Future War

[vimothy]

Regarding my chronology of terrorism, I think that attacking America was both a strategic and ideological choice. It didn't happen because America supports Israel, but because Islamists hate liberalism, and because they think that attacking America will achieve strategic goals (increasing holy war and knocking American political will to be present in the Mid East).

 

[vimothy]

Oh my, I hope you are all right. Did they assault you out of the blue? That’s just crazy.

Yeah, totally out of the blue. One guy ran up to me as I walked home from work and literally started punching me in the head. At some point I fell over and could see his mates running up to us, two of them kicking me as I lay on the ground. At this point I started to think, "this is going very badly," but somehow managed to get them off me and start running. Someone else ran up behind me and tripped me up. I think most of my injuries come form this fall. I swung my leg out at him and he fell down. People were out in the street getting a taxi, as it drove past (we were in the middle of the road by this point), I got up and ran off down my street. Said goons slouched off into the evening.

 

[vimothy]

Also, if you look at Qutb, as the preeminent Islamist writer, and his works on the USA, he was dead before Americans really started giving aid to Israel. Qutb focuses on how Americans live, and why that lifestyle is barbaric and evil. And in fact, the USSR sent Israel the armour that enabled it to survive in its first days. Yet arab radicals turned to the USSR for suppport and solidarity and condemed America regardless.

 

[vimothy]

I think Said's Orientalism and other Western philosphical movements ("third worldism") are key to understanding why this view (American involvement, among other things, causes terrorism) has become so universal. Phares, Kramer and Ibn Warriq are all good on this phenomenon.

 

[Mr. Tea]

So, I suppose the imortant question is: Should I be blaming Hayek or RAND for this?

Say what you like, but she was hot in From Dusk Till Dawn.

(Sorry to hear about your incident, by the way! )

 

[vimothy]

I think that we can definately say that the Islamist hatred of America preceeded American "meddling" in the region, so American meddling is not enough to explain events like 9/11. Otherwise, why would US forces on the penninsula be enough to be considered a casus belli by bin Laden?

 

[IdleRich]

I think that we can definately say that the Islamist hatred of America preceeded American "meddling" in the region, so American meddling is not enough to explain events like 9/11. Otherwise, why would US forces on the penninsula be enough to be considered a casus belli by bin Laden?

Yeah but you're going right round in circles now. Virtually the first thing I said from way back was

I'm not saying that, in fact I think that to say that "they flew out of a swamp of our own making" is just as disingenuous as to say what you said - that the planes appeared out of thin air. The truth is somewhere in between as always

I accepted ten or twelve pages ago that "American meddling is not enough" on its own - have you had a bump on the head or something?

 

[vimothy]

Yeah but eveytime I try to make my argument (which like you've said has been going on for pages now) you tell me that I'm wrestling straw men (manfully though, cheers for that).

American meddling is not enough on its own (I actually said "amongst other things") - yep, you said that, I'm trying to adress it: not enough on its own but necessary (according to you: islamism + US meddling = terrorism).

I think that the best way to look at this would be in terms of events prior to and leading to 9/11. Obviously, dropping bombs on someone's house isn't going to make them very supportive of the American occupation, but they're not really the problem. The invasion of Iraq wasn't the cause of 9/11 and it wasn't the cause of anti-Americanism in the middle east. Anti-Americanism predates 9/11 considerably. Why is this? It also predates American support for Israel. And like I said, the USSR gave support (both moral and military) in the very first days of Israeli statehood, but arab leaders looked to the USSR for aid and solidarity. The USSR also oppressed its muslim populations in central asia. So, I think that the reasons for anti-americanism (because: why America?) are not explained by american involvement in the middle east. That's my argument. Agreed?

 

[IdleRich]

So, I think that the reasons for anti-americanism (because: why America?) are not explained by american involvement in the middle east. That's my argument. Agreed?

I certainly agree that there are some people in the Middle-East who hate America for what it is, what it represents etc

Do you agree though that (not talking about 9/11 now) that if there is someone in Iraq who is killed by an American soldier today, his family are more likely to listen to radical preachers who hate America tomorrow?
In other words do you accept that it is possible for someone to be radicalised by actions of the US?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Do you agree though that (not talking about 9/11 now) that if there is someone in Iraq who is killed by an American soldier today, his family are more likely to listen to radical preachers who hate America tomorrow?
In other words do you accept that it is possible for someone to be radicalised by actions of the US?

I predict that Vimothy's response to this will be something along the lines of "it's not poor Iraqi refugees who end up bombing American targets, it's wealthy Saudis", or something like that.
BUT, what about so-called home-grown terrorism? Radicalised Muslims from Britain and other non-Middle-Eastern countries (e.g. Jamaica, in the case of one of the 7th July bombers) who are angry at Britain/America/'The West' on behalf of Iraqis and Palestinians?

 

[vimothy]

Exactly: go back to the Gene Expression/ Marc Sagemen stuff I linked to, the core of al Qaeda are absolutely not poor Iraqis but (very) wealthy arabs from the penninsula. It is innevitable that some people who are on the sharp end of the counterinsurgency will get pissed off with the occupation. That's because it's a counterinsurgency. You'll also find that some jihadist groups get very pissed of with the fact that US forces are trying to kill them and attack coalition troops or ICDC. That's what happens in a war, an attack invites a response.

The actions of American troops are inevitably going to annoy some people both as a direct result of regime change (for instance, supporters of Saddam, ex-Iraqi armed forces, baathists, etc), and as a result of fighting COIN (other normal iraqis uninvolved with saddam). The latter are the key constituency whose minds the Americans are trying to change. They are trying to find the correct balance between force and hearts and minds. Petaraeus has been all over the news saying as much, you know, but non of the journalists on TV last night picked up on it (moaning about the wall and such like). What else do you expect, how else can you fight?

*****​

If you're going to hate America because it is trying to establish a self-determined democracy in a Muslim Arab country where prevciously there was only facism and mass murder, you are the supporter of dictators and gangsters. If you hate America because it oppresses muslims, but you don't protest against the Sauds, Egypt, Iran, you are a racist. If you are going to repeatedly blame your own lack of fortune or foresight, or bad goverments on America, you are self-deluded. If you cannot take reposibilty for your own actions, you are immature. If you travel down from Leeds to kill people in London because of your imperfect grasp of global politics, you are a murderer. If you hate Israel because of what it does to the Palestinians but nowhere else campaign against the many other (more) oppressive regimes in the Mid East, you are a fool and probably being used by your government.

 

[vimothy]

People become jihadis because of the strength of the radical narrative, not because they've carefully considered the results of the balance of US interventions in the Middle East in the post-WWII years.

 

[IdleRich]

"The actions of American troops are inevitably going to annoy some people both as a direct result of regime change (for instance, supporters of Saddam, ex-Iraqi armed forces, baathists, etc), and as a result of fighting COIN (other normal iraqis uninvolved with saddam)."

Which of those categories does Abu Ghraib come in to? How about Guantanamo Bay?

"They are trying to find the correct balance between force and hearts and minds......What else do you expect, how else can you fight?"

Well, some people think that they shouldn't be fighting at all don't they?

"If you're going to hate America because it is trying to establish a self-determined democracy in a Muslim Arab country where prevciously there was only facism and mass murder, you are the supporter of dictators and gangsters. If you hate America because it oppresses muslims, but you don't protest against the Sauds, Egypt, Iran, you are a racist. If you are going to repeatedly blame your own lack of fortune or foresight, or bad goverments on America, you are self-deluded."

This is far too simplistic though isn't it? It is constantly repeated that if you are against the Iraq war you are against democracy, that's simply not true. Maybe Iraqis hate America because they have made their country a worse place to live.
Some bad rulers have been installed and or propped up by the West (Saddam, The Shah just in the Middle-East), so it's hardly self-deluded to blame the US for that is it?

"People become jihadis because of the strength of the radical narrative, not because they've carefully considered the results of the balance of US interventions in the Middle East in the post-WWII years."

Maybe not carefully but they've definitely considered them.

 

[vimothy]

Which of those categories does Abu Ghraib come in to? How about Guantanamo Bay?

Come on mate: both abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay both come under the second category, people who the Americans have pissed off during the counterinsurgency.

Well, some people think that they shouldn't be fighting at all don't they?

Yeah but, you are saying that the Americans are aggravating the situation by fighting the jihadists and insurgents; are you suggesting that if the Americans leave the violence would stop? [This getting back to my (apparent) straw man. Jihadists are not only in Iraq because the US is, and will not stop fighting in Iraq or anywhere else because the Americans get board and go home.]

This is far too simplistic though isn't it? It is constantly repeated that if you are against the Iraq war you are against democracy, that's simply not true. Maybe Iraqis hate America because they have made their country a worse place to live.
Some bad rulers have been installed and or propped up by the West (Saddam, The Shah just in the Middle-East), so it's hardly self-deluded to blame the US for that is it?

A worse place to live?!

Maybe some Iraqis do, that's what I was alluding to in the paragrtaph you've just quoted. Maybe they hate America for a lot of reasons, maybe some of them are good reasons. I can bet most people don't hate them for good reasons though. The insurgents hate them because they are there, because they humiliated the Iraqi AF (who supplied the insurgency with arms and fighters) and disenfranchised them; the jihadists because they're twisted little fucks who hate life. Big deal. As long as these people persist with their foolish hatred, more Iraqis will die. And so it's not fair to say that the Americans have made their country a worse place to live, they made it a better place to live. Immendiately afterwards (well, a few months), some other very bad people made it a worse place to live. Clever people would hate them instead.

Maybe not carefully but they've definitely considered them.

So support for the Shah and limited amounts of arms for Saddam are enough to almost spark a new WW? But none of them care about all of the other evil stuff done in the Middle East by Muslim rulers and states? If they're such anti-imperialists, what's happened to the rest of their politics?

 

[IdleRich]

Come on mate: both abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay both come under the second category, people who the Americans have pissed off during the counterinsurgency.

Well ok but I think it's somewhat euphemistic to describe torturing innocent people as "fighting COIN".

"Yeah but, you are saying that the Americans are aggravating the situation by fighting the jihadists and insurgents; are you suggesting that if the Americans leave the violence would stop?"

I'm saying that maybe they shouldn't have attacked and occupied Iraq in the first place - now they've made that fuck-up I don't really know what they should do.

"A worse place to live?!"

I think that life is worse for the average citizen than it was before the war - don't you?

"Maybe they hate America for a lot of reasons, maybe some of them are good reasons. I can bet most people don't hate them for good reasons though. The insurgents hate them because they are there, because they humiliated the Iraqi AF (who supplied the insurgency with arms and fighters) and disenfranchised them; the jihadists because they're twisted little fucks who hate life. Big deal. As long as these people persist with their foolish hatred, more Iraqis will die. And so it's not fair to say that the Americans have made their country a worse place to live, they made it a better place to live. Immendiately afterwards (well, a few months), some other very bad people made it a worse place to live. Clever people would hate them instead."

I think it is fair because it was what was obviously going to happen. So many people had predicted what would happen and they went ahead and did it anyway. I agree that the insurgents are to blame but the US does bear some responsibility. It's as if I forced you to leave your door unlocked knowing that there was a thief in the neighbourhood, sure when your stuff gets stolen blame the thief but I am also responsible.

"So support for the Shah and limited amounts of arms for Saddam are enough to almost spark a new WW? But none of them care about all of the other evil stuff done in the Middle East by Muslim rulers and states? If they're such anti-imperialists, what's happened to the rest of their politics?"

That's nothing to do with what I said. You said that people who blame the US for their leaders are self-deluded, I pointed out that the US had installed some of their leaders, which you are not contesting and which is a clear and direct contradiction of your point. It would be better to simply admit your error and retract it rather than to try and answer something that I didn't say.

 

[IdleRich]

This thread might as well be combined with the Saddam Bravest or whatever now - feel free to get back to the main point.

 

[vimothy]

Well ok but I think it's somewhat euphemistic to describe torturing innocent people as "fighting COIN".

Well, fighting COIN is tradditionally done by picking up a suspect, torturing him (which would be the sort of techniques that the US use in Guantanamo: interrogation techniques that disorientate the detainee) untill he tells you who his accomplices are, picking them up and doing the same and then continuing until you have the whole network. Not that that's a good thing, but it is how these things are normally done.

What went on in Abu Ghraib was just porno-style laughs for the benefit of a few fat headed rednecks. Not helping the war effort at all.

I'm saying that maybe they shouldn't have attacked and occupied Iraq in the first place - now they've made that fuck-up I don't really know what they should do.

Worth going into in more detail, hopefully...

I think that life is worse for the average citizen than it was before the war - don't you?

Yes, of course, which is why the US should stay there and sort it out.

I think it is fair because it was what was obviously going to happen. So many people had predicted what would happen and they went ahead and did it anyway. I agree that the insurgents are to blame but the US does bear some responsibility. It's as if I forced you to leave your door unlocked knowing that there was a thief in the neighbourhood, sure when your stuff gets stolen blame the thief but I am also responsible.

The benefits of hindsight! It's easy now to say that all of this was obvious to anyone, even to people who had no interest in the region or the struggles of the Iraqi people. What did Iraqi dissidents say? What did Iraqi opposition parties say?

The US and other coalition countries (like the UK) now have a moral obligation to try to help Iraq back to normality. But that's what they're trying to do (despite all the criticism) anyway.

That's nothing to do with what I said. You said that people who blame the US for their leaders are self-deluded, I pointed out that the US had installed some of their leaders, which you are not contesting and which is a clear and direct contradiction of your point. It would be better to simply admit your error and retract it rather than to try and answer something that I didn't say.

You're still missing my point, Rich.

 

[vimothy]

This thread might as well be combined with the Saddam Bravest or whatever now - feel free to get back to the main point.

I think that we've run into two problems in this thread:

1. Attempting to prove or disprove the legitmacy of the invasion - but I guess I don't mind that because it's important.

2. Slippage all over the place - Islamists, insurgents, ordinary Muslims, the fertile crescent, the penninsula, whatever else, have all blended in to each other at various points, which has made things more difficult than needs be.

 

[crackerjack]

The benefits of hindsight! It's easy now to say that all of this was obvious to anyone, even to people who had no interest in the region or the struggles of the Iraqi people.

I think the answer to this is that some sort of breakdown was predictable, but that the current chaos is worse - far worse - than anyone really anticipated.

What did Iraqi dissidents say? What did Iraqi opposition parties say?

Well we all know what chalabi said

There is a quote from Bush snr (sorry - can't find, and don't have time for extensive googling) from 96 or so where he explained why he hadn't gone onto baghdad in 91. Top of the list was that the international coalition (especially the Arab countries who were on board) would've fallen apart. Second was the fact that Iraq was potentially a new Balkans in the making and Saddam's rule, however brutal, was holding it together.

 

[vimothy]

Probably not that different from Saddam's line ...