbelloh and Israel both probably lost their taste for war. It was a defeat for both sides, even though they both claim victory. Think about this...a war was fought and hundreds died to world outrage. Think about that - not millions, not 10's of thousands or even thousands...but hundreds. There's a gleam of hope in that. Even terrorists will lay down their arms when their political agenda becomes pointless and their sympathizers grow tired of conflict.
I absolutely agree. Despite andymoon's persistence, decriminalization (let alone regulation) for the harder drugs seem unlikely. I agree with your remarks, but the electorate is a different creature. A proactive and non-violent approach is going to be spun as being "weak on terror". It's why we are where we are politically after 9/11. I've read that out of the 80 functional oil fields in Saudi Arabia, only 10 are being exploited. Their reserves can supply the world for several decades at current rate (growth rates are increasing so don't bet too much on it). They haven't even explored every inch of their land for oil. They don't need to. Their production dwarfs any other OPEC nation. We're possessed by petroleum as much as the regimes we prop up are possessed by power. It's that simple. Terrorism seems like an afterthought that was once an exclusive Middle Eastern problem. Their governments are efficient at putting political dissent on their bootstraps; terrorism was an acceptable consequence. Despite fears of extremism, the power relationships have stayed consistent from present to the last 30 years (except for Iraq). I think our economy has done really well in spite of extremist oil producing nations. The biz rags are confirming that. My point isn't that extremism isn't a problem. It's more about how our government thinks and works. We're at a point of no return. Some aspect of our lives will be impacted. It could be the economy, the cost of living, public safety, and/or a prolonged war. The reason why the ME got a pass for so long was because of its strategic significance. It's a house of cards in need of fixing.
Generally speaking, terrorism is a result of people who are part of an isolated, marginalized, disaffected, downtrodden, impoverished group. This is true on the smallest scale teenage school bombings to large scale groups like pre-apartheid ANC, PKK, Tamil Tigers, etc terrorist attacks. You don't generally see people who are integrated, empowered, respected, supported and well-off do these things even if they have legitimate grievances. The teenagers who plan school bombings and the large non-state groups that plan terrorist attacks have things in common and the way to combat it is basically the same. People that feel like they have nothing and/or have nothing to lose and/or believe that life is hopeless and pointless and/or have already lost everything and/or are closely related to such people are more likely to commit terrorism. People that have something to lose or have hope for the future much less so. There's no 100% guarantees of course but research, statistics and plain common sense clearly bear this out.
The problem is that a policy of collective punishment weakens moderate forces more than it does extremists. The strength of moderate movements come from delivering economic development and stability to their people while extremists appeal to fear and anger. Its hard for moderates to deliver economic development when your infrastructure is being destroyed and bombs are dropping on your houses.
That's exactly the point, but few people are willing to acknowledge. Groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, or other militants exist on fear and the willing propaganda Israel provides them through its short-sighted actions. The last thing these groups want is a 'benevolent' Israel, because it would weaken them. The war Israel just fought weakened it while -- ironically -- simultaneously strengthening the hands of Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran (the 'enemy axis' as Israel calls them); this will have further reverberations throughout the region, certainly beyond Lebanon. This is precisely why I was against the war from the beginning, because I could see what was to come about after the dust had settled and everyone went home. Unnecessary wars and prolonged conflicts empower the extremists on all sides. If I had to make a prediction, here's what will be taking place in both Israel and Lebanon over the short-term: the far-right radical 'Bibi' will come to power in Israel, and the militants Hezbollah will make further gains in the next Lebanese elections. Of course, we already have Hamas leading the Palestinian government; Ahmedinijad is in power in Iran; Bashar Assad is leading Syria; the Muslim Brotherhood making gains in Egypt; an anti-Israel government coming to power in Iraq...what do all these 'developments' have in common? Well, all I see is a sea of 'extremists' or 'radicals' and an ever-diminishing 'moderate' force in the region. In the last Arab League summit, the General-Secretary of the Arab League Amr Mousa declared loudly to the media, "the peace process has failed." Well, if the peace process fails, what is the alternative?
Right, the power dynamics are part of the problem as well. If Saudi Arabia was a more open society then there might never be an Al Qaeda. So the question comes back to - what is a tough terrorism policy? One that can be practical and effective, and yet perceived by the electorate has having teeth? I think we need a multi-faceted approach. For Al Qaeda, we need to continue to hunt and destroy. For Iraq, that's a quagmire of course, but we need to get the Iraqi army to be trained and just get out. We need to engage Syria diplomatically and there fore have influence with Hezbelloh. Hamas, for all of their wretched past, let's face it, they are now the gov't of Palestine and we must respect the democratically elected gov't. If we do not, we are hypocrits ourselves. I would say we expand operations in Afganistan, double up on the hunt for Bin Laden, and get out of Iraq. For Iran, we support sanctions if they won't give up their military program. Airstrikes are an option if we feel Iran can develop nukes under sanctions. So there's some teeth right now. By engaging with Assad and Hamas, we need to move to a quickly negoiated peace. I think getting U.N. peace keeps into the west bank and gaza is the next logical step. and pushing for return to the 1967 borders. In exchange for recognizing Israel's right to exist, an aid package of billions of dollars would be put together for Palestine for economic development. Also, a bridge linking gaza to the west bank would be funded and constructed by Israel.
Valid point, but doing nothing also strengthens the extremists because they get away with despicable actions without consequences. The solution is for "moderates" to win the war of ideas with extremists. If they don't win (especially if they don't even try because they are fearful or too few in number), you cannot expect the outside party the extremists are attacking to sit idly by. These theoretical debates are fine but in reality a decision must be made. Whether it's Russia against the Chechens, the U.S. against Afghanistan, Iran/Turkey against the Kurds, Israel against Hamas/Hezbollah or (name your conflict), no nation will stand pat after being attacked.
Good post! I agree with most of what you said. But in particular, I completely oppose airstrikes against Iran for the purpose of trying to stop their nuclear program. It just won't work.
Exactly. If Israel can find someone to make peace with. You have to start somewhere. It would help a lot if moderates could somehow find their way back into power in Israel. Where are the Rabin's? Incremental steps could be taken. Israel could withdraw, for example, from some of the West Bank and, instead of bulldozing what they had built, offer those settlements as a gesture for peace. Not all the settlements, obviously, but a few, as a gesture, as a start. You have to start somewhere. Tear down parts of the wall that are way inside the West Bank, and obviously a land grab. Compromise with water access. Announce a new policy of not destroying ancient olive groves, which Israel has used to destroy the ability of Palestinians, who were longtime inhabitants of an area, to make a living as their fathers and grandfathers did. These groves have repeatedly been bulldozed in a misguided effort to create "facts on the ground," and too often the excuse is given that somebody took a pot-shot at someone. Some of the groves, and other Plaslestinian agricultural areas, have been deliberately cut off from the villages the owners live in, insuring poverty for those people, resentment, and even more hatred directed at Israel. Maybe it won't help, but at least Israel could be seen as taking some concrete steps on the ground in an attempt to get serious talks started. Force is not creating peace for anyone, on either side. As Seinfeld would say... yada, yada, yada. I guess I'm being unrealistic. Keep D&D Civil.
There are more solutions than all out war or do nothing and between the two there is a whole range of options. For instance in the last conflict Israel could've limited its strikes to Southern Lebanon and not the rest of Lebanon instead they went after the whole country. The problem is with collective punishment that hurts everyone including the moderates and there is no way they have any hope to win the war of ideas when they are being hit too. Its akin to burning down the fire station because an arsonists set fire to your house. But no people like the Lebanese or Palestinians will stand pat while they are attacked too. Hezbollah and Hamas thrive off of that since they and not the moderate Lebanese government or the PA are seen as being the ones willing to fight back. The problem that I see with US and Israeli thinking is that somehow that the Arabs don't think this way also and that they will stand pat in the face of collective punishment or turn against the extremists when they will turn to those who they think will hit back when they are attacked. Tactics that fail to discriminate between those who perpetrated the attacks and the rest of the people only drives tose people into the arms of the extremists.
Sishir Chang, nobody is arguing against your point about collective punishment. The problem is extremists run, hide and blend in after they strike. Doing that does not grant them autonomy, nor those that harbor them. Of course there are other solutions to "doing nothing" and all-out war. Israel's incursion into Lebanon wasn't all out war. They tried (at least some) to discriminate between valid military targets and the general population. I guess we must disagree on the idea that all conflicts can be successfully negotiated peacefully. That isn't the real world.
If I had my wishes come true, there'd a 20 year timetable for a gradual weaning of imported oil on a path towards domestic self sufficiency. Only then could we approach the Middle East with more options while weakening the power bases of Islamic extremism. As it is now, the Middle East is becoming even more strategic as world powers are eagerly acquiring energy pacts with nationalized energy corporations. If something becomes more important, the natural response is to clinch tighter. Hah, that sounds like another Carter... I hate to repost this again and again, but we already have a plan to do this. The Pentagon commissioned the Rocky Mountain Institute to find a realistic solution for ending oil imports. Their findings were released early 2005, and the book can be downloaded on their page. Here's a summarized review. Only slowly has it begun to pick up steam and press coverage. Given the success the Bush Admin fusing non-related objectives, I think the administration handling this endeavor (along with spurring a new solar and wind movement), should correlate our success against terrorism with lower costs at the pump, despite that inside the pumps will have a less percentage of oil than ever before. We can start a solar revolution just like silicon valley for computers. Wind power itself is almost as cheap as coal power to buy. The difference is in the cents. The problem with sustaining the alternative energy movement is the energy distribution structure we have in place (macro and micro). OTOH, with focused and determined leadership, we'd create new jobs, save hundred of billions in imports, and become a worldwide leader in a new technological export. If the finances are right and oil prices are low, the Saudi's won't be quick to pull out their equity stake in our stock markets. This would be the essential first step to marginalize the Middle East. Oil would always be cheap energy, but we wouldn't face economic and military reprecautions in case of another embargo. We'd probably have enough balls to create an independant Kurdistan. A second legitimate front might be needed to get the heat off Israel. It's much stabler, smaller, but more geopolitically vulnerable than Iraq has played out. AIPAC and the religious right are too entrenched for the US to strongly reproach Israel, and the Israelis themselves capitalize whenever Washington suffers paralysis in policy. With our house in place, we roll the dice again.
