Who is Winning the War on Terror?

[Cyclonepride]

The fact of the matter is that in real life I do not pass the muster to be labeled a "liberal". In general, it is the hard core right-wing faction of this board e.g. Cyclonepride, Herbie, and some others, who play fast and loose with the facts (or just make them up) when they pontificate. And because I am pretty stupid myself, I challenge them from time to time. And usually, their response is that I am a lefty and in their judgment, not worthy to comment on their omnipotent wisdom.

I don't remember dropping any negative rep on you or Bawbie, and in the interest of fairness, I don't remember either of you doing that to me. However, criticizing everyone else, without any offer of solutions yourself, will tend to get you negative rep. I've repeatedly asked "what would you do?" and get no response.

[alaskaguy]

Absolutely. It is an essential read. However, I don't think US foreign policy or what we deem to be in the interests of our self defense should be dictated to us by murderers.

If you consider the 9/11 report to be "an essential read" why should we be treating Saudi Arabia as some sort of special ally?

[iceclone]

The fact of the matter is that in real life I do not pass the muster to be labeled a "liberal". In general, it is the hard core right-wing faction of this board e.g. Cyclonepride, Herbie, and some others, who play fast and loose with the facts (or just make them up) when they pontificate. And because I am pretty stupid myself, I challenge them from time to time. And usually, their response is that I am a lefty and in their judgment, not worthy to comment on their omnipotent wisdom.

[Wesley]

The defense contractors are winning the war.

[Cyclonepride]

If you consider the 9/11 report to be "an essential read" why should we be treating Saudi Arabia as some sort of special ally?

The US and Saudi Arabia have a symbiotic but almost parasitic relationship with each other. We don't particularly like them, and they don't particularly like us. However, it is in our interests to have an advanced base of operation in Saudi Arabia. I am fully aware of what their culpability is in 9/11. They tend to provide us support privately while supporting fundamentalist madrassas around the world. This has (reportedly) lessened since 9/11. The Saudis have the capability to stabilize the oil market when they wish to. They flooded the market in the mid 80's at Reagan's request to help pinch and, in effect, deal the economic death blow to the Soviet Union. Politics make strange bedfellows. On our end, the "nation builders" wouldn't mind seeing the theoretical sweep of democracy into Saudi Arabia itself.

My next question for you.....if we did pull back and remove our bases in Saudi Arabia, do you suppose that the fundamentalist movement would be somehow crippled by this? Do you think they would stop plotting to destroy our country? Should we do that, and as the last soldier leaves, go Neville Chamberlain and declare "peace in our time"?

[alaskaguy]

The US and Saudi Arabia have a symbiotic but almost parasitic relationship with each other. We don't particularly like them, and they don't particularly like us. However, it is in our interests to have an advanced base of operation in Saudi Arabia. I am fully aware of what their culpability is in 9/11. They tend to provide us support privately while supporting fundamentalist madrassas around the world. This has (reportedly) lessened since 9/11. The Saudis have the capability to stabilize the oil market when they wish to. They flooded the market in the mid 80's at Reagan's request to help pinch and, in effect, deal the economic death blow to the Soviet Union. Politics make strange bedfellows. On our end, the "nation builders" wouldn't mind seeing the theoretical sweep of democracy into Saudi Arabia itself.

My next question for you.....if we did pull back and remove our bases in Saudi Arabia, do you suppose that the fundamentalist movement would be somehow crippled by this? Do you think they would stop plotting to destroy our country? Should we do that, and as the last soldier leaves, go Neville Chamberlain and declare "peace in our time"?

The question you asked is what would the consequences be of us pulling back from Saudi Arabia. You imply that the terrorists would be emboldened by our departure by referencing the Neville Chamberlain quote. However, I am not advocating surrending to the terrorists. To the contrary, I would like to see a greater focus on eradicating al-Qaeda. We need to focus on their strong holds which appear to be Afganistan and western Pakistan.

Even Paul Wolfowitz, one of the primary architects of the Iraq war, understood the need to swiftly remove foreign troops from Saudi Arabia. In congressional testimony in February 2003, Wolfowitz admitted that resentment over the stationing of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia had "been Osama bin Laden's principal recruiting device."

Wolfowitz implied that Saddam's removal would enable the United States to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia. "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to . . . be there for another 12 years to continue helping recruit terrorists."

The "War on Terror" can be won. But large numbers of troops aren't the answer. We will win the war when we discredit the terrorists' ideology and undermine their support.

Link:
Foreign Affairs - Can the War on Terror Be Won? - Philip H. Gordon

[Cyclonepride]

The question you asked is what would the consequences be of us pulling back from Saudi Arabia. You imply that the terrorists would be emboldened by our departure by referencing the Neville Chamberlain quote. However, I am not advocating surrending to the terrorists. To the contrary, I would like to see a greater focus on eradicating al-Qaeda. We need to focus on their strong holds which appear to be Afganistan and western Pakistan.

Even Paul Wolfowitz, one of the primary architects of the Iraq war, understood the need to swiftly remove foreign troops from Saudi Arabia. In congressional testimony in February 2003, Wolfowitz admitted that resentment over the stationing of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia had "been Osama bin Laden's principal recruiting device."

Wolfowitz implied that Saddam's removal would enable the United States to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia. "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to . . . be there for another 12 years to continue helping recruit terrorists."

The "War on Terror" can be won. But large numbers of troops aren't the answer. We will win the war when we discredit the terrorists' ideology and undermine their support.

Link:
Foreign Affairs - Can the War on Terror Be Won? - Philip H. Gordon

We will just have to agree to disagree on the major points here. I agree that large numbers of troops are not the answer to the war. However, having a base of operations in the Middle East is important to US interests, and helps secure Saudi Arabia and Israel. I believe that pulling our bases there will embolden Al Qaeda and hand them a public victory in their war against us, and allow them to proceed to the next items on their agenda, which is to create an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East.

[iceclone]

... and allow them to proceed to the next items on their agenda, which is to create an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East.

Interesting choice of terms. In your opinion, would a caliphate where the caliph is elected by a representative shura be an unacceptable form of government? Many scholars claim there is support for such a government in Islamic tradition.

[Cyclonepride]

Interesting choice of terms. In your opinion, would a caliphate where the caliph is elected by a representative shura be an unacceptable form of government? Many scholars claim there is support for such a government in Islamic tradition.

I'm sure it wouldn't be acceptable by Western standards. While there are arguments going as to the exact interpretation, I have heard and read in many places that it would be a very oppressive style of government. The last guy that I heard speak on this issue said that non-Muslims would be allowed to coexist within such a state, and practice their own religion, as long as they submitted to the caliph, and accepted their permanent relegation to lower class status.

[iceclone]

I'm sure it wouldn't be acceptable by Western standards. While there are arguments going as to the exact interpretation, I have heard and read in many places that it would be a very oppressive style of government. The last guy that I heard speak on this issue said that non-Muslims would be allowed to coexist within such a state, and practice their own religion, as long as they submitted to the caliph, and accepted their permanent relegation to lower class status.

In Britain, the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but non-Anglicans can live in peace as long as they submit to the Queen The church doesn’t receive direct financial support from the state, but they do receive most of their income from assets and endowments that were at one time derived from the government.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is effectively the state religion of Greece, receiving financial support from the government, and exercising significant influence on affairs of state.

All of the Scandinavian countries except Sweden have a state church that is supported financially entirely by the government. Furthermore, everyone is born into the church and must opt out if they disagree with its teachings. (This was also the situation in Sweden until about 5 years ago, and to be fair it seems likely to change in the other countries relatively soon.)

Other examples could be given. My point is that it is possible to evolve a democracy while still acknowledging and giving some deference to religious traditions. My view is that the only way a democracy will flourish in Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or any other Arabic state, is if it is based on both Islamic and Arabic traditions. Similarly, a democratic Iran would have to be based on both Islamic and Persian traditions. In my opinion, a pan-Islamic caliphate cannot happen except through military conquest.

[Cyclonepride]

In Britain, the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but non-Anglicans can live in peace as long as they submit to the Queen The church doesn’t receive direct financial support from the state, but they do receive most of their income from assets and endowments that were at one time derived from the government.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is effectively the state religion of Greece, receiving financial support from the government, and exercising significant influence on affairs of state.

All of the Scandinavian countries except Sweden have a state church that is supported financially entirely by the government. Furthermore, everyone is born into the church and must opt out if they disagree with its teachings. (This was also the situation in Sweden until about 5 years ago, and to be fair it seems likely to change in the other countries relatively soon.)

Other examples could be given. My point is that it is possible to evolve a democracy while still acknowledging and giving some deference to religious traditions. My view is that the only way a democracy will flourish in Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or any other Arabic state, is if it is based on both Islamic and Arabic traditions. Similarly, a democratic Iran would have to be based on both Islamic and Persian traditions. In my opinion, a pan-Islamic caliphate cannot happen except through military conquest.

I would disagree with your choice of comparisons. Al Qaeda does not wish to seat some kind of benevolent ruler. They are extreme fundamentalists who take an aggressive approach to Islam. I agree that any democratic state that would wish to succeed in the Middle East would certainly have to have Islamic and Arabic traditions as a base. These people are not seeking a democracy.

[iceclone]

I would disagree with your choice of comparisons. Al Qaeda does not wish to seat some kind of benevolent ruler. They are extreme fundamentalists who take an aggressive approach to Islam. I agree that any democratic state that would wish to succeed in the Middle East would certainly have to have Islamic and Arabic traditions as a base. These people are not seeking a democracy.

I think I misunderstood your earlier post, and certainly agree that Al Qaeda has no intentions that can be rationalized by any sane person. I was just trying to think about what democracy in Arab countries might look like. I actually think it will likely give Islam a significant role in government and also draw on pre-Islamic Arabic traditions such as the shura. A caliphate can be interpreted to be a lot like a parliamentary democracy with a state religion (although Al Qaeda would clearly not interpret it that way), and my point with my last post was that a state religion is not necessarily inconsistent with democracy.

[Cyclonepride]

I think I misunderstood your earlier post, and certainly agree that Al Qaeda has no intentions that can be rationalized by any sane person. I was just trying to think about what democracy in Arab countries might look like. I actually think it will likely give Islam a significant role in government and also draw on pre-Islamic Arabic traditions such as the shura. A caliphate can be interpreted to be a lot like a parliamentary democracy with a state religion (although Al Qaeda would clearly not interpret it that way), and my point with my last post was that a state religion is not necessarily inconsistent with democracy.

I agree. A democratic society in Arab countries isn't going to look a lot like a Western democracy, and I agree that a state religion isn't horrible.

[alaskaguy]

I have a couple of observations to make; first even though terrorists represent the greatest security threat to this nation, the threat may be exaggerated. The overblown threat may not justify the liberties that are being sacrificed to defend the United States against an enemy that is no longer targeting us.

Exaggerated Terrorist Threat Link:
Foreign Affairs - Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?: The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy - John Mueller

Second among developed nations, the U.K. is the favorite target of the terrorists. Many more people are being arrested for terrrorism in the U.K. than in other developed countries. Also far more terrorist plots are being exposed in the U.K. than in other developed countries (or at least being reported on by the media).

Al Qaeda is now targeting children in the U.K. to carry out attacks link:
Bloomberg.com: Europe

UK "number one al-Qaeda target" link:
Bloomberg.com: Europe