Something that occurs to me whenever geopolitical boffins assure us, oh so wisely, that we're letting ourselves be distracted by a mere functionary when we listen to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, since as we all know, in reality, that Ayatollah Khameini is the guy in charge, as Roger Cohen does here…
Obama should do five other things: Address his opening to the supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, because he decides. State that America is not in the Iranian regime-change game. Act soon rather than wait for the June Iranian presidential elections; Khamenei will still be around after them. Start with small steps that build trust. Treat the nuclear issue within the whole range of U.S.-Iranian relations rather than as its distorting focus.
… is this: How do ya know that Khameini's in charge? What if the thing that "everybody who knows anything knows" is wrong? Maybe, to borrow a phrase from Frank Herbert, it's "a feint within a feint within a feint."
Maybe Ahmadinejad is really the power behind Khameini. Or, more likely, another lesser-known mullah is manipulating Khameini. Or maybe some guy we never heard of, maybe someone completely unlikely — say, some survivor of the Shah's secret police — is really pulling all the mullahs' strings…
In a system that is designed NOT to be transparent — unlike liberal democracies in the West — we should assume that there is much we don't know. Of course, that also means that before we go "negotiating with the Iranians" with all the best will in the world, we know who it is we should be talking to. Personally, I'm not convinced that anyone does know. Talk, by all means. But at the same time, keep asking (at the very least, asking yourself) the question that Chili Palmer asked in "Get Shorty:" "But first I want to know who I'm talking to. Am I talking to you, or am I talking to him?"
Or maybe I'm just being paranoid today. But when you're talking about a country whose nominal leader wants Israel not to exist, which is trying like crazy to get The Bomb, which is the power and the juice behind the Sadrists in Iraq, Hizbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and seems to have a relationship with Sunni Syria not unlike that which Barzini had with Tataglia, a reasonable man would get a little paranoid… Maybe, when Obama and/or Hillary chat with these guys, they should bring along both a Mentat and a Bene Gesserit, just to cover all the bases…
Related Posts
Brad, paranoia is so Bush 43. The Obama mantra is to move on to a sober assessment of the real threats AND the opportunities before us.
The Iranian government and leadership structures are nowhere near as opaque as North Korea, for example. Sure it may not be as transparent as most Western liberal democracies, but to imply that Iran is somehow “unknowable” is way off the mark. I’m glad you still say “talk, by all means.” Because whatever power struggles are going on within Iran, whatever the challenges of figuring out whose pulling what strings over there, those are no excuses for not having dialogue with Iran, especially with those elements with whom we might be able to do some business.
To throw up our hands and speak of an opaque, “irrational” Iran would be to completely play into the hands of Ahmedinejad (who, believe me, is acutely aware of and carefully cultivates his “I’m so wacky you can’t be sure of what I’m going to do so you’d better be scared of me” persona).
Is our system really so much more comprehensible to the Iranians? Would they not be justified in also puzzling over who really wields which levers of power in the US? To what extent will American policy automatically march in lockstep with Israel, or will that change in an Obama Administration? There are plenty of mixed signals to confuse the Iranians as well. Just because we have a society where a lot of verbiage is thrown around publicly doesn’t mean that our motivations are always easily perceived abroad.
You can’t have it both ways, Phillip.
Paragraph 2: “The Iranian government and leadership structures… may not be as transparent as most Western liberal democracies.”
Parapgraph 4: “Is our system really so much more comprehensible to the Iranians? …There are plenty of mixed signals to confuse the Iranians as well.”
Sounds like you’re determined to be sympathetic to Iran even if you have to use pretzel logic.
Considering Ahmadinejad’s obvious hostility, that doesn’t make much sense.
… maybe I’m just being paranoid today.
-Brad
You got that right. The folks who continue to stir up fear from a corner of the earth that really has no capability to do us much harm create the environment that results in catastrophic wars, intense hatred of anything American and a whole host of problems way beyond the original threat. The ongoing Bush recession will claim far more lives than any band of terrorists.
Let’s sit down and talk with these people, regardless of who’s in charge. At the end of the day we spend about 700 billion on military stuff and the Iranians about 4 billion. So who should be afraid of who? Thank heavens the chief fear-monger no longer occupies the White House.
$4 billion spent in the right place will create and deliver enough weapons to kill a billion people.
Let Obama and Hillary talk some more to Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO, then to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Let’s see how much they back of their terrorist attacks, or how much they laugh at Obama and ramp up their war against western civilization.
Bud,
What’s your take on Bush 44’s recent attacks in Pakistan, continuing his predecessor’s military policy?
Bush 44? So you’re saying we’re beginning four more years of the “failed policies of the past 8 years?”
Well, let’s hope so. I was sort of counting on the whole “continuity you can believe in” thing when we endorsed Obama in the primary, and when we said good things about him in our split decision on the general election endorsement.
Folks, Obama has ALWAYS talked tough on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and he’s just following through. Remember this column that I wrote for Aug. 23, 2007 — five months before the S.C. primary? While a lot of Democrats were hearing peace, love, doves from Obama, I was hearing tough talk, and it was reassuring to me.
Phillip and bud — obviously, I was being a LITTLE facetious with my “What if Khameini’s not in charge” thing (although I did mean to prick the hubristic balloons of those who would presume to fully understand the Kremlinological twists and turns of Tehran). But surely y’all aren’t serious in suggesting that Iran is as transparent as, say, Germany or Britain. Or the most ridiculously transparent country in the world, the U.S. of A., in which the people in charge can’t scratch their noses without it being discussed 24/7.
Come on, guys. Say you want to talk with Iran, fine. But don’t make like it’s the same as talking to a liberal democracy. God help us if the ones representing us in such talks think that…
What I’m saying and continue to say to whoever will listen is that these tinpot dictactorships are NOT, repeat NOT the biggest threat we face in this country. Domestic violence, disease and accidents each claim 10s of thousands of American lives each year. The current economic meltdown threatens the both the economic security and domestic tranquility of millions of Americans. Yet we harp endlessly about the very minor threat posed by terrorists. Let talk with them, infiltrate their inner circles, use LEGALLY OBTAINED intelligence to thwart major threats (the way Clinton did in 1999 and Bush DID NOT DO in 2001). But at the end of the day this really isn’t the same threat that the Nazis were. It’s nothing but a bunch of overblown fear-mongering dreamed up by the neocons to extort money from us to build worthless military crap. Haven’t we had enough of that nonsense from Bush?
Obama Socialism is the biggest threat to America.
Last week, the administration said Iran was three years away from launching a satellite. Iran launched a satellite three DAYS later.
Bush 44? So you’re saying we’re beginning four more years of the “failed policies of the past 8 years?”
Well, let’s hope so. I was sort of counting on the whole “continuity you can believe in” thing when we endorsed Obama in the primary, and when we said good things about him in our split decision on the general election endorsement.
“Continuity you can believe in” — now that is a great line.
Cut taxes and increase taxes at the same time?
Bush, check
Obama, check
Bailouts?
check
check
Patriot Act and FISA?
check
check
And yes, finally, make threats against Pakistan and Iran?
check
check
If the roles were reversed and a country struck targets inside the U.S. without our permission to kill someone they deemed to be a terrorist and innocent Americans were killed all hell would break loose.
And it’s too late to significantly change our policy on Iraq, so the fact that Obama opposed it is immaterial to his presidency.
Thanks, but I didn’t come up with the “continuity you can believe in” thing. Some conservative pundit (I think William Kristol was the first) did. I have appropriated it because it because it summarized well one of the reasons why Obama was my strong second choice for president (if I couldn’t have McCain, I much preferred Obama to any other candidate of any other party, particularly after Biden dropped out of the running for the top job).
But then, almost anyone who is a serious contender is going to be a lot more like others who have held the office than the partisans on either side like to admit. I realize this is something that’s very frustrating to someone of populist, anti-establishment leanings such as bud, but presidents do not (nor should they) make sudden turns in foreign policy to the point of giving our allies whiplash. Continuity — from Bush to Clinton, Clinton to Bush, Bush to Obama — is the norm. The same people are going to be our allies, the same people are going to be our adversaries, and the general strategic direction of our policies will not change radically. If Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul were president, you’d see radical change, but that’s a big reason why neither of them will ever be president.
Obama is a breath of fresh air in many, many ways — as I said in my column a couple of weeks ago — but he can also be described as very establishment. I’m reminded of the Edwards staffer who told me she went to work for Edwards rather than Obama because Obama’s top people were all older white guys. I think of how people like Ted Sorensen backed him from the start. And while some people (including Ted Sorensen, who told me that JFK would have ended our involvement in Vietnam had he lived, which was the most dubious thing he said when we met) like to believe that there is a HUGE difference in our stance toward the world depending on whether the POTUS has a D or R after his name, but thank goodness there isn’t.
During the Cold War, our policy of containment was the same from one administration to the next, with differences of emphasis. During this war we’ve left containment behind, but since the folks who don’t like the new approach haven’t come up with a viable alternative strategy (something I wrote about in this column way back in April 2003), the same basic approach continues with a change of administrations. The leftward side of the U.S. foreign policy establishment doesn’t like the answers Bush and the neocons came up with to new challenges in the world, but they haven’t really come up with a competing set of answers. So you get continuity, to a great extent. The War on Terror is a huge departure for the U.S., but after 9/11 there was going to be a huge departure whoever was president. (As I’ve said over and over and over again, it’s not about how you feel about Bush. Yeah, I think he was more likely than anyone else to have taken us into Iraq in 2003, but that’s just part of the overall picture.)
When you get to the sticking point of foreign policy — military, diplomatic, economic, whatever — there’s not a lot of room for radical changes of course among those who make and implement those policies.
Brad, your last comment here is on the money, and was kind of what I was saying all along about Obama in response to the breathless fear-mongering put forth by the extreme right wingers here on the blog during the election. He is no radical.
But while you’re correct to say that prudence dictates against specific radical foreign policy shifts, there is still every indication that the Obama Administration is bringing a very different mindset to the way those policy challenges are going to be faced.
Nothing illustrates that difference more vividly than pm’s comment above. Because I dared speculate on how Iranians might view the US, showed an interest in how they might think, that made me in his words “determined to be sympathetic to Iran.” Well, pm, willful ignorance is so Bush 43. Seeking to understand the mindset of another country, even an adversary, is hardly a sign of automatic sympathy with their leadership’s aims. That’s a fact that Bush 41 understood but Bush 43 was intellectually and emotionally incapable of grasping. Thankfully this President is a very different man from his predecessor.
And so, Brad, it’s not so much that the Obama team has to come up with “a competing set of answers” as it is that his team’s approach will yield answers to an entirely different set of questions…ones which the previous administration did not even bother thinking about.
Any way you look at it, that is remarkable change.
Did anyone ever stop to think for a moment that maybe Bush did understand the mindset of Iranian leadership and that is why he took the stance he did? As much as bud and others don’t like to be reminded, Bush was handed a situation on 9/11 unlike anything any previous president ever faced, even to FDR and Pearl Harbor. Of course I forget, bud is convinced that Bush planned 9/11 or is somehow responsible for not stopping it.
Brad is absolutely correct about the continuation of policy and agenda when it comes to certain aspects of American policy when one leaves the White House and the other moves in. We don’t like to admit there is a commonality of cause in the Muslim world and varying degrees of devotion to the cause. Some of the less radical, more moderate Muslim countries enjoy a good relationship with America and from all indications, will continue to do so. Iran on the other hand has chosen time and time again to assume the hostile position, refusing to accept overtures of any sort. They have chosen and chose well before Bush was elected in 2000 to remain our enemy. Clinton tried to offer an olive branch but it came back bloody with the leaves stripped bare. They used the stripped branch to beat the crap out of a critic of an Islamic leader in Iran. Obama has offered his version of the same olive branch. It too has been returned with no positive indications of moving to common ground if there is any. Result, Obama has appeared as weak in the radical Muslim world and to many in the moderate world. Remember, commonality of cause.
We don’t have to be friends with everyone in the world nor should we. We should maintain a strong military and stop the nonsense of having a stripped down version of some movie plot where two or three super heroes can whip the collective asses of several hundred. Wait a minute! Didn’t 19 Muslim radicals slaughter 3,000 Americans in less than two hours on 9/11? No, pay no attention to the small number of men involved. They were just a minor nusiance, not worthy of the concern a nation had and for most of us, still have. Right bud and Rich? Instead, let’s bring their buddies here from Gitmo and give them the same rights and priviledges an American citizen has.
Obama has made some rather dumb moves in his two weeks as the President. He needs to remember that he is no longer a community organizer but the leader of the still most powerful nation in the world. We didn’t obtain that position by being weak and willing to capitulate just for the sake of expediency or sacrificing our position to regain the myth and illusion of the left that we were once “loved” by the world.
Just like pack animals of any species, when the strong start to show weakness, the weaker members of the pack gather to bring the strong down. It is no different with nations. When we started to show our weakness at home with a divided populace, and the press encouraged the division, other nations started to perceive us as weak and ineffective. America was fast becoming a paper tiger as evidenced during the Clinton administration. Otherwise, those 19 who killed 3,000 on 9/11 wouldn’t have even considered attacking us on our own soil. The only foreign sponsored terrorist attacks on American soil occurred during or were planned during the Clinton administration. Before Clinton and after 9/11, there has been no terrorist conducted on our soil. As for the future, I will withhold judgement or speculation. The only point I will make is that we consider who comprises the bulk of Obama’s administration and the direction he is headed in. History matters.
…and that “commonality of cause” would be???
If you haven’t bothered to learn about the history of the Muslim religion and the directive from Mohammed in the Koran about spreading Islam by any means possible (condensed statement), then I can’t begin to explain to you in a brief manner. If you are not aware of the fact that the Muslims have not stopped fighting the Crusades, your ignorance is not my fault.
If Sharia law and the intent of the Muslim religion to bring all under a caliphate or destroy them is not familiar to you, there is nothing I can do except advise you to take the time to do some research on your own.
I lived and worked in the Middle East for a while and took the time to learn while I was there, understand the importance of their religion and how it dictates every aspect of their lives, and did come to some understanding as best as my Western mind could. We think we understand extremism in this country. We don’t have a clue compared to the extremism for a very large percentage in the Muslim world. Would you be willing to blow yourself up and take as many non-believers with you for the promise of eternity in Paradise, serviced by 70 virgins? Would you be willing to teach your child the glorious fate of a martyr in the form of a suicide bomber?
The commonality of cause is the eventual spread of Islam to the entire world and have the entire world under Sharia law in a worldwide caliphate state. That is about as simple as I can make it for you. The rest is up to you to research and form your own opinions or reach your own conclusions. Remember, there are over one billion believers and followers of Mohammed in this world and approximately 15% are prone to and practice the radical elements of his religion.
The War on Terror is a huge departure for the U.S., but after 9/11 there was going to be a huge departure whoever was president.
-Brad
There is no such thing as “The War on Terror”. That’s a nonsensical euphamism conjured up by the previous administration to give greater importance to military matters than the situation actually warranted. The same thing happened with the “War on Drugs”. In the end money was wasted on that misguided effort just as we are wasting money and lives on the currently in-vogue “War on _____”. Right now Obama is focused on the economy and can’t really devote a huge amount of his energy on rectifying the failed Bush foreign policy mess. But shortly that will change and Brad will be screaming about how dangerous he is. In the end The State will endorse Sarah Palin for president in 2012.
Democrats authorized the War on Terror in 1998.
Bart, as someone who continues to spend time in the Middle East and has an advanced degree in Muslim studies, I would concur with much of what you have written, as well as the need for the West to be wary. In the application of it, however, I would choose Phillip’s approach over your own. We in the West continue to evaluate the world based on our own world view of guilt/innocence as opposed to the Middle Eastern emphasis upon honor/shame and cleanness/defilement. In addition, we in the West forget that for hundreds of years we have fought a battle for what is perceived in the rest of the world as a battle on behalf of “Christendom,” which includes imposing Western values, including the Crusades, colonialism, and all aspects of the current globalization process, on the East.
Add to that a free ticket to Israel to do as it pleases, and forget the fact that Palestinian territory, in which Arabs and Jews had lived peaceably for centuries side by side, was taken by force to create the nation of Israel, a nation which, though ostensibly a democracy, stops at nothing to harass Palestinians or anyone connected with them, or even to kidnap their own dissidents overseas and haul
them back to Israel for trial. Israel is ruthless in its actions, and our connection with Israel identifies us as the same.
Add to that a war in Iraq that left, for example more than a million Iraqi refugees in Amman alone (not to speak of neighboring countries) a number which continues to increase, with all the problems involved. The wars which the U.S. continues to propagate are, understandably in it’s own defense, but it is not comprehensible to people in the Middle East why they are asked to suffer in order to protect America. America wages wars, and the rest of the world has to deal with the consequences. Most of them do not like Al-Quaeda any more than we do, but they resent being forced to fight fanatics for our benefit. We need to approach these countries totally differently than we have in the past thirty years.
The bottom line is that our reaction to the 15% of radical Islam that you mention is pushing the other 85% also in the radical direction, and we simply cannot afford to do that. It is not necessary, either. Those of us who are even remotely Christian are bound by Micah 6:7-8, to do justice and to love mercy, not to blindly support prejudice. Those of us who are evangelical Christians, or practicing Roman Catholics, have a moral leverage that the Richs among us do not have, for the Islamic world has no respect for atheism. Therefore I submit that we can influence our government for good, and support it when it does good. I see Obama’s attempt to reach out to the Muslim world as a positive one, and I hope he continues in this vein. The only alternative I see is that we can continue to antagonize the East, with the result that genocide by nuclear means (Israel is slowly painting itself into this corner) is our only alternative, and if we result to that, no one wins.
We are at a crucial stage. If we continue to bully the Middle East as we have recently, we risk further escalation of conflicts that we simply cannot afford to wage, and which are ultimately not in our best interest.
At last, an intelligent person who can speak with some authority and whose opinion can be legitimately respected. Thank you Herb.
I don’t necessarily disagree in principle with anything you said in your response. To be sure, many of the things that separate us are on the surface strikingly similar. On many fronts, we share the same beliefs as Muslims but on others, we have a major departure from philosophy and doctrine. Christianity was exported to the Middle East by a French pope looking to solve the problem of the time, unemployment. He needed a cause for knights looking for one, a place to send the chronically unemployed, and something to unite Europe. I know this is avsimplistic explanation but it is sufficient.
The point I tried to make is that we, the West have long left behind the days of the Crusades, they haven’t. We no longer adhere to the practice of enforced Christianity on others but in the more radical element of Islam, it is either acceptance or death.
While 15% may not sound like a lot of people, we still need to remind ourselves that 15% of over one billion is 150 million. About half the population of the U.S.
As a Middle Eastern visitor with an advanced degree in Muslim studies, it is understandable for you to have a more favorable position for the Muslim point of view. We may not agree on several points but you do have my respect because you have as the saying goes, “been there, done that”.
The news media perpetuates a backwards image of Muslims in the minds of most Americans. Their religion is distorted into a jihad among the culturally backward elements of the Muslim world, but many of them are very well-educated in Western universities, and a tiny handful of them are capable of causing catastrophic attacks on the West.
Just look at the chemists who created the first bombing of the World Trade Center.
Iraq developed biological weapons using anthrax, bubonic plague, cholera, smallpox and yellow fever. They continued to develop nuclear weapons.
Pakistan had a nuclear weapons facility which was destroyed by Israeli air raids.
Iran is developing an atomic bomb and now has launched an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Even Hamas is using remote-controlled robotic vehicles and drone aircraft to attack the Israeli Army.
The commonality of cause is the eventual spread of Islam to the entire world and have the entire world under Sharia law in a worldwide caliphate state. That is about as simple as I can make it for you. The rest is up to you to research and form your own opinions or reach your own conclusions. Remember, there are over one billion believers and followers of Mohammed in this world and approximately 15% are prone to and practice the radical elements of his religion.
Interesting. Can you provide a link to that 15% estimate?
Also, as I thought I understood it, those “radicals” were less about bringing the world under Sharia Law and more about bringing their own countries under Sharia Law.
Also, Bart, I’d be interested to read about your interactions with those who were willing to commit a suicide bombing.
Bart,
I am not so sure that the Crusades are behind us. I am obviously an evangelical myself, but wherever I go, I am often saddened by the the seemingly innate attitude of American Christians that there is something about our way of life that is always superior to the rest of the world. The Christian gospel gets mixed up with American political views, and too often the American visitor or resident overseas considers herself/himself as innately superior without even realizing it.
The founding father of Muslim radical fundamentalism was Sayyid Qutb, whose book is now translated into English as “Milestones,” — he became a fanatic as a result of his experience of the loose morals of what he considered to be Christians on board a ship to America. His subsequent experience in the U.S., including the rejoicing in the streets over the assassination of Hassan Al-Banna (the founder of the Muslim brotherhood, and extremely popular leader in the Muslim world) in Egypt along with the fact that he probably never experienced hospitality or real family life in this country, led further to his radicalization. It only takes one key individual to begin a movement. What if, instead of approaching such people with weapons and threats, we showed signs of legitimate interest, and even allowed them at times to “save face?” Friendships go a long way in these countries.
Time and time again, students from Islamic countries have been ostracized while here in the U.S. American immigration policies after 9/11 went overboard–the immigration authorities now can be positively nasty to anyone–and the rest of the world notices it.
I’m rambling on about some of my pet peeves, but the point is, we too often have a “Crusades” mindset: Us who wear the white hats against the rest of the world (black hats), and blind support for Israel no matter what they do, as though it is our responsibility to win back the Holy Land.
I don’t really know what we can do about the influence of the Internet and Hollywood in the Muslim world, but we are seen by many as the main perpetrators behind a deliberate attempt to corrupt their young people. (Friendships help–at least some of them are amazed that not all of our daughters dress like Brittany Spears all the time.)
At least we could attempt to understand that, and the frustration that often leads to suicide bombers. I am afraid that much of our tactics recently have been designed to produce more suicide bombers.
Neglected to say “thanks” for your kind words, Bart. Also, a book recommendation to everyone: Three Cups of Tea about Greg Mortenson’s work in Afghanistan in establishing schools. Of course Khalid Hosseini’s recent novels (The Kite Runner, A Thousand Splendid Suns are superb as well. For evangelical Christians, I highly recommend The Crescent through the Eyes of the Cross by Dr. Nabeel Jabbour. And as I’ve written often before, the shortcomings of Western diplomacy are evident in Rory Stewart’s two volumes, The Prince of the Marshes and The Places In Between
Birch,
I apologize but I cannot remember where I originally found the link to the percentage I referenced. However, I did find another that provides the results from a poll taken by Gallup where they find only 7% are considered radical. I am not very good at copying and posting links but if you go to “Gallup Center for Muslim Studies”, I think you can find a lot of information there. There are wide ranging estimates and depending upon your sources, it can be from 7% up to 20%. I don’t pay much attention to the radical right or left when it comes to guesstimates. The 15% seems to be a fairly reliable number as fas as I am concerned. However, you may form a different opinion depending on the results of your research.
A good article was written by Gerald McDermott in 2001 after 9/11. He gives a good recap on Islam and some misconceptions and a little history. The link is:
http://www.roanoke.edu/religion/McDermott/Islam.htm
I did meet one or two during my time in the Middle East who told me that being a martyr for Islam was the highest calling one could have. They were no different in mannerisms or actions than any other Muslim you meet in daily life over there. Were they potential suicide bomers? I don’t know but an expression of the willingness to die for Islam would lead one to believe they were sincere and if circumstances were right, they just might strap on a bomb and commit suicide. Then, I stop and consider the fact that most of us say we would lay our lives down for whatever reason are not confronted with a choice like this one during our lifetime so until that day comes, it is all speculation.
I will make this personal comment and observation about Islam. Like any other religion, the teachings and beliefs can and usually are hijacked by a few radicals with interpretations from the sublime to ridiculous. I would think that for the very moderate to moderate, Islam or Muslim if preferred is a peaceful religion and concentrates on family values and share most of the morals and values that most Christians do. If you consider that most who follow Islam come from third world countries where religion is the center of their lives, I can understand how the radical element can be so large. But, when driving across the desert and you come upon a Mercedes Benz sports coupe parked on the side of the road and the driver is kneeling on his prayer blanket, one does stop and wonder about how powerful and influential his religion really is in his life. When you hear the call to prayer over the loudspeakers from mosques around any Middle Eastern city and life, business, and commerce come to literal halt while thousands file into mosques, it does make one wonder again about the power exerted over daily life.
Can you imagine for one moment the outcry from secularists, athiests, and seperation of church and state advocates would do if an afternoon call to worship by the local Baptist, Methodist, or any other denomination was broadcast over public speakers? That is why I consider it to be total nonsense when bud and Rich constantly post fears about Christians trying to deny rights to Americans. It just “ain’t” gonna happen and we all know it.
If it is your opinion that the radical element or terrorists do not pose a threat to America and the “War on Terror” is a misnomer, that is your right. I guess it all depends on how you view things. I can be an optomist/realist, which I am and still consider the “War on Terror” to be a legitimate war, not something to be taken lightly or handled by the local police department.
Herb,
I guess it all comes down to another old adage. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Who started the fight to begin with? When followers of Mohammed occupied Jerusalem, the Pope found a cause that would go a long way in solving a real problem at home. Fiancial problems and unemployemnt. The same thing we are facing today, here and abroad. Lest we forget, a mixture of politics and religion led us to the first confrontation between the two cultures. Out of this crusade of ideas and religious beliefs sprang many ideas and practices still followed to some degree in this modern world. Study the Templar Knights for example to learn about how powerful an idea can become, flourish and grow, become irresponsible and irrelevant, make a powerful enemy, and ultimately – destroyed.
Well, tongue in cheek, we can blame the French. After all, it was a French pope, in a French village that first developed the idea of the original Crusade. Let them fix it if they can, they started it.
Have a good day.
There ARE a lot of things in Americanism which are vastly superior to the rest of the world, which was still in the 9th century until we brought them up to the 20th century in a few areas.
The things about America which Islam most dislikes are the degenerate anti-American culture of socialistic liberalism. The libertine Democrats in Hollywood and New York spew pornography and their twisted vision of America and Christianity into the rest of the world. It is no wonder they hate that. They just don’t understand that what they are seeing is a culture war not just on Islam, but on Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, along with an attack on the secular entirety of Western tolerance, individual freedom, and democratic capitalism.
Bart, the reason I asked about the “commonality of cause” is this:
if we accept your “15%” premise, then whether the US tilts a bit one way or the other in terms of carrot vs. stick really doesn’t matter, does it? They still will hate us. So I agree with Herb: we have to address ourselves to the 85%, not the 15%, otherwise we (meaning the West, etc.) have decided to play the game on the extremists’ terms.
Bottom line as it applies to Iran: Bush 43’s approach, which you seem to admire as being “strong” vs. what you termed Obama’s “weakness,” managed to result in Iran’s becoming a stronger player in the region than ever, mostly because Bush picked the guy who really was NOT a threat (Saddam) to go after to create the impression of American “strength,” at the cost of strengthening the country that was all along a more serious problem (Iran). All because Bush, too, got caught up in the “gotta be seen as strong” machismo fixation. (America’s note to self: no more Texans as President).
I acknowledge your first-hand experience with the Middle East and with Islam. All the more reason, then, that you should appreciate the dangers of two-dimensional reasoning (the very foundation of fundamentalism of any kind), which is at the core of this “strong vs. weak” argument. If Western civilization has given us anything, it is the ability to see gray, to hold in our minds two seemingly contradictory ideas and find ways to reconcile them.
And thanks to Herb for also mentioning the centrality of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict to the whole issue.
One of the things that struck me about this Bush from early on is that he WAS believable in the role of “Texan.” His Dad used to try to make like HE was a Texan, but he was utterly unconvincing…
That’s because GW Bush is a Texan.
That’s because GHW Bush moved to Texas late in life, but spent most of his time in the East, whereas his son GW Bush grew up in Midlands, Texas and then went off to college, but came back to Texas and joined the TANG, then back to Texas after Harvard Business School, now back to Texas after being President.
It’s Midland, Texas, and not Midlands. I grew up in Lubbock, so I should know. (Used to ride the bus with the band down to the Midland-Odessa games and watch LHS get clobbered — well, usually we did. No Friday Night lights, either. We were pretty well chaperoned, well sort of pretty well chaperoned.)
And well, there sure is some stereotyping of Texans going on around here, but I won’t try and fix that. Suffice it to say that we’re not all macho gauchos . . . .
Well Bart, at least we got some culture from the Crusades. I thought that The Kingdom of Heaven was a pretty awful film, but in spite of that, the portrayal of Muslims as the more sensible and humane of the two opposing forces was sort of generally accurate. Not that much in the film was accurate–OK, it was a really bad movie.
Oh, and one last thing: I have seen the 15% – 85% ratio elsewhere, and it is sort of a generally accepted breakdown, though I can’t substantiate it, either, and I doubt anyone can. Some would add 10-15% liberal Muslims on the other end of the scale, making it a 15-75-10 ratio, but it is all guesswork. After all, who belongs to which group depends on one’s definitions. There is a very good compendium on liberal Islam entitled the same, but I forget who the editor is. I couldn’t afford it, but it should be available through a local library.
I wish I had seen this thread earlier but I will still just post some rambling thoughts.
I have read the Iranian Constitution and as you read the beginning of each section you would think it was almost the US Constitution. It discusses rights but it always ends with something along the lines “as long as there is no conflict with Islamic Law.” I know with some leaders it was interpreted more freely than with others.
I do wish we had tried harder to normalize relations with Iran but my guess is that we are acting just as Saudi Arabia wants us to. The tensions between Shia and Sunni are as old as Islam itself and I am sure few things scare Saudi Arabia more than a powerful Iran.
After 9/11 I am afraid our government began to play Geopolitics again and weren’t very good at it. That, along with the surge in gas price just increased the influence of Iran (and Russia, and Venezuela…)
I know today it seems like no one wants to try to view possible reasons for another country’s behavior. If I was an Iranian citizen I would want my governement to develop every weapon system they can. On both of their borders they have the armed forces of the most powerful country on earth who has called them part of an Axis of Evil and is filled with talk of bombing it. Leaders do and say things to stay in power and everytime we say something like that it only makes them stronger.
One last thing, Islam is only 1400 years old, look at some of the things that were going on in Christianty in 1400 AD
Just looking at things from some different angles.
The oil people call it “Midlands”, Herb, the Permian Basin.
I ought to know; I worked for Getty oil in Odessa. If you look at a map of Texas, you will see that it adjoins Midland, TX.
My father was an oil lease negotiator for Shell, and knew the Bushes, Hunts, and others. We lived in Houston. George and Barbara live in Houston, in River Oaks. I drove by and saw them out there looking at the foundation of their house back in 1992 (IIRC).
The name of the city is Midland, Lee, not Midlands. That was my point. It is still Midland, even though combined with Odessa.
You would do well not to have to have the last word on every subject, but then I suppose I’m trying to do the same thing.
Herb, you need to stop trying to peddle your minimal acquaintance with some fact as making you an instant expert. You don’t come off as honest.
You might not like President Bush, but he is a Texan, and has spent most of his life there. That’s why he comes off as honest.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Alessandra
http://www.craigslistpostingonline.info