Full agreement with A.L. here.

We have tried the strategy of leaving the world alone before. That was 20 years of U.S. policy from 1919 to 1939. Result? World War II. We tried ignoring the malignant hatred of Osama bin Laden and friends from the time of Sadat's assassination till 9/11/2001. Result: terrorist cells throughout the western world.

We can not disengage from the rest of the world. It buys us nothing, worse than nothing, it breeds facists and terrorists. We have to engage with the rest of the world and we have to use force against people and organizations that are trying to kill us.

I'd seen links to Henley's posting before, but I didn't read it all the way through. Now I have. Dear God, what utter horseshit.

To paraphrase Mr. Krauthammer, neo-isolationism's primary proponent in the U.S. ran for President in 2000. He carried Palm Beach. By accident.

This is my answer, via Belmont Club

We are not isolated from the world anymore. We can't be. Not unless we want to become like North Korea. Saving the Arab/Muslim world from itself is absolutely necessary if we want to have to avoid the fulfilling the 2nd Conjecture.

I just wish you'd stop blaming it on the weed... I'm positive people are just as capable of coming up with this stuff sober. Hell, I bet Pat Buchanan never smokes pot.

Wow, if this is Henley's idea of what Disengagement looks like...

And A.L., you're quite right to scoff at "Humanities like the Palestinian Studies courses they teach at Berkeley? Henley doesn't realize or chooses not to see that it is a strong strain of self-hatred in the West that is reflected and amplified into Islamist hatred of the West." But what you neglect to point out is that the humanities is precisely where this kind of thinking prevails, whereas science, engineering, and business departments are often fairly free of it. So ironically, we might be better off prohibiting foreign students from taking any humanities.

I can understand (sort of) how we can disengage from the Arab world. How would Mr. Henley suggest that we induce the Arab world to disengage from us?

As I see it there are exactly three approaches to solving our problems with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

1. Enter an isolationism so complete that it will plunge the entire world into economic collapse. Expel resident aliens. Turn our borders into kill zones.
2. The path we're on (the neocon plan)
3. Turn the Middle East into a radioactive skating rink. Maybe a lot of South Asia, too.

Anything else I can think of ends up degenerating into one or more of the above. 1 and 3 are reprehensible and morally repugnant. 2 is incredibly optimistic.

"I’m not inherently opposed to cutting and running, if what’s at stake – as it was in Vietnam – is essentially national prestige. You can reclaim that."

I must disagree,Vietnam and Somalia indirectly brought you 9/11.In a world where prestige and keeping face are the bedrock of many cultures, you cannnot afford to lose.
Nor can you apologise or wallow in guilt, it is regarded as weakness.
Like it or not this is the era of Pax Americana and has been for almost a century.

Dorm room? A high school "Model UN" program is more apropos of the origin of this level of naievete in assessing the realpolitik of the world today! All that was missing were the appeals to: "Can't we all just get along?", or "If we could all just sit down together in the spirit of peace, and work out our differences as reasonable people".....Hah! What dreck!
Sorry, Lefties, our opponents have defined the outcomes of this little exercise in totalitarian global hopscotch: "Kill or be Killed", not much left on the table, so deal with it.

What he said.

"I must disagree,Vietnam and Somalia indirectly brought you 9/11."

Very indirectly, but the essense is correct. In summary, qppearing both weak and rich makes you a victim. Every time.

Dont be too hard on the poor guy. Thats the only comprehensive plan i've seen a leftist propose yet. Think about that.
The fact that it is wildly naive and its most critical components rest on assumptions that even the most average Joe Sixpack would snicker at shouldnt obscure that point. Dont make the usual assumption that the liberal establishment doesnt have any ideas, only criticism. They do have ideas, sadly they are much like this guy's ideas, and most of the left is savvy enough to know that most of America sees them as pie in the sky invitations to disaster.
Look at John Kerry, he suffers from the same illness. Instead of stating a goal and finding a process that logically could get you there, making changes as needed, Kerry defines the ideal process and assumes it will take us where he wants to go. We need a stable Iraq? Well the ideal way would be for the entire world to contribute, therefore that will be the gameplan. Even if the obvious impossibility of that process will likely lead to the destruction of the original objective. Process and intention over results. Thats what makes the left dangerous.

Hey, Artie! I was in more than my share of high school model UNs - and I resent the inference in the comparison. We didn't have even half this much naivete.

(Mind you, even then the organizers of these things seemed to delight in assigning me France, the Ukranian SSR, etc. Wasn't until my final year that I got to lead the US delegation and seriously kick ass, take names, and clean house).

So there you go. As a reward for A.L.'s excellent post and Artie's comment, everyone gets to chuckle over the mental picture of me as a French diplomat. I think I've mostly lived down the shame by now...

My condolences on the unfortunate experience, Joe. Was the P5 membership on the Security Council different at the end of your final year? =)

Thats the only comprehensive plan i've seen a leftist propose yet.

As Paul Berman notes in ‘Terror and Liberalism,’ the Left has tacitly acknowledged the paucity of new foreign policy thought from their end of the political spectrum by engaging the international arena in issues of humanitarianism and justice. The Right co-opted humanitarianism by going one step further and positing that the moral objectives of freedom and the institutions that permit free societies, as well as humanitarian objectives, are a valid justification for international intervention, preemptively, if necessary. The concept of international justice is ahead of its time, given the noted failures of institutional authority in the U.N. and the noted technical failures of implementing humanitarian and developmental assistance by the World Bank and the IMF.

Well done A.L. - I thought Henley was nuts too, but I actually know some Libertarians who might go for some of his schtik, so I wanted your opinion. Also, in his defense, I haven't seen that many coherent plans from the Right either: with stuff like Mark B was suggesting: goals, strategies for achieving those goals, etc. Even the Neocons seem to have an Underpants Gnome plan:
1. Bring democracy to the middle east
2. ????
3. No more terrorists.
Something seems missing in that plan.

Now it may be that all we can do is look at Dave Shulers three options and try to steer towards 2., but I would like to see more details because I frankly think that only 1 and 3 look likely to succeed, and if that is the case, the sooner we opt for one or the other, the better.

For what it's worth, Henley considers himself a libertarian, not a leftist.

I am in solid agreement for the most part, with Henley. And, I am NOT a leftist nor am I a pacifist.

I have said, "Leave then to allah" for a long, long time. That does not mean isolationism. It does mean cutting of Arabs/Muslims with the exception of the necessary trade. We need oil, some of them need to sell it. Other than that. NOTHING! No exchanges, no Western educations, no western vacations, no Western whores, no Western technology, no Western materials or weapons. NOTHING!

If they want to live in the 7th century or even the middle ages, fine. Just leave us in peace! Those who are citizens who preach treason and sedition—PRISON, for a long, long time if not life. Those who are not citizens either, prison or deportation.

The Qur'an and the hadith are the crucible of Islamic terror and religious imperialism seeking to impose a hegemonic Islamic empire on all the world. We can interact with the rest of the civilized world just fine. Leave the Muslims to allah! They say they want to be left alone. Let us do as they wish.

Lili

Armed Liberal,

Nice post. Very good rebuttal of his points. (As an aside, the PATRIOT act is what was responsible for getting rid of the much-maligned FBI-CIA wall.)

As a further aside, assuming Henley's isolationsit proposal were really what the US (and the UK) would do, Israel would probably own significant ME oil fields rather rapidly; the lack of funds for their military would probably require it.

Joe Katzmann,

I had a similar MUN experience: my first year was North Korea and my second was Kuwait. In my senior year, I got the US. I think North Korea was the most fun, though, since I got to always say "capitalist pigs" about almost every country.

Armed Liberal,

I forgot to ask if you had seen this Mark Steyn quote:

"The fanatical Muslims despise America because it's all lapdancing and gay porn; the secular Europeans despise America because it's all born-again Christians hung up on abortion; the anti-Semites despise America because it's controlled by Jews. Too Jewish, too Christian, too Godless, America is also too isolationist, except when it's too imperialist."

It's ironic that we're accused of both isolationism and imperialism.

Sorry Lilith,but there is the problem of oil,you need it, they have it,there is no way the ME can be left as 7th century theme park.

I'm tempted to quote Edmund Blackadder: "It was a marvellous plan with just one tiny flaw. It was b******s." :)

Oil means money. Money means trade, bank accounts, etc. The only way to get the oil without the 'etc' is conquer and seal off the fields, probably expel the locals, control and extract the oil ourselves, and spend an appreciable amount of the revenue on the land, sea and air defences.
Oil Empire.
And not exactly leaving them alone, either.

Not to mention a lot of problems with policing the 'cutting off' of entire subcontinents, where the dividing lines often run through states. I don't even know where to begin with that. And how to ensure that say, China, maybe France or some partial version of Europe sign up to the plan and stay with it?

If we can't do that, then Henley seems to me to be fatally flawed on one major point: he is ignoring the idependent agency of our enemy.
They have plans and ideas of there own, and are unlikely to conform with our wishes just because that would be convenient for us.

Up to now, in a way, we've been lucky; they've been dumb, and made their moves prematurely.
Suppose they get smart.

Now, the following scenario is NOT going to happen: Israel would not, could not take the risks. See Trent Telenko's post.
But bear with me:

Oil revenues continue to flow in (see above). An unreformed Middle East falls piecemeal as Islamic radicals seize state after state. Autocratic regimes are deposed or coopted by Islamists, who take charge of populist discontent by default.

Maybe the Sunni and Shia radicals fight it out, maybe the reach an accord (for a while); either way, end result a decade or so down the line is an expansionist, nuclear armed caliphate with millions of cannon-fodder and just enough industry and technicians to arm and maintain them up to local standards.

But eventually they will miscalculate and its World War 4.
If not with the USA, then Russia, or China, or India, or the UK, or even France. But probability is the US would catch some nukes in the cataclysm.

Yes, maybe if we just 'left them alone' they'd all turn into a bunch of Islamic Quakers.

Bets?

I found reading it through very difficult. Wasted time. Fairy tales. Proactive position is required on the part of the West and others like Japan and Russian to quash the sickness breeding in northern African and already widespread.

"Wait" is in general a poor idea for most of the difficulties we face. Elect Kerry and we may be doing four more years of waiting like the eight we did under Clinton and which may take ten or twenty years, sooner or later, to undo.

We could of course build a concrete wall around the U.S. to slow them down a bit....

Peter, the current "engagement" policy is unsustainable! To be blunt, even we, the richest country on the planet cannot afford this much blood and treasure. We certainly cannot sustain this for a few more years or decades. As it is our children's children will pay for this fiasco.
The Cost of War is More $$$

As Henley said, they must sell oil. It's not much good for anything else including salad dressing. They KNOW that they will starve if they don't sell oil to sustain their one-donkey economies. Perhaps a rise in the cost of oil might even do the West some good. Get us off our fat butts and walking; looking at alternative fuels and energy sources might not be such a bad idea either.

I say let's try it. Because little can be worse than the mess we have now. Not isolate the U.S. or the civilized world—but isolate Muslims. They are making themselves the world's pariahs with every Islamofascist attack against innocents sanctioned by texts from the so-called Islamic holy book, the Qur'an. They have asked over and over again to be left alone. Let us do that.

Round 'em up and ship 'em out! Watch that they don't set up terror camps. If they do—BOOM!

Leave Muslims to their allah and let us go on into the 21st century. There are more important things than Islam and Islamic terror.

Lili

I haven't seen that many coherent plans from the Right either

Thoughts from the Right

Krauthammer argues for a more judicious (targeted and limited) use of neoconservatism to guard against the danger of a form of indiscriminate ethical hegemony. He calls the approach Democratic Realism, which was mentioned by another poster in another thread. There also seems to be some blurring of distinctions between underlying philosophy and the derivative tactics appropriate for achieving strategic goals.

There's always the danger of seeing your opponents as formidable, impervious to the rewards and punishments that drive the rest of us. They're not.
To be specific we just had a golden opportunity to hammer a point home. Hard. I am speaking of Fallujah. Had we responded to the atrocity by sewing fire and brimstone, wreaking massive indiscriminate damage to that city and its residents, we would be facing a much chasened Iraq today.
Yes the usual suspects would have screamed bloody murder. I'm speaking the BBC, not Al Qaeda. But in the capitals of the Muslim world we would have gained immeasurable respect. Hatred, but fear and respect. That's what counts. That's the only way we'll win this thing.

"...the current "engagement" policy is unsustainable! To be blunt, even we, the richest country on the planet cannot afford this much blood and treasure. We certainly cannot sustain this for a few more years or decades."

All things are unsustainable. The question, then, comes down to timing: can the US secure lasting results from a burst of unsustainable activity before its various resources (political, social, economic, military) are fatigued? It's one hell of a gamble, trying to clear a path for the development of a third way in the dar-al-islam: one rejecting both the old model of Nasserite strongman dictatorship and the new model of Qutbist theocratic absolutism for an inclusive, representative polity that values and defends nonviolent coexistence with the dar-al-harb. It's a gamble that may very well fail despite the best efforts of those who want to see it succeed (I'd place the odds of success at 30%, given all the time that was squandered in the 1980s and 1990s), but even this is a more hopeful option than crawling under our beds and waiting for the world to collapse.

> the trouble we're paying for was borrowed generations ago.

That's wrong. We are so heavily allied with Israel that anything Israel does, reflects on us. Effectively, we've been taking random potshots at the Palestinians for decades.

Lilith,

Our current "engagement policy" is totally unsustainable? Defense spending is less than 20% of the 2003 spending.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/images/13871101.gif

It is all the other stupid pork barrel spending that has gotten a free pass lately. Look at the graph, defense spending only accounts for 32% of the increase. The graph liked above starts from 1998 when we had the first surplus that was brought by the internet bubble. Now that tax revenues are back to historically normal levels, Congress does not want to go back to normal spending levels for other things non military. This is what is not sustainable.

Also I will start to worry about not being able to sustain a war when resources start to be rationed to citizens like in WW2.

Gus

Celeste:

I just wish you'd stop blaming it on the weed... I'm positive people are just as capable of coming up with this stuff sober. Hell, I bet Pat Buchanan never smokes pot.

Not speaking for A.L., mind you, but I started out thinking folks like Henley were crazy, but they resented it and they didn't manifest any classic symptoms. Then I figured they must be stupid, but they resented that too and they obviously can use decent diction and have read Derrida, so that didn't cut it. So, they must be on dope. Oddly, they didn't seem to resent that too much... sort of adopting a "Yeah, so?" attitude. Either that, or they claimed they were unaffected, the way a drunk will declare that he can drive just fine.

I'm sorry in advance for my tone, but sleep deprivation does that to me...

...Lilith 'unsustainable'?? Are you kidding? Can I suggest a random history of World War II, the Civil War, or less martially, any of the wagon trains that pushed West from Ohio?

You have a damn low idea of what's sustainable. We lost more lives in a minute on Normandy than we've lost this month in Iraq. The matter is no less serious.

And Josh, if you think that this week's headlines are the fuel behind the mechanism we're discussing, I think you may want to get out a but more.

> And Josh, if you think that this week's headlines are the fuel behind the mechanism we're discussing, I think you may want to get out a but more.

I think you need to get out more if you think that Israeli-Palestinian violence started last week.

I guess if this grand plan takes off it'll be hard to unload that advanced course in Arabic I just bought.

Josh, sorry if I wasn't clear...the issue is that the history goes back far past the last few weeks, and so the strains won't vanish easily.

A.L.

Sorry, fellas, the current policy is unsustainable—not only in dollars but in lives.

The American people are soft—not to mention fat. They are not willing to sacrifice a thing. Additionally, the deficit is HIGHER than it has ever been in history; 60 million Americans don't have health insurance; the environment needs fixing; we have children who are hungry and not getting educated in this country and so on. When it's time to pay the bill for this fiasco there will be a lot of lying politicians that will be voted out. We need allies to make this work—allies we won't get with the Bushies in power.

This is not Normandy. Americans are not willing to sacrifice for what they consider a lost cause. You cannot force democracy on a culture that has no clue, is destroying its own infrastructure and murdering its own people in the name of religion. "Democracy, whiskey, sexy," is their idea of freedom. Iraqis think democracy is doing whatever they want and to hell with the next guy. Indeed, most Muslims think that is what democracy is—freedom to be lawless.

Islamic democracy is an oxymoron! It will never work. (I'd like to be wrong.)

Lili

Wow! Lilith, you managed a trifecta - you insulted Americans, Muslims, and politicians. Impressive.

I have a lot more confidence in all three...which may explain why our positions are so different.

A.L.

Fat, but not soft.

Lilith, the problem with the US right now is that a large portion of us think we've won, and that we're pissing on a fire that's out and the embers we're stirring up hurt. They see 9/11 as an isolated event, and believe anything else can be handled by cruise missles and special ops. (I actually had an argument at a lefty site with a guy who said that's how we should have handled Al Queda after 9/11).

God, I hate saying this, but I am very concerned we'll lose a city before we take the threat seriously, and then hell will walk the earth in forms to dwarf anything from WWII.

That's what I'm afraid of. And that's exactly the future Jim Henley's prescriptions lead to. Close the gates, hide under the pillows, and other nations will continue to develop technologies, and continue to sell them. (Imagine a GPS-guided balistic missle launched from a container ship. Doesn't need a stable platform, easy to disguise, doesn't have to come close to US territorial waters. Buh-bye, New York!)

P.S. I know some Muslims pretty well who are citizens and immigrants here in New York, and for them democracy is about raising their families in peace. Don't paint with too broad a brush.

Flame off!

> Josh, sorry if I wasn't clear...the issue is that the history goes back far past the last few weeks, and so the strains won't vanish easily.

Yes, but you asserted that this trouble was borrowed "generations ago". I believe that either you're intentionally distorting, or you've got your head in the sand. For decades, Israel has been fighting Palestinian terrorists, which is fine, but in the process, they have made almost no effort to avoid collateral damage. By that, I mean not just Palestinian civilian casualties, but also the destruction of Palestinian homes, the general harassment of Palestinian civilians, and the economic damage to Palestinian civilization caused by checkpoints, walls, and constant hostility. In short, they've made it very clear that they don't value Palestinian civilian lives. This behavior is what we mean by "borrowing trouble", and we've been doing it day in and day out for thirty years.

To compound the damage, we layer hostile rhetoric on top of it. We denounce them when they engage in unprovoked violence and lawlessness, as we should, yet we remain conspicuously quiet when Israel engages in unprovoked violence or lawlessness. That attitude is profoundly destructive, because it makes it so obvious that we don't value Palestinian lives. When we make it so clear that we don't care, is it any wonder that they would stop caring about our lives?

If the conflict were to end, yes, the anger toward the US would continue for a while longer - and I can't say if that's five more years, or ten, or twenty, or what. But it won't last forever - people have limited ability to retain burning hatred over something that occurred a generation ago. Jews retain their memory of the Nazis, but few translate that memory into anger at modern Germans. If it took twenty years, we could survive. We dealt with the Soviets for a long time, we coped with Hussein for years, we could handle hostility from the middle east for two decades - as long as we knew it was dying out.

So no, we've never tried the simple "stop provoking them" strategy. Your assertion that "it would never work" is backed by no evidence.

Finally, this guy's attitude toward force is simple: kill the terrorists, stop killing everyone else. I think your attempt to portray this strategy as "confusing" or "contradictory" shows intellectual dishonesty.

Josh:

If the conflict were to end, yes, the anger toward the US would continue for a while longer - and I can't say if that's five more years, or ten, or twenty, or what. But it won't last forever - people have limited ability to retain burning hatred over something that occurred a generation ago.

Many years ago, before an election in Poland, a survey was done where a majority of people blamed their economic harships on the Jews.

Of course, there were no Jews in Poland, and hadn't been since the Nazis did their thing, but why let a little thing like that interfere with your denial? (Sorry, I remember the story was in Time magazine, but I don't have a better reference. But I believe a similar survey was done in Malaysia recently, with similar results.)

Why should middle-eastern hatred of America die out any faster? The reasons for the hatred are the same; a poisonous combination of envy and moral righteousnous. It seems to me that your argument that they'll stop hating us if we leave them alone is at best wishful thinking.

> The reasons for the hatred are the same; a poisonous combination of envy and moral righteousnous.

Show me the evidence.

If there were two guys, one of them is wealthy and I'm envious of him, and another one who's shooting at me, I'd hate the second guy a lot more.

Bin Laden hates Spain for something that happened over 500 years ago. These guys have really long memories, and when you combine a multi-century grudge with nuclear weapons, you end up with one or more dead US cities and a parking lot where the Arab/Islamic world was.

Josh - I'm having a lot of trouble with this - 'For decades, Israel has been fighting Palestinian terrorists, which is fine, but in the process, they have made almost no effort to avoid collateral damage.' Do you have any idea of how much Israel has done to limit collateral damage? What a First World military could do to an urbanized, essentially defenseless population like those in the West Bank and Gaza?

Israel has operated with as close to surgical precision as I think reality allows. I have significant issues with many of their policies (settlements for one), but on this issue, they should hold their heads very high.

A.L.

First off, more Americans died during the first hour of Antietem than have been killed in the entire Iraqi operation.

Moreover, (and this is not a pleasant point to dwell on) even should we fail I believe this was the right thing to do. Change takes time, but it requires a catalyst. Alexander was the first Westerner to have an impact on the East. He was dead by 32 but there are still town in the remotest corners of Afghanistan where white men havent been seen in generations that bear his name. I read an article recently that suggested conquest rarely if ever creates the changes it means to. This line of thought is incomplete. It rarely achieves its goals how it intended.
In his defeat, Napoleon did more for the advance of the nation state then perhaps anyone in history. Caesar changed the world though he didnt live long to enjoy it. The world would be unrecognizable without Rome, even if even she eventually succombed.
Dont understimate the power of tipping the monopoly board over. Even defeat in the short term can bring victory in the longerm, particularly when the status quo is intolerable. Even should we fail, we may well have planted seeds that will shape the Middle East in ways we cant forsee, and not always for the worst.

LOL! AL

"Trifecta"!? But, I am not betting on any of them.

I have not insulted any one of them. Truth hurts. Americans are fat and soft—K Mart shoppers et al. Politicians are liars and Muslims haven't a clue about democracy. Democracy and Islam are incompatible. Yes, that is an across the board indictment of most of the above. ;-) There are, of course, a few exceptions. But, not many. The facts are: Over 60% of Americans are fat, 20% or more are obese; politicians lie—ALL of them, without exception. And when I see Muslims marching in the streets AGAINST terror I'll believe there are moderate Muslims instead of those simply practicing taqiyya.

Mark, I agree with you that Americans and Europeans are not taking this seriously. I am not suggesting "hiding under the pillows." I don't want to disengage from the world. But, this fight cannot be won with military might alone. We need a plan; we need allies. I think part of that plan should be to isolate Muslims in their lands. They can't develop technologies if we (the rest of the world) don't supply them with these. The whole world must cooperate on this.

I am all for knowing one's enemy. The U.S. is clueless, as is the administration about the enemy. We have no plan. That is the problem. But, we will have ultimately—perhaps after we lose a city. Terror attacks have a way of focusing the mind.

As to your Muslim friends, tell them to go to Ali Sina's site if they prefer to be "insulted" by Muslims. Islam is not about peace or equality or anything that the West values. Muslims who pick and choose which part of the Qur'an to believe are apostates. And the terrorists would kill them just as soon as the rests of us. I tell the truth as do those former Muslims. Those who don't like it can "flame off" —as you so eloquently put it. ;-)

Josh, I absolutely agree with you. I have little sympathy or empathy for the Palestinians because I believe that they are their own worst enemy. However, that does not absolve the Israelis of their crimes—which are more than just self defense. You are mistaken though if you think the Arabs won't remember or hang on to their hatred. They will because they are still dreaming of al-Andalus. Why? Because they have nothing positive with which to replace their delusions of grandeur from 500 years ago. Besides, it is written in the Qur'an that they should have disdain for the Jews and the Christians.

The only way out of this is educating Muslims—which won't happen in our life-times.

Lili

> Round 'em up and ship 'em out! Watch that they don't set up terror camps. If they do—BOOM!

And we will watch them how? Lilith, your ideas of "disengagement" are as ludicrous as are Henley's.

> Do you have any idea of how much Israel has done to limit collateral damage?

You're in denial:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE150582000

http://web.amnesty.org/mav/index/ENGMDE150362004

Oh, heck. I was going to post links to a dozen articles about Israeli abuses here, but it's easier to just go to amnesty.org and do a search for "israel."

Amnesty.org?! Oh yeah, there's an unbiased, politically moderate source of information...

Bin Laden hates Spain for something that happened over 500 years ago.

FH, no offense. But it's about time we stopped treating Bin Laden et al. as a group of pure ideologues and realized they're a bunch of cynics that are just fronting.

IT'S A FACADE.

> Amnesty.org?! Oh yeah, there's an unbiased, politically moderate source of information...

OK, so name a human rights monitoring organization that you respect.

Or, do you refuse to acknowledge any human rights monitoring organizations? And if so, why?

- Josh

>> Bin Laden hates Spain for something that happened over 500 years ago.

> IT'S A FACADE.

Hell, I have no idea what Bin Ladin really thinks. But I do know what regular Arabs think.

Here's an experiment you can try: ask a middle-eastern foreign exchange student what's wrong with American foreign policy. I guarantee you they'll launch into a two-hour lecture on Israeli abuses, with occasional references to various other obnoxious things we've done in the region. Not once will they mention Al-Andalus and the right of manifest destiny.

Josh, can I suggest that you spen an afternoon over at Jane's and familiarize yourself with the destructive power of a modern military?

Israel doesn't have to risk it's troops to do anything to the Palestinians; it does so to limit the damage done to the civilians within whom - contrary to international law, the laws of war, and the custioms of war since time immemorial - those who fight Israel hide. If Israel had meant to level the whole ofjenin - as opposed to the few houses that were destroyed in the 'massacre'; it would have taken then fifteen minutes, and no one would have survived.

That they didn't is a testimony to their restraint and their concern with 'collateral damage'. That you (and others who share many of your expressed opinions) don't realize that is simple ignorance.

A.L.

Might I suggest that making some "real" headway in this situation would do away with Trent's doomsday scenario? Seems like a good goal than invasion of Iran* or nuclear-exchange to me.

*and the automatic failure in Iraq that entails, realistically.

> If Israel had meant to level the whole ofjenin - it would have taken then fifteen minutes... that they didn't is a testimony to their restraint

So in your mind, if they do anything less than deploy nukes, that counts as "admirable restraint?"

That's setting the bar about as low as it can go.

"And we will watch them how? Lilith, your ideas of "disengagement" are as ludicrous as are Henley's.

Oh, Kirk, we knew there were/are terror camps in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, etc. Watch C-Span testimonies. The CIA KNEW! We have these nice things called satellites and spy planes and drones. Besides, we don't even know what is happening in mosques in the West or in occupied Iraq.

A.L. regardless of what you say, Israel has used EXCESSIVE force. Now, I am not saying that we would not do the same if suicide jihadis blew themselves up in our pizza parlors. However, the facts remain.

I will BET that the U.S. will pull out of Iraq regardless of who wins the elections. The current policies are unsustainable!

Lili

> If Israel had meant to level the whole ofjenin - it would have taken then fifteen minutes... that they didn't is a testimony to their restraint

So in your mind, if they do anything less than deploy nukes, that counts as "admirable restraint?"

Oh puleeze. You are totally twisting that around. You have been so thoroughly brainwashed that you can't see what's right in front of your nose.

Why does the middle eastern foreign student go on and on about supposed Israeli abuses? Because he's been brainwashed with the same propaganda you have.

If Israel has been so abusive, how come the residents of the West Bank had the highest standard of living and education of any Arabs in the middle east until Arafat returned and was put in charge? And then their living standard plummeted. What about all the joint Israel-Palestinian science/tech projects? The universities? The hospitals? The terrorists treated in Israeli emergency rooms? The checkpoints etc. are to prevent attacks, which you know very well. It is a further testiment to Israel's humanity that they keep lifting them and letting the fuckers back in.

I could go on, but you can find out the truth about israel as well as I can, if you want to look for it.

"A.L. regardless of what you say, Israel has used EXCESSIVE force. Now, I am not saying that we would not do the same if suicide jihadis blew themselves up in our pizza parlors. However, the facts remain."

So what would be exactly the right amount of force, oh enlightened one, who speaks from your comfy chair?
What facts remain? All the facts, please, not just the ones that allow you to make your case by ignoring the nature and frequency and severity of the attacks on Israel. And while you're at it, please compare with other democracies' uses of force against repeated terrorist attack; we wouldn't want to hold Israel to any double standards, would we?

Lili,

We've been through this before: the US administration has a long term plan to reduce or eradicate ME terrorism - removing the political dysfunction of Arab dictatorship which is the underlying cause and condition of ME terror. The plan exists, you just don't happen to think it's sound.

I've yet to see a credible argument that explains why adherents of Islam are unable to accept and participate in a democracy. Feel free to make this argument if you like. Note: simply claiming that "Islam is incompatible with democracy" is not an argument, but a bare assertion.

The fact that reforming the ME is a difficult undertaking does not prove that reforms will fail. The US administration (and anyone who put their mind to it) understood that the pace of ME reform will be slow. Moreover, it will also be vehemently opposed by those who stand to lose most under Iraqi democracy: Jihadists, former Iraqi Baathists, Iranian mullahs, Syrian fascists, Saudi tyrants. We should, therefore, expect setbacks and vicious opposition. (If I was to find fault with Coalition planners, it is perhaps not recognizing that Iran and Syria would correctly perceive Iraqi democracy as a mortal threat to their regimes.)

I feel sympathy for Iraqis that this end-game has to be played out in their country. (I can only console myself with the fact that Iraq would have remained a death camp but for liberation.) Both Islamic terror and Western democracy have bet everything on Iraq. A failure to establish democracy in Iraq would not only condemn the peoples of the region to slavery but would embolden and enable Islamic terror.

Josh:

> The reasons for the hatred are the same; a poisonous combination of envy and moral righteousnous. Show me the evidence.

The Islamic Fascists regularly lump the United States and Israel together in their rhetoric. Conspiracy theorists crank out tracts explaining how the US is run by crypto-Zionists. Even if we withdrew behind our borders and sent pious pilgrims from the State Department to Mecca to try to understand the inscrutable Arab mind, so that our policies would reflect proper respect to Islam, Israel will do what she can to survive, and we will be vilified for not helping the Arab world destroy the Zionist threat.

Here's an experiment you can try: ask a middle-eastern foreign exchange student what's wrong with American foreign policy. I guarantee you they'll launch into a two-hour lecture on Israeli abuses, with occasional references to various other obnoxious things we've done in the region. Not once will they mention Al-Andalus and the right of manifest destiny.

And ask them what's wrong with their foreign policies back home, and they will launch into a two-hour lecture about the oppression of Zion as well.

I don't understand it, and I hate speaking in such generalities, but the pattern of shifting blame for societal failure onto the Jews persists over centuries and continents. And if you read the fatwas, here in Enlightenment cultures we're all Jews or crypto-Jews.

I'm not claiming it's rational, and I do not know what the causal relationships would be. But ignoring the pattern in the name of rationality is like ignoring the bear charging you at the zoo because you know the bears are always kept in cages.

Yehudit:

The checkpoints etc. are to prevent attacks, which you know very well. It is a further testiment to Israel's humanity that they keep lifting them and letting the fuckers back in.

While I agree with those who believe Israel should get more credit for restraint than it does, I can't agree with you here. When times were more peaceful Israel became dependent on low-cost Palestinian labor. The effect of the Arafat-enabled violence has been to forcibly wean the Israeli economy from Palestinian labor. So a wall and a separation of the cultures is becoming more economically viable (to the Israelis) over time.

Has anyone here mentioned how stupid Arafat is?

'So in your mind, if they do anything less than deploy nukes, that counts as "admirable restraint?"'...Josh, you really are showing your ignorance. I said nothing about nukes, and I did suggest that you go dig up some reference materials on the destructive power of a modern military (such as Israel's). May I suggest that you check some WW II histories on how we reduced towns in the course of moving across France and Germany, or on how Germany reduced towns as they moved across Poland.

My comments stand.

A.L.

Just a small question and comment. Could someone explain to me something that Israel does to the Palestinians that the Jordan, Syrian, Saudi, or Egyptian governments dont do to their own people on a regular basis.. and Palestinians refugees in particular. Jordan killed more Palestinians in 10 days during Black September than the Israelis have killed in the entire intifadah. You wont find many entries on that at Amnesty or HRW.

Er, guys?

Jim Henley is a Libertarian.

Not a leftist.

Might be worth getting your labels right before you spit them all over your monitors.

Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department

CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.
www.theonion.com

Mark, if you have been watching and listening to the testimonies of the national security people, our legislators and members of the administration, it is very clear that they don't have a plan at all. They are shooting from the hip, like the cowboys they are. Making it up as they go along. Both, Bush I and II as well as Clinton had and still have no plan to eradicate Islamic terrorism. Heck, we don't even have Arab speakers and few people who are experts on Islam or the region. I should offer my services. I am an amateur expert on Islam and Arab culture. ;-)

The reason Islam is not compatible with democracy is because Islam cannot be separated from politics. Islam must govern— according to it tenets. Islam controls EVERY aspect of people's lives from what they think, how they behave, what they wear, how and what they pray, etc. There can not be equality, secularism or pluralism in Islam. Bigotry against ALL other peoples, but especially Jews and Christians, is written into the Qur'an.

"A failure to establish democracy in Iraq would not only condemn the peoples of the region to slavery but would embolden and enable Islamic terror."

I don't agree. First, I don't believe that there will be a democracy established in Iraq for the reasons already mentioned above as well as others such as no precedent and no people who can take the reins as well as tribal rivalry. Second, I believe that if another strong man comes in, this time it will certainly be a religious despot, and they develop into a nation that supports Islamic terror, we can still deal with that.

Securing the borders of the West and the whole civilized world for that matter, while beefing up our own security, as well as our intelligence— and going after terror funding as well as money laundering; cutting off aid to terror supporting states, etc. in MHO is a much better way to fight terror than going to war.

I don't rule out force and even targeted assassinations of known terrorist—but, only as a last resort and only with allies.

"Could someone explain to me something that Israel does to the Palestinians that the Jordan, Syrian, Saudi, or Egyptian governments dont do to their own people on a regular basis.. and Palestinians refugees in particular. Jordan killed more Palestinians in 10 days during Black September than the Israelis have killed in the entire intifadah. You wont find many entries on that at Amnesty or HRW."

It only matters if Muslims are killed by "others" don't you know, Mark. Note how the shocked Saudis are screeching about Muslims killing "innocent" Muslims. They weren't quite as outraged when the terrorists were only murdering Jews and infidels. It is "Muslim blood" that is dear to this allah don't you know! Besides, all the Arabs think they are better than the Palestinian Arabs.

"God has promised wrath, damnation, painful torture and an eternity burning in hell for he who deliberately kills a Muslim... Unjustly killing a Muslim is the gravest crime which cannot be atoned," said the kingdom's highest religious authority, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh.

I agreed with most of AL’s criticism of the Henley Manifesto with two exceptions.

First, I agree with cutting of funding for Israel (at least economic aid) and making them self-sufficient. While I think it is important to have an ally in the region that is a functioning republic (which Israel is for all its flaws), I think that we have been taken for a ride for years in having to prop up their economy as well and it is time to get a better deal.

Second, I tend to be less inclined to support blanket condemnations of the Patriot Act. For where I stand, it seems to have fixed some very bad flaws in our intelligence and law enforcement system (e.g. allowing more sharing of information, authorizing roving wiretaps in response to the reality of cloned cellular phones, etc.) and most of the surveillance issues we are supposed to be concerned about are things that law enforcement could theoretically already do and this clarified the law (or settled contested matters depending on your POV). That is not to say that I think it or any other law is above substantive and reasoned criticism but rather that I have not heard much more than vague and usually unsubstantiated charges that it somehow violated our civil liberties. IMNHO the best approach would be to (a) keep the sunset provision so that it has to be reviewed again at a future date and (b) break the law down into several bills governing different areas so that each can be debated and/or amended as need be on their own merits.

Other than that, I agree with AL for the most part.

Lili,

If you're referring to the 9/11 hearings, the questions being asked are, or properly should be: "Prior to 9/11, what was the US plan, if any, for dealing with Islamic terrorism, and why did this plan not prevent the attack?". I didn't see many "national security people" giving a detailed presentation on the US plan for democratization in Iraq as it relates to the eradication of ME terrorism. So your argument that no terrorism plan exists because none was disclosed at the 9/11 hearings is wrong.

Nevertheless, such a plan exists, and is being implemented, with greater or lesser success. The first step was liberating Iraq, followed by reconstruction, provisional authority, security, rule of law, census, local elections, constitution, general elections. We can argue about the details and efficacy of each sub-step, but to suggest that there was no plan is absurd.

Like your statement that the US has no Arab speakers, you've exaggerated and distorted reality to make your argument work, hoping that your audience won't notice. Please stop assuming that we're stupid enough to fall for this.

Re: muslims can't be democrats.

You've confused one interpretation of Islam with Islam in general, and attributed this interpretation to all Muslims. It is true that some muslims wish to force their interpretation on people and governments. It is also at least debatable that some Islamic religious writing lends itself to an interpretation which supports the inseparability of the political from the religious.

But, it is worth noting that non-Islamic religious texts have also been interpreted so as to support earthly religious rule. The early Catholic church inserted itself into politics by divine right. I'm sure you can think of other examples. The West came through this period; I have hope that Islam can do so as well. Also, many non-Islamic religious texts have an exhaustive list of detailed laws that must be followed. You will note, of course, that not only do people of such faiths disagree about the applicability and interpretation of such laws, many of the faithful simply choose not to follow them.

What you need to show is that all Muslims adhere to certain universally accepted religious tenets that are incompatible with basic precepts of democratic rule (such as freedom of religions, freedom of speech, universal suffrage, etc).

The fact that Iraqi Muslim groups have provisionally agreed to many of these precepts is a problem for you argument. Recent municipal elections in which Iraqi Muslims rejected Islamic parties who advocate non-separation of Islam and state is also a problem. So too the existence of Turkish, Kurdish and other Islamic democrats. (Remember, you didn't say some Muslims can be democrats, you said Islam is incompatible with democracy. It's too late to retreat to the weaker claim now.)

Your alternative "plan" for fighting ME terror simply treats the symptom, rather than the disease itself. You can retreat to fortress America, but eventually a terrorist will get through. And, because, under your plan, you would allow ME dictatorships to endure, it is more likely that s/he will be armed with a rogue WMD (see Jordan chemical truck bomb).

I'll take the Bush plan, troubled though it may seem.

The reason Islam is not compatible with democracy is because Islam cannot be separated from politics. Islam must govern— according to it tenets. Islam controls EVERY aspect of people's lives from what they think, how they behave, what they wear, how and what they pray, etc. There can not be equality, secularism or pluralism in Islam. Bigotry against ALL other peoples, but especially Jews and Christians, is written into the Qur'an.

Fundamental or unreformed religions are always thus. There is nothing about Judaism that makes it especially compatible with democracy, at least with regard to its sphere of influence. It is as inclusive as Islam. The same goes for Christianity, in spite of the pragmatism of the "render unto..." clause.

The late philosopher/social scientist, Ernest Gellner, felt that Islam was never able to enter the final stage of a perpetual reformation because the religious institutions themselves never developed a stable hierarchal or ecumenical structure. But in his last book Conditions of Liberty he felt that the age-old struggle between high and low Islam was finally reaching resolution, and that the ecumenical/hierachal organization of Iran presaged an end-stage to the reformation, which actually began with the fourth Caliphate.

It is difficult to say with certainty whether Gellner's conjecture is true, but as you say there are already exceptions to the notion that Islam is incompatible with democratic processes, and in view of the dismal prospects of the alternative even you would have to acknowledge that it's at least worth conducting and experimental treatment.

Wow, I'm with A.L., who the heck vetted this Henley guy to get behind a keyboard? But even in this thread it is possible to see beings in agreement with him? How bizarre is that?

Lilith: I will try to find a link for you for a discussion with Michael Ledeen at LGF where the conclusion was reached that, no, Muslims are not GENETICALLY incapable of democracy, but that they are MEMETICALLY challenged. And believe me, the psyops guys are so on this issue.

Sam: That's DR. Krauthammer to you! :-)

twisterella,

My apologies to Dr. Krauthammer; his full credentials had slipped my mind. =)

I've received four emails asking me to come out of the closet as Lilith, with URLs directing me here!

I'm flattered but I have to say out loud that I am not Lilith and Lilith is not me.

However, I agree with Lilith about 80% of the way. Here's my problem with what she is saying, and by definition with Henley's plan, to wit:

"It does mean cutting of Arabs/Muslims with the exception of the necessary trade.."

Lilith (and Jim), the moment we trade with them we are in it up to our eyeballs. It's like being a little bit pregnant. Trade is always accompanied by muscle. Trade seems peaceful but there's always a dominant and a submissive.

Lilith, you go part way but not the full way. The US trades with (and dominates) the entire world. Yet the rest of the world doesn't react with ferocious hostility towards our domination of them. The Muslim Arabs do. Discuss. Connect a few dots.

Can we all just ignore Yehudit, who manages to turn EVERY thread into something about Israel?

Scott -
After I saw the comments stating that Henley was actually considered a libertarian, I was tempted to say "Oh, maybe it is the weed then."

But my comment was really just to point out that not all naive or silly foreign-policy ideas are dope-induced. I'm sure some, even plenty of them are, but it doesn't follow that if an idea is stupid, the person suggesting it must be stoned. I also find it kind of frustrating that this sort of jibe is only leveled at really leftist/libertarian ideas, with the underlying assumption that all potheads are hippie-types. I've met too many pothead neoncons (cognitive dissonance - the guy holding the bong is also holding forth on why it is our duty to defend Israel) to make that assumption.

> Can we all just ignore Yehudit, who manages to turn EVERY thread into something about Israel?

Diana, you can disagree or disagree with Yehudit for all I care, but one think you can't rightly do is blame T. hijacking this thread into something about Israel. Yehudit's first post here, as best I can tell, was in response to Josh Yelon who in turn was responding to A.L. Why don't you whine about those guys bringing up Israel?

Sigh, because AL & Yelon were addressing the parts of Henley's Grand Strategy that addressed Israel. Yehudit's typical contribution to any thread that even tangentially involves Israel is a defense of whatever it does, no matter what. It's not terribly enlightening.

Can we move along here??

Diana,

Well, clearly we can't have folks defending Israel. I mean, if they do, and it's part of the topic of discussion, well clearly it's their fault that someone else brought it up...

...or something.

No honey, I just do not think that every discussion of the ME has to be hijacked into a discussion about Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel. Which is a defense of Israel by definition. Israel makes mistakes like any other country and there is no need to make a big fuss about it. Every bleeping time someone makes even a glancing criticism of Israel, Israel's defenders spring into action, the discussion degenerates into a pro- and anti-Israel thread, and communication collapses.

I suggest we could more fruitfully discuss the issue of trade with the Muslim ME, and whether it is possible to carry on trade with the oil-producing countries of the ME as Henley suggests.

What are your thoughts on that?

Diana,

No honey

Just as a matter of etiquette, we don't know each other in such a way that that makes sense to write.

Just as a matter of fact, I'm male.

I just do not think that every discussion of the ME has to be hijacked into a discussion about Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel. Which is a defense of Israel by definition.

Well, that's a pretty low standard, but I suppose that it does defend Israel from the absurd and racist charge that no Arab misdeed can be their own responsibility and that all responsibility for Arab misdeeds belongs to Israel.

In any case, if you believe that it was "hijacked", perhaps you should take that up with Henley, who brought up Israel, or any of the later commenters, rather than Yehudit?

I suggest we could more fruitfully discuss the issue of trade with the Muslim ME, and whether it is possible to carry on trade with the oil-producing countries of the ME as Henley suggests.

Frankly, I don't see much of a point in that discussion. You believe that trade is a zero-sum game, based on your first post on this thread, which is simply contrafactual. The fact is that trade is the reason why American consumers can now buy DVD players for less than $100 - and thus can spend more money food, housing, or whatever. And the Chinese who are producing those DVD players are more than happy to do so, since they get paid better to do that than they would working in a farm, which is why many of them have been migrating to the cities. (No, it's not America's trade hegemony which causes this.)

As long as two parties have goods upon which they place differing valuations, trade is possible and beneficial to both. A course in macroeconomics or a little bit of business experience would demonstrate this conclusively.

Having worked in Brazil, Spain, Switzerland, Japan, and Canada, as well as the US, I'm fairly comfortable asserting that people don't feel they're being exploited in "trade". I certainly didn't as I traipsed around working in these places. And the Spanish waiters at the restaurants were fine with being paid Swiss wages, as far as I could tell. My friend's father, who owns a Brazilian coffee farm, reports that his workers are happy to be eating and hardly feel exploited, given that their other option is starvation.

Ariel,

In a word: poppycock.

I happen to think that AL has refuted the most important part of Jim Henley's point, which is that we cannot go back to business as usual with the oil-producing countries of the ME.

I'm not going to feel your obsessions further.

Diana,

which is that we cannot go back to business as usual with the oil-producing countries of the ME.

I would probably agree with this.

In a word: poppycock.

Well, I can see that you want a sophisticated discussion, especially with folks who might not agree with your contrafactual POV.

"Leave Muslims to their allah and let us go on into the 21st century. There are more important things than Islam and Islamic terror."

It is because we have left the ME in the 7th century that we are having problems here in the 21st.

We a are a challenge to Islam not a model,we are seen as degenerate,we might leave them alone but they won't leave us alone.China tried for centuries to keep out the "foreign devils" to no avail.

Incidentally,just try and deport all the Muslims,the ensuing court cases would bankrupt the US.

As for unsustainable policy it worked on Germany and Japan,and believe me their military made the gangsters in the ME look like Girl Scouts.

Mark, I don't understand your point on the FACT that there is no plan. I said there was not one for Bush I, Clinton or Bush II. Bush ignored Clark's warning. That fact has been established. The scandal with the "royal" family of Saudi Arabia is still coming to light. Everyone is guilty, the whole world, particularly the West. The 9/11 terror attacks were a colossal security and intelligence failure. I wrote that just a day or so after the attacks. Certainly what has come to light in the meantime underscores that fact.

"Liberating" Iraq has created more terrorism—NOT LESS! The fly-paper" theory is BULLSHIT! There was no plan to secure Iraq. The Bushies naively dreamed that the Iraqis would welcome them with sweets and flowers one day and go back to work the next. Disbanding the army was just plain stupid. Putting Challabi et al. in charge was even more stupid. Having few people who speak Arabic and even fewer who know anything about Arab culture is really stupid. (I never said the U.S. has "no" Arab speakers.) Going to war without allies was the most stupid of all. Now the Bushies have to eat crow and beg for help.

Regarding democracy (not "democrats') and Islam. You clearly know little about Islam to assume that it can be reformed. It cannot! The Qur'an is considered the LITERAL word of allah. There are 114 surah in the Qur'an—which is immutable. The latter passages in the Qur'an abrogate the earlier, more peaceful passages that Muhammad ripped off from Judaism and Christianity. Because few took Muhammad and his "new" religion seriously he began to fight to subjugate the Arabs under Islam. Islam is very clear and does not lend itself to "interpretation." "Kill the infidel" means just that—KILL HIM! It does not mean only if you feel like it. Muslims who pick and chose their Qur'anic passages are considered apostates and are also fair game to be killed by those who follow a literal interpretation of Islam—the "true believers."

"It is also at least debatable that some Islamic religious writing lends itself to an interpretation which supports the inseparability of the political from the religious."

It is NOT debatable. Where did you get this erroneous information? Please post a source. Muhammad was very clear on this. The Qur'an cannot be changed or interpreted. It is the literal word of allah. Islam and the government are one. If you take away the very many misanthropic passages Islam is no longer Islam. (Which would probably be a good thing.)

Even Turkey does not really have a democracy. The only thing that holds secularism and some semblance of democracy in place is the military.

Both Judaism and Christianity have had a reformation. Their texts are open to interpretation. Islamic, Qur'anic texts are not. Ask any Islamic scholar.

"What you need to show is that all Muslims adhere to certain universally accepted religious tenets that are incompatible with basic precepts of democratic rule (such as freedom of religions, freedom of speech, universal suffrage, etc)."

Sure, how many passages from the Qur'an would you like me to post? The Qur'an says that Muslims are superior to the rest of us "non-believers." That non-believers must be subjugated as dhimmis and pay jizya (poll tax) or killed. Men are superior to women. Women cannot inherit equally with a man. Men can beat women and on and on. Most importantly the Qur'an MANDATES that Islam must be "supreme" in the world adn rule over all. It does not say, "go and preach the good news." It says:

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme" (8:39)

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. 009.029 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029

There are scores of passages like the above telling Muslims that they must rule the world.

Islam is NOT compatible with democracy!

"You can retreat to fortress America, but eventually a terrorist will get through. And, because, under your plan, you would allow ME dictatorships to endure, it is more likely that s/he will be armed with a rogue WMD (see Jordan chemical truck bomb)."

Will you stop already, Mark with the twisting of my postings! I have stated categorically that I don't want to isolate the U.S. I want to isolate Islamic states. As for the chemical truck in Jordan. As long as they murder each other and not the rest of the world's innocents I don't have a problem. It is my contention that you cannot force democracy on anyone, least of all tribal, Islamic cultures who have no precedent of EVER having been free.

"as you say there are already exceptions to the notion that Islam is incompatible with democratic processes, and in view of the dismal prospects of the alternative even you would have to acknowledge that it's at least worth conducting and experimental treatment."

There are no exceptions, Scott. If Turkey did not have the military guarding their sometime "democracy" they would have sharia law soon enough.

Twisterella, I agree that being exponentially, memetically challenged makes Islam a tough nut to crack. Islam is inherently nihilistic, thus, Muslims find it difficult to move themselves because everything is "allah's will."

Diana, are you my Doppelgänger? LOL ;-)

Where are your postings so I can see if we speak alike? Our identities are easy enough to differentiate with the IP numbers.

I don't agree that trade is an issue.

" Trade is always accompanied by muscle."

Of course! They NEED to sell that oil or starve. If they behave, we might sell them technology or porn. If they cut us off, they will starve before we will walk. Rising fuel prices will be the impetus to develop alternatives. Humanity is a crisis species. We don't do anything until we are forced.

I've already stated that I won't play with Yehudit until his/her posts show a bit more balance with respect to Israel. In a word—BORING! BTW—I am all for cutting off BOTH Israel and the Islamic parasites from aid monies.

"It is because we have left the ME in the 7th century that we are having problems here in the 21st."

Not at all, Peter. It is because we have interfered and supported the Islamic despots who rule the ME that we have problems here in the 21st. Let us just leave them to their own devices as they wish. With the warning, that they had better not be supporting Islamic terror or —BOOM! If the whole world cooperates this should work well. (Ay—there's the rub.)

I am not for deporting every Muslim. Only those who are a threat. Europe has started doing that wholesale. They already have detention camps all over Eastern and Western Europe—not just for Muslims but for all sorts of asylum seekers.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/aug/03deport.htm

I have a link to the deportation camps map somewhere. . .

Lili

"As for unsustainable policy it worked on Germany and Japan,and believe me their military made the gangsters in the ME look like Girl Scouts.".

(Sorry, this one slipped through.)

Not a good argument, Peter. First, Germany and Japan were utterly defeated. Iraq is not. Second, Germany had experience with democracy. Japan had been a homogeneous culture for centuries. Both were highly successful cultures. Arab/Muslim cultures have been failing for hundreds of years. Certainly since at least 1492 when the Arabs were driven out of Spain. And while there was the concept of harakiri and the kamikaze idea of honor in Japan, the culture is one that loves life. It is not written in their religious tenets that they must commit murder in the name of religion and take as many "non-believers" with them.

It took many decades and the very hard work of both the Germans and the Japanese for these to lift themselves up again. I don't believe that a Marshall type Plan will work for Iraq because the Iraqis don't seem to be willing to work themselves out of their misery. They expect the U.S. to wave a magic wand and "fix" everything. After all, we sent a man to the moon. . .

I doubt that the American people (or anyone else in the world) are willing to support this for decades.

Lili

> I doubt that the American people (or anyone else in the world) are willing to support this for decades.

And why not? It's costing us less, as a percentage of GDP, than the Cold War did, and you remember how long we kept that up, don't you?

Lilith,

Check my website for style issues. The people who emailed me have no way of checking your ISP.

Of course! They NEED to sell that oil or starve.

The problem is that we are dealing with people who don't understand that. The angry young guys in the ME who furnish the foot soldiers for terrorism will interpret any relationship that we have with their leaders as a form of domination. No matter what we do, our relationship with them, even if it is (to you and me) a rational, mutually beneficial trade relationship, TO THEM, is a form of exploitation.

Kirk,

There's no point in trying to argue with you. Just wait until 6/30 when we hand the whole mess over to the UN. Bush (and Rove) are smart and cynical enough to count votes even if the warbloggers aren't.

Lilith,

To sum up, I don't see how Jim's plan is really such a big change--the plan strikes me as going back to pre-9/11 business, that of rational economic man maximizing profit, which I do not consider feasible in a regional of religious fanaticism.

See my comments in the latest post, and my own blog.

"And why not? It's costing us less, as a percentage of GDP, than the Cold War did, and you remember how long we kept that up, don't you?"

The cold war did not produce that many bodies, except for fiascos like Vietnam, Kirk. And your remember what happened with that don't you?

Additionally, our national deficit was not so high.

Wait and see. The public won't go for it.

"The people who emailed me have no way of checking your ISP."

Of course not. However, the people who own this blog can substantiate that we are not posting from the same IP. ;-)

"There's no point in trying to argue with you. Just wait until 6/30 when we hand the whole mess over to the UN. Bush (and Rove) are smart and cynical enough to count votes even if the warbloggers aren't."

My sentiments exactly. I really don't give a fig what happens when they hand it over. That is for the Iraqis and the "brother" Muslims to figure out. I just want the rest of the world, especially the Euros and the Arabs to pay their fair share in blood and treasure. Everyone in the world has a stake in this mess. We should all share the pain and the gain—equally. ;-)

"See my comments in the latest post, and my own blog."

OK, thanks.

Lili

Lilith,

"There was no plan to secure Iraq."

I disagree: I've outlined, above (and on other threads), the theory and practice of reformative democracy and its anticipated effects on the conditions of ME terrorism. Your view of Clarke's testimony is irrelevant to the existence of a post-war Iraqi reconstruction. Condi Rice's testimony is more relevant ("I believe the President said that he was tired of swatting flies"), but not much more. Either address this issue of post-war Iraqi planning or concede the point.

Re: Islam and Democracy

Your purported knowledge and my alleged ignorance of Islam is irrelevant to the debate. Ad hominem attacks are silly.

Turning to your substantive points: There are plenty of Muslims who dispute your interpretation of Islam. They can be found here, http://www.islam-democracy.org/ and elsewhere. I note, also, that you did not address the examples I gave of Islam and democracy coexisting [aside from your assertion that "Turkey is not really a democracy because they have a strong military" (?)]. Here are some others: Yemen is trying democracy, as is Morocco (in fits and starts). Please explain how this is possible in Islamic societies.

Your selection of quotes is narrow and self-serving. You neglect to mention that Islam advises that "there is no compulsion in religion", nor do you mention the shura (the Koranic principle of consulting the people on matters of governance). I'm sure you can construct an interpretation of Islam which is hostile to democracy, but it would probably come as a shock to most Muslims that "Lilith-Islamism" is the only valid interpretation. Or is it your position that texts are not subject to interpretation?

The fact is that all textually-derived religions admit of interpretations. True, there are strict interpretionists in every religion, but there is no reason to preference their interpreations over others (unless you find their occasional destruction of police stations and school buses persuasive). Democracy has been embraced by other faiths that admit of textual interpretation: you've not demonstrated that Islam is any different.

In sum, your position requires you to demonstrate that (1) Islam is not subject to interpretation and (2) Islam (really "Lilith-Islam") is incompatible with democracy. Since (1) is untenable and I have provided examples that disprove (2), your argument fails.

Lilith and Diana,

when we hand the whole mess over

"I've outlined, above (and on other threads), the theory and practice of reformative democracy and its anticipated effects on the conditions of ME terrorism."

NO! You have not, Mark. You have not made your point a valid one. I simply don't agree.

" Your view of Clarke's testimony is irrelevant to the existence of a post-war Iraqi reconstruction."

The Congress and the people don't seem to think that Clarke's testimony is irrelevant.

" Condi Rice's testimony is more relevant ("I believe the President said that he was tired of swatting flies"), but not much more. Either address this issue of post-war Iraqi planning or concede the point. "

Condi Rice's testimony was spin! Very good spin—but, spin nonetheless. I thought