Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
I can't say there is anything comforting about this analysis from Strafor, but at least you can rely on them to have an understandable viewpoint.
Monday, May 24, 2004
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Baghdad Burning
Baghdad Burning
One thing about the internet is that you don't have to be relegated to mainstream media for your information. In the middle of a war, I'm not sure anything could be more important than being able to get information firsthand from people on the ground. Like the author of the link above. Riverbend is the name of a blogger in Baghdad. A young woman who is telling it like she is living it.
I'm really beginning to be concerned about this war. When you read Riverbend's writings and perspective, and you look at the continuing horror coming out of the prison abuse revelations, you really begin to question what is happening and what we are doing.
I believe that we are fighting a real enemy in the terrorists. But I'm really concerned that the way in which we are waging it is going terribly wrong. I'm beginning to question whether or not the ideals which we say our behind our actions are really what moves us, or whether it is more dark and sinister motives.
I'm beginning to question the moral correctness of the way this war is being fought. I suspect that this questioning process is beginning to occur for many others, and that will have consequences for the Bush administration this fall.
One thing about the internet is that you don't have to be relegated to mainstream media for your information. In the middle of a war, I'm not sure anything could be more important than being able to get information firsthand from people on the ground. Like the author of the link above. Riverbend is the name of a blogger in Baghdad. A young woman who is telling it like she is living it.
I'm really beginning to be concerned about this war. When you read Riverbend's writings and perspective, and you look at the continuing horror coming out of the prison abuse revelations, you really begin to question what is happening and what we are doing.
I believe that we are fighting a real enemy in the terrorists. But I'm really concerned that the way in which we are waging it is going terribly wrong. I'm beginning to question whether or not the ideals which we say our behind our actions are really what moves us, or whether it is more dark and sinister motives.
I'm beginning to question the moral correctness of the way this war is being fought. I suspect that this questioning process is beginning to occur for many others, and that will have consequences for the Bush administration this fall.
Friday, May 21, 2004
Oxford Student: 20th May 2004: This War on Terror
Oxford Student: 20th May 2004: This War on Terror
Now, I find this article by some student at Oxford to be just plain naive. Its not surprising that it is, since I had the same sort of outlook when I was a student. His basic argument seems to be that if we would just politically do whatever the Islamic world desired, no one would attack us. He says that you can't win a war on terror. But apparently the right series of political moves in the Middle East, such as solving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict will. Gee, what could be simpler than that. The political issues of the Middle East are deep and serious. If the conflict over Israel could be so easily dealt with, it would have been. You're are not going to get the parties to that conflict to reach a political settlement. That conflict is not going to end, and really, thats biblical. So this idea that if we would just do the right political things terrorism would be defeated is as untenable as military action.
And frankly, I think if you kill the terrorist, that is a pretty effective means of stopping terrorism. But I don't think the average person understands the basics of this conflict. Part of the problem in every online debate on the war and something that runs through nearly all the dialogue we see in the media is the question and issue of "why did we invade Iraq?". Many people do not believe the WMD threat was real, that it was a cover for going in to get their oil. I think that concept makes no sense simply because before all this went down, we bought the oil. And we'll be buying the oil in the future. Its not about oil.
Thats not to say that there is not a serious level of ongoing profiteering taking place with this war. There most certainly is. But that does not mean that the rationale for doing it is not there. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has done a strikingly inept job of articulating (or not) the strategy behind invading Iraq.
Part of the problem is that neither our president or our media have done one whit to educate us about the motivations of the principal terrorist enemy, Al-Queda. All you get is "they hate freedom" and "they want to spread an idealogy of hatred". Thats not good enough to help us understand this enemy. Whats going on with this war makes more sense if you have some analysis of the antagonists. So here's one to mull over.
What is Al-Queda's goal? The establishment of a pan islamic state across the entire muslim world.
What is their strategy to achieve this? Al-Queda must bring down the current governments in the middle east and arab world to achieve their goal. These governments are undemocratic, often corrupt and despotic governments iin many islamic countries. Al-Queda's problem is that they cannot overthrow these governments militarily, many of whom are supported by the U.S. However, these governments are not popular and none are democracies. The political will of their populations is supressed, they can't vote the leaders out. Al-Queda wants to cause the "Arab street" to rise up against their governments. 911 was an attempt to do that, by accomplishing a major attack on the US. They hoped that attack would provoke a massive and indiscriminate attack on the muslim world by the U.S. . An, attack that would cause the muslim world to unite against the U.S., overthrow their governments and begin the move towards a pan islamic state.
911 accomplished provoking the US into a very strong response (first Afghanistan, then Iraq), but it was not indiscriminate, nor did the arab street respond as Al-Queda expected, nor have the governments of the region been weakened to the point of collapse, indeed several have changed their behavior.
Why we invaded Iraq: After 911, the president is looking at three major scenarios to respond to the terrorist threat.
1. Homeland security - batten down the hatches, shore up all the defenses and internal security and hope to deflect, detect or deter another attack before it happens. The problem however is that the U.S. is a target rich environment and a free country. If the US only plays defense against this enemy, it will get hit again by a 911 level attack. The terrorists take a long view, they are smart and patient. Its only a matter of time (remember that the trade center was attacked multiple times over a decade). As Condoleeza Rice said before the 911 commission "We have to get it right 100% of the time; the terrorists only have to get it right once". So this can't be the only approach.
2. Global covert war: CIA, NSA hit teams, busboys with silencers, Hellfire missles mounted on robot planes, the full employment of offensive intelligence assets to nail the terrorists one at a time. The problem here is that there are a large number of them, spread out over many countries, many of whom have governments hostile to the U.S. so you wont get cooperation from their intelligence or law enforcement services. You have to do it, but this can't be the major offensive part of a strategy. Its too slow, the U.S. will still get hit.
3. Take the war to the terrorists: The president initiated 1 and 2 above, but this third way is the major thrust of the strategy. People are right to say that WMD was not the primary reason for invading Iraq. The real reason was to convert Iraq into a forward base of operations for the war on terror.
Consider the problem the president is faced with afte 911. Well financed and trained terrrorist cells in multiple countries, many of which have hostile governments to the U.S. In the wake of 911 as the Bush administration got a handle on the issues, they put other countries, friend and foe alike, on notice, essentially saying "look, you have a terrorist problem on your soil that threatens us, a threat we cannot tolerate. You need to fix that problem. If you can't or won't, we'll fix it for you".
Well, in the case of many of the countries in the middle east, like Syria, Iran, and others that are hostile to us, even Saudi Arabia where the terrorist threat is being harbored, supported or tolerated, this is not a credible a threat when all of our military might is sitting across the ocean unmobilized. But that threat is much more credible for Iran and Syria, Saudi Arabi and others when we have upwards of 130,000 crack troops sitting on their borders, backed up with the deadliest weapons available, and a U.S. government with the will to use them.
Iraq is now a forward base of operations for military and intelligence operations against the terrorist networks in their own backyards. The administration could not have gone to the UN and gotten a resolution supporting that result. WMD was their best argument to win UN approval. To be sure, the administration had a belief that they would find WMD, beliefs to some degree fed by the likes of Ahmed Chalabi (now out of favor) But WMD was not the real purpose for going into Iraq.
This strategy has been effective. Bin Laden is on the run and largely confined to the mountains of Pakistan. Terrorist cells around the world have been disrupted and broken up. There has not been another major attack on American soil, though assets overseas are still at risk. Al-Queda's capabilities have been degraded. They are not down by any stretch, but America is playing the resource card to full effect. Chasing down their money flows still has a long way to go because the vast majority of the banking and finacial systems of the arab world are not part of the international finance system, and therefore largely untouchable.
But thats the strategy. Iraq is a staging area for attacking the terror networks both directly and indirectly by pressuring the countries that harbor them or allow them to use their territory, and by getting countries to change their behavior, hand over terrorists and cooperate to suppress them. Our diplomatic pressure is much more credible when the full might of our military is sitting on their doorsteps. Thats the point of Iraq, as well as complementary to the establisment of military bases in the former soviet republics such as Georgia and others.
What you see in the news makes much more sense if you approach it from this stand point.
Now, I find this article by some student at Oxford to be just plain naive. Its not surprising that it is, since I had the same sort of outlook when I was a student. His basic argument seems to be that if we would just politically do whatever the Islamic world desired, no one would attack us. He says that you can't win a war on terror. But apparently the right series of political moves in the Middle East, such as solving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict will. Gee, what could be simpler than that. The political issues of the Middle East are deep and serious. If the conflict over Israel could be so easily dealt with, it would have been. You're are not going to get the parties to that conflict to reach a political settlement. That conflict is not going to end, and really, thats biblical. So this idea that if we would just do the right political things terrorism would be defeated is as untenable as military action.
And frankly, I think if you kill the terrorist, that is a pretty effective means of stopping terrorism. But I don't think the average person understands the basics of this conflict. Part of the problem in every online debate on the war and something that runs through nearly all the dialogue we see in the media is the question and issue of "why did we invade Iraq?". Many people do not believe the WMD threat was real, that it was a cover for going in to get their oil. I think that concept makes no sense simply because before all this went down, we bought the oil. And we'll be buying the oil in the future. Its not about oil.
Thats not to say that there is not a serious level of ongoing profiteering taking place with this war. There most certainly is. But that does not mean that the rationale for doing it is not there. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has done a strikingly inept job of articulating (or not) the strategy behind invading Iraq.
Part of the problem is that neither our president or our media have done one whit to educate us about the motivations of the principal terrorist enemy, Al-Queda. All you get is "they hate freedom" and "they want to spread an idealogy of hatred". Thats not good enough to help us understand this enemy. Whats going on with this war makes more sense if you have some analysis of the antagonists. So here's one to mull over.
What is Al-Queda's goal? The establishment of a pan islamic state across the entire muslim world.
What is their strategy to achieve this? Al-Queda must bring down the current governments in the middle east and arab world to achieve their goal. These governments are undemocratic, often corrupt and despotic governments iin many islamic countries. Al-Queda's problem is that they cannot overthrow these governments militarily, many of whom are supported by the U.S. However, these governments are not popular and none are democracies. The political will of their populations is supressed, they can't vote the leaders out. Al-Queda wants to cause the "Arab street" to rise up against their governments. 911 was an attempt to do that, by accomplishing a major attack on the US. They hoped that attack would provoke a massive and indiscriminate attack on the muslim world by the U.S. . An, attack that would cause the muslim world to unite against the U.S., overthrow their governments and begin the move towards a pan islamic state.
911 accomplished provoking the US into a very strong response (first Afghanistan, then Iraq), but it was not indiscriminate, nor did the arab street respond as Al-Queda expected, nor have the governments of the region been weakened to the point of collapse, indeed several have changed their behavior.
Why we invaded Iraq: After 911, the president is looking at three major scenarios to respond to the terrorist threat.
1. Homeland security - batten down the hatches, shore up all the defenses and internal security and hope to deflect, detect or deter another attack before it happens. The problem however is that the U.S. is a target rich environment and a free country. If the US only plays defense against this enemy, it will get hit again by a 911 level attack. The terrorists take a long view, they are smart and patient. Its only a matter of time (remember that the trade center was attacked multiple times over a decade). As Condoleeza Rice said before the 911 commission "We have to get it right 100% of the time; the terrorists only have to get it right once". So this can't be the only approach.
2. Global covert war: CIA, NSA hit teams, busboys with silencers, Hellfire missles mounted on robot planes, the full employment of offensive intelligence assets to nail the terrorists one at a time. The problem here is that there are a large number of them, spread out over many countries, many of whom have governments hostile to the U.S. so you wont get cooperation from their intelligence or law enforcement services. You have to do it, but this can't be the major offensive part of a strategy. Its too slow, the U.S. will still get hit.
3. Take the war to the terrorists: The president initiated 1 and 2 above, but this third way is the major thrust of the strategy. People are right to say that WMD was not the primary reason for invading Iraq. The real reason was to convert Iraq into a forward base of operations for the war on terror.
Consider the problem the president is faced with afte 911. Well financed and trained terrrorist cells in multiple countries, many of which have hostile governments to the U.S. In the wake of 911 as the Bush administration got a handle on the issues, they put other countries, friend and foe alike, on notice, essentially saying "look, you have a terrorist problem on your soil that threatens us, a threat we cannot tolerate. You need to fix that problem. If you can't or won't, we'll fix it for you".
Well, in the case of many of the countries in the middle east, like Syria, Iran, and others that are hostile to us, even Saudi Arabia where the terrorist threat is being harbored, supported or tolerated, this is not a credible a threat when all of our military might is sitting across the ocean unmobilized. But that threat is much more credible for Iran and Syria, Saudi Arabi and others when we have upwards of 130,000 crack troops sitting on their borders, backed up with the deadliest weapons available, and a U.S. government with the will to use them.
Iraq is now a forward base of operations for military and intelligence operations against the terrorist networks in their own backyards. The administration could not have gone to the UN and gotten a resolution supporting that result. WMD was their best argument to win UN approval. To be sure, the administration had a belief that they would find WMD, beliefs to some degree fed by the likes of Ahmed Chalabi (now out of favor) But WMD was not the real purpose for going into Iraq.
This strategy has been effective. Bin Laden is on the run and largely confined to the mountains of Pakistan. Terrorist cells around the world have been disrupted and broken up. There has not been another major attack on American soil, though assets overseas are still at risk. Al-Queda's capabilities have been degraded. They are not down by any stretch, but America is playing the resource card to full effect. Chasing down their money flows still has a long way to go because the vast majority of the banking and finacial systems of the arab world are not part of the international finance system, and therefore largely untouchable.
But thats the strategy. Iraq is a staging area for attacking the terror networks both directly and indirectly by pressuring the countries that harbor them or allow them to use their territory, and by getting countries to change their behavior, hand over terrorists and cooperate to suppress them. Our diplomatic pressure is much more credible when the full might of our military is sitting on their doorsteps. Thats the point of Iraq, as well as complementary to the establisment of military bases in the former soviet republics such as Georgia and others.
What you see in the news makes much more sense if you approach it from this stand point.
Wizbang: The Nick Berg Video
Wizbang: The Video
You've been hearing about the horrific video of the Nicholas Berg murder by Islamic militants. The video is available to see in a variety of places on the internet. I hunted it down at the site above, which also lists other places online that have a copy of the video. I watched it because I want to know the character of the enemy we are dealing with. Uncensored. I don't need mainstream media to mediate what I see and hear. If you want to see it, the link above will take you to it.
Its a horrible thing to watch. This man died in terror and great pain. It was not quick or merciful. It was brutal, and showed the absolute lack of humanity in his killers. As I noted in a previous post, there has not been what I would consider a real outcry from the Islamic world about this atrocity. And while many Muslims are quick to say that what was done to this man has nothing to do with Islam, his murderers killed him while chanting "God is Great", and after reading a prepared statement citing a basis in the Koran for their actions. He was slaughtered with no more regard than you would kill a rabid dog or cattle.
If a Christian did this to an innocent Muslim person, it would be swiftly repudiated and condemned by a very clear majority of people in the West. And that condemnation would not be qualified in any way. However, in the Arab world, that is not the response. In the Arab world, there are mixed feelings about this crime. I simply can't understand that.
Atrocities like this lead one ever more in the direction of thinking that we are heading toward, if not already in one, a clash of civilizations. The West vs. Islam. Because its hard to imagine finding common ground with a culture that can find in its faith a justification for this atrocity.
You've been hearing about the horrific video of the Nicholas Berg murder by Islamic militants. The video is available to see in a variety of places on the internet. I hunted it down at the site above, which also lists other places online that have a copy of the video. I watched it because I want to know the character of the enemy we are dealing with. Uncensored. I don't need mainstream media to mediate what I see and hear. If you want to see it, the link above will take you to it.
Its a horrible thing to watch. This man died in terror and great pain. It was not quick or merciful. It was brutal, and showed the absolute lack of humanity in his killers. As I noted in a previous post, there has not been what I would consider a real outcry from the Islamic world about this atrocity. And while many Muslims are quick to say that what was done to this man has nothing to do with Islam, his murderers killed him while chanting "God is Great", and after reading a prepared statement citing a basis in the Koran for their actions. He was slaughtered with no more regard than you would kill a rabid dog or cattle.
If a Christian did this to an innocent Muslim person, it would be swiftly repudiated and condemned by a very clear majority of people in the West. And that condemnation would not be qualified in any way. However, in the Arab world, that is not the response. In the Arab world, there are mixed feelings about this crime. I simply can't understand that.
Atrocities like this lead one ever more in the direction of thinking that we are heading toward, if not already in one, a clash of civilizations. The West vs. Islam. Because its hard to imagine finding common ground with a culture that can find in its faith a justification for this atrocity.
Videos Amplify Picture of Violence (washingtonpost.com)
Videos Amplify Picture of Violence (washingtonpost.com)
More pictures have emerged of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. I listen to Rush fairly regularly. He is outraged about the release of these pictures by "liberal" media outlets, and labels it as simply more of the partisan mainstream press' attempt to unseat Bush in November. Rush is actually a fairly good political observer, and there is some truth to his statement.
Nonetheless, I frankly want to see these pictures. I want to know what we are talking about when it comes to these pictures of abuse. What is being done in my(our) name. I'm a very hard thing to be in Black America. I'm a black male who is a social and fiscal conservative, and count myself a Republican. I was not always this way. If you knew me in college or my younger days before I had a wife and 3 children, I was as liberal and on the left politically as they come. Having responsiblities, accepting Jesus as savior has changed a lot of that.
I voted for Bush. I believed he was the better man for the job and the better leader for America for fiscal reasons, for religious reasons and for political reasons. I don't agree with the social agenda of the Democrats. I don't agree with their fiscal policies when it comes to taxes. And other things.
I'm patriotic. I believe we are a good country, of good people. But those beliefs are really shaken by things like this. Scenes of abuse like these of tied up men by US soldiers makes me wonder if all of the left wing opinions I used to have (The US is imperialistic, racist, nearly evil, we oppress people around the world for power and economic gain) really did represent a correct picture of who we are as a country.
I'm listening to the hearings and reading the information coming out about this scandal, and it does make you question what you believe about the fundamental nature of our country. The military says this is the work of a few bad apples. That there were no orders or approval from higher ups to do these things. But its hard to credit that. The majority of the soldiers involved are very young, very junior in rank with no training in interrogation. But the things they were doing to these prisoners are in fact recognized high pressure interrogation techniques. I find it hard to credit explanations that they just stumbled into these particular actions on their own with no guidance or direction. Military Intelligence (MI) was involved in the prison, and in fact had been given authority over large aspects of the prisoners daily existence. The people who were supposed to be in charge were not, didn't know what was going on. Its plausible that the solider's stories are true.
Gen. Taguba's report clearly points to the presence of MI at the prison. The soldiers indicate that they got orders from them, orders which they believed to be properly coming from within the chain of command. In fact, there is disagreement between Gen. Taguba and one of the other general's who testified before the Senate Armed Forces Committee about just how much of an operational and command role MI had at the prison. Also involved were "other government agencies", a euphemism for the CIA.
Some people believe that Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and the many other detention centers the US has set up and is currently operating outside the United States are quite clearly an off shore, extra judicial information extraction penal system, set up in a way intended to put it beyond the reach of U.S. Courts and Congressional oversight. That argument can be fairly made based on what we have seen. It really troubles me.
On the other hand, I believe quite firmly that we are facing an extremly dangerous enemy in the terrorist network of Al Qeada and its affilliates. 911, the Nick Berg killing, the Pearl killing, are all proof positive of this. I believe that the US strategy for the War on Terror, of which Iraq is a part, is sound and that it has been effective. We are in danger of losing the tactical battle in Iraq, and if we do, the larger strategic conflict could be lost as well, but thats another post. But we are facing a very vicious enemy. How far is too far to go in defending ourselves? Its a not quite so extreme version of the hypothetical "if you had a terrorist in custody who knew when and where a nuclear bomb was going to go off, how far would you, could you, justifiably go to extract that information from him?". What you see in these pictures is not on that level. These prisoners are bound and helpless.
So, what am I to believe about our country? Do the prison abuses really represent who we are as manifested by our government's actions? If thats true,it means that so much else that is negative must also be true. Or, is this really the work of a few bad apples, who will be punished, and our honor as a country is and remains intact.
I don't know. I really don't know....
More pictures have emerged of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. I listen to Rush fairly regularly. He is outraged about the release of these pictures by "liberal" media outlets, and labels it as simply more of the partisan mainstream press' attempt to unseat Bush in November. Rush is actually a fairly good political observer, and there is some truth to his statement.
Nonetheless, I frankly want to see these pictures. I want to know what we are talking about when it comes to these pictures of abuse. What is being done in my(our) name. I'm a very hard thing to be in Black America. I'm a black male who is a social and fiscal conservative, and count myself a Republican. I was not always this way. If you knew me in college or my younger days before I had a wife and 3 children, I was as liberal and on the left politically as they come. Having responsiblities, accepting Jesus as savior has changed a lot of that.
I voted for Bush. I believed he was the better man for the job and the better leader for America for fiscal reasons, for religious reasons and for political reasons. I don't agree with the social agenda of the Democrats. I don't agree with their fiscal policies when it comes to taxes. And other things.
I'm patriotic. I believe we are a good country, of good people. But those beliefs are really shaken by things like this. Scenes of abuse like these of tied up men by US soldiers makes me wonder if all of the left wing opinions I used to have (The US is imperialistic, racist, nearly evil, we oppress people around the world for power and economic gain) really did represent a correct picture of who we are as a country.
I'm listening to the hearings and reading the information coming out about this scandal, and it does make you question what you believe about the fundamental nature of our country. The military says this is the work of a few bad apples. That there were no orders or approval from higher ups to do these things. But its hard to credit that. The majority of the soldiers involved are very young, very junior in rank with no training in interrogation. But the things they were doing to these prisoners are in fact recognized high pressure interrogation techniques. I find it hard to credit explanations that they just stumbled into these particular actions on their own with no guidance or direction. Military Intelligence (MI) was involved in the prison, and in fact had been given authority over large aspects of the prisoners daily existence. The people who were supposed to be in charge were not, didn't know what was going on. Its plausible that the solider's stories are true.
Gen. Taguba's report clearly points to the presence of MI at the prison. The soldiers indicate that they got orders from them, orders which they believed to be properly coming from within the chain of command. In fact, there is disagreement between Gen. Taguba and one of the other general's who testified before the Senate Armed Forces Committee about just how much of an operational and command role MI had at the prison. Also involved were "other government agencies", a euphemism for the CIA.
Some people believe that Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and the many other detention centers the US has set up and is currently operating outside the United States are quite clearly an off shore, extra judicial information extraction penal system, set up in a way intended to put it beyond the reach of U.S. Courts and Congressional oversight. That argument can be fairly made based on what we have seen. It really troubles me.
On the other hand, I believe quite firmly that we are facing an extremly dangerous enemy in the terrorist network of Al Qeada and its affilliates. 911, the Nick Berg killing, the Pearl killing, are all proof positive of this. I believe that the US strategy for the War on Terror, of which Iraq is a part, is sound and that it has been effective. We are in danger of losing the tactical battle in Iraq, and if we do, the larger strategic conflict could be lost as well, but thats another post. But we are facing a very vicious enemy. How far is too far to go in defending ourselves? Its a not quite so extreme version of the hypothetical "if you had a terrorist in custody who knew when and where a nuclear bomb was going to go off, how far would you, could you, justifiably go to extract that information from him?". What you see in these pictures is not on that level. These prisoners are bound and helpless.
So, what am I to believe about our country? Do the prison abuses really represent who we are as manifested by our government's actions? If thats true,it means that so much else that is negative must also be true. Or, is this really the work of a few bad apples, who will be punished, and our honor as a country is and remains intact.
I don't know. I really don't know....
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Aljazeera.Net - US hostage beheaded
Aljazeera.Net - US hostage beheaded
The arab world is crying out about the prison abuses in Iraq. Americans are outraged too. Many are calling for Rumsfield to step down. But where is the condemnation in the Arab world against this atrocity? If its there, I don't hear or see it. To Americans, there is a quiet sympathy with this kind of act in the Arab world. Americans feel ashamed that our ideals have been made to look like nothing in the prison abuses. But I
don't see any corresponding horror on the part of the Arab world for these atrocities. Fair or not, these atrocities are the representation of the Arab world. Political sympathy with Arab resistance in the Middle East is a poor reason to support with silence this butchery. Americans know we are not perfect. But in my view, the Arab world has zero claim to any moral high ground at all when it sits still in silent sympathy for atrocities such as this committed in the name of God. The Arab world regards us as infidels worthy of death and takes up arms against us at every turn, for
wrongs real and imagined, but the U.S. makes no claim to follow the teachings of the Koran. But your own people butcher innocents as this man was, and claim that Allah approves, and no one in the Arab world seems to see that as a horrible blasphemy. Arabs are ready to kill Americans for any number of perceived insults to Islam, but where is this ferocity for the butchers that claim to represent you? Your own people who are supposed to be believers pile shame onto Islam with acts like this, but you don't turn to kill them or stop them with any of the ferocity you aim at us. The prison abuses were wrong, and we are ashamed of them. Arabs don't seem ashamed of this kind of butchery, at least not in any way I can detect. Something is wrong with that.
The arab world is crying out about the prison abuses in Iraq. Americans are outraged too. Many are calling for Rumsfield to step down. But where is the condemnation in the Arab world against this atrocity? If its there, I don't hear or see it. To Americans, there is a quiet sympathy with this kind of act in the Arab world. Americans feel ashamed that our ideals have been made to look like nothing in the prison abuses. But I
don't see any corresponding horror on the part of the Arab world for these atrocities. Fair or not, these atrocities are the representation of the Arab world. Political sympathy with Arab resistance in the Middle East is a poor reason to support with silence this butchery. Americans know we are not perfect. But in my view, the Arab world has zero claim to any moral high ground at all when it sits still in silent sympathy for atrocities such as this committed in the name of God. The Arab world regards us as infidels worthy of death and takes up arms against us at every turn, for
wrongs real and imagined, but the U.S. makes no claim to follow the teachings of the Koran. But your own people butcher innocents as this man was, and claim that Allah approves, and no one in the Arab world seems to see that as a horrible blasphemy. Arabs are ready to kill Americans for any number of perceived insults to Islam, but where is this ferocity for the butchers that claim to represent you? Your own people who are supposed to be believers pile shame onto Islam with acts like this, but you don't turn to kill them or stop them with any of the ferocity you aim at us. The prison abuses were wrong, and we are ashamed of them. Arabs don't seem ashamed of this kind of butchery, at least not in any way I can detect. Something is wrong with that.
Saturday, May 01, 2004
New York Post Online Edition
New York Post Online Edition: postopinion
Now, its not like we don't have enough problems with the war on Terror and dealing with the aftermath of Iraq. Its not like we are not already hated and despised enough in the Arab world. Now, some moron soilders go and make our entire military look bad with stupid hijinks with prisoners, in the Saddam's most feared prison at that.
The morons even took pictures of this crap. You know this bunch of idiots has to be among the stupidest individuals admitted to the armed services. So now, on top of everything else, Arabs can point to this as proof of how evil we are, and it will trump every good thing out there that has been accomplised. The people involved should be hung out to dry. They have done incalculable damage, and have insured that American forces will encounter even more hostility. I'm not going to cry too much over this incident, because frankly, the terrorists are no shrinking violets in the inhumane treatment department. I mean, these folks threaten to burn people alive, decapitate people on film and distribute the results.
But when we do that crap, we lose any claim to being better than the terrorists, better than our reputation, that our system and values are a better alternative, an example to be emulated. Then we are no better than the worst killers in the Arab world. The average Arab person just trying to live their life, and who I have to believe finds terrorism just as repugnant as any westerner, will find themselves sympathizing with the terrorists, because they'll think "the Americans are just as evil, they deserve what they get". And this cultural, religious divide will grow ever wider.
Now, its not like we don't have enough problems with the war on Terror and dealing with the aftermath of Iraq. Its not like we are not already hated and despised enough in the Arab world. Now, some moron soilders go and make our entire military look bad with stupid hijinks with prisoners, in the Saddam's most feared prison at that.
The morons even took pictures of this crap. You know this bunch of idiots has to be among the stupidest individuals admitted to the armed services. So now, on top of everything else, Arabs can point to this as proof of how evil we are, and it will trump every good thing out there that has been accomplised. The people involved should be hung out to dry. They have done incalculable damage, and have insured that American forces will encounter even more hostility. I'm not going to cry too much over this incident, because frankly, the terrorists are no shrinking violets in the inhumane treatment department. I mean, these folks threaten to burn people alive, decapitate people on film and distribute the results.
But when we do that crap, we lose any claim to being better than the terrorists, better than our reputation, that our system and values are a better alternative, an example to be emulated. Then we are no better than the worst killers in the Arab world. The average Arab person just trying to live their life, and who I have to believe finds terrorism just as repugnant as any westerner, will find themselves sympathizing with the terrorists, because they'll think "the Americans are just as evil, they deserve what they get". And this cultural, religious divide will grow ever wider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
