Aggressive Military Policy in the Middle East Encourages the Growth of Terrorist Groups.
Losstarot said 11/14, 01:39 AM
We've heard a lot of rhetoric about how the War on Terror is unlike any war we've ever fought before. This is true, but I don't think that our policy makers are making the appropriate adjustments, inasmuch that preemptive war is not such a great idea.
Consider every other war America has ever fought. They have all been fights against a defined nation's (or defined nations') populous. Most notably, there have been a finite number of troops. That is the difference here: we aren't fighting a nation, we are fighting an ideology. Radical Islam (and it is a fight against radical Islam, not terrorism; terrorism is a tactic) has a potentially infinite number of recruits, and how easily they recruit has a direct correlation to how arrogant and aggressive America appears to be.
Note the words I use. I don't say how arrogant and aggressive we ARE, I say how arrogant and aggressive we SEEM to be. This is important. Even if we have the best of intentions (and we do), we have to look at it from the other perspective, whether it's factually accurate or not. If we SEEM to be evil occupying conquerers, then we will be treated as such.
edwards 08 said 11/14, 10:15 AM
The entire basis of terrorism is of intimidation and fear. If we let them know we are intimidated, then they will only sense our vulnerability and increase the strength of their attacks. They will only get more recruits if the recruits are convinced that they are safe and giving their lives away to a worthy cause. If force is met with force when one is trying to suppress an inferior power, it has always led to success. It doesn't matter what the press says at the time, if we appease violence instead of dealing with it, we'll find ourselves with the same predicament that Neville Chamberlain had with his disastrous policy of appeasement in the 1930s.
There should be little sympathy for these people, as they are not following a campaign of non-violence. They believe, by a loose intrepretation of the Koran, that they have the right to kill, a sin normally forbidden in Islam. We are fighting an ideology similar to the kamkikaze one in the Second World War vs. Japan. Using an atomic bomb in such force was doubted as a legitimate method then, but now Truman is lauded for this decision. It is not about what the press thinks at the time of a decison, but whether the decision leads to peace
Losstarot said 11/14, 08:52 PM
You're misrepresenting my argument. I did not argue that we should "appease". My point is that unlike the Germans, Koreans, Japanese, or even Vietnamese, we aren't fighting a nation state. Terrorist groups don't get many new recruits from the USA adapting a more benevolent, diplomatic policy. They get more from what we're doing now.
The answer here is to focus on diplomacy with legitimate governments and very specific, small scale military intervention against specific groups (like the Taliban, for example). Precision is the key with military work in this case. As it stands, we're swinging in broad strokes, and it's hurting us more than it's helping us.
Consider the nature of suicide bombing. It's the action of someone who has less military power and enough confidence in their purpose that they are willing to die for it. This is not a practice that will be staved off by big, fat military action. Do you really think that a suicide bomber will be deterred by a huge military presence in the area? What,are they going to say "Wow, I was going to blow myself up in that restaurant, but since the Americans have such big guns, I think I better not"?
Precision and benevolence.
edwards 08 said 11/14, 10:52 PM
If you really thought I was misrepresenting your argument, that is my mistake. I brought the idea of the kamikaze as a fact that we were fighting an ideology back then. There is no denying that any other country would have given up long before Japan did in that war if not for their code of bushido. Germany had long since surrendered.It was that ideology that was driving them and fighting the war for them, so to speak. Ideology will always survive unless it is crushed. If one were to just let it die out, it would simply resurface.
Contrary to what you might believe, suicide bombers are actually conflicted people. You'd find very few of them who have not been pressured into the situation they are in. Especially in a religion such as Islam, where the Koran explicitly condemns suicide, many of them have conflicted ideas before they "pull the plug." Speaking of precision, having more troop power in the right places will drag these people to the "right side" and maybe think twice about their decisions. Contrary to what you may believe, suicide bombers are some tragically misunderstood sub-humans. They are real people, and therefore have obtained the power of reason, amazingly enough.
Losstarot said 11/14, 11:25 PM
Let me be more specific: we are fighting ideology without boundary. This is different from kamikazes because that was limited to the Japanese. This is key, because since radical Islam knows no national boundaries, they have a potentially limitless number of soldiers. That's why this is a different conflict than anything we've ever faced.
Meanwhile, I don't mean to say that suicide bombers are mindless drones. I completely agree that they are real people with hefty moral decisions. That's part of why I think as I do. When reasonable, conflicted people are driven to such extremes, we must examine the cause. They perceive us to be so unrelentingly evil that they are willing to go to such extremes. We may not actually be that way, but we look that way to their leadership.
Let me then pose this question: Given this, would a more or less prominent broad American military presence in the region make us appear to be the arrogant warmongers that the radical leadership claims we are? Are we not better off demonstrating to those who would have their minds swayed that it is obviously not so, thereby taking away the strongest recruitment tool the radicals possess?
edwards 08 said 11/15, 09:54 AM
There is a limit of Islam. Non-Muslims are extremely opposed to these "radical soldiers," and there are many Muslim moderates who do not speak out against the radicals because of fear. Military strength against the radicals would encourage these moderates to become a better representative of what the religion of Islam really is. This would encourage fewer people to become radical Muslims, and thus deplete the forces of this "army." More people join radical Islam because of their own intimidation. This ideology, a relatively new development exists because of intimidation. It is an unnecessary use of aggressive force and brutality that should be met with an equal force.
Though it may be not fun to be criticized in the media and the court of public opinion, it is more important to do what is right and what will quell violence than what seems nice and good. As we concede more land to organizations like Hamas, they will believe they can only get more and there is no limit to what they want. If we let them know that what they do is okay, it will only encourage them to do more. They will fight for their ideology whether we use force or not, so we might as well let them know how we feel
Comments
Add Your Comment
Yes your point is very true, if one is to look at where most terrorist cells originate, one will find that they hail from economically downtrodden nations. Yet the use of force by this nation in the Middle East is certainly not helping the matter. Our percieved occupation of nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan (both economically destitute nations) adds the other key ingredient necessary for the formation of terror cells, a target. Radical Islamists exploit young men from economically destitute areas and give to them a warped and negative view of the United States(or Israel). If the United States were not in the Middle East right now the anti-americanism of the region would be much les acute, as it is being inflamed by a small group of radical islamists who are preying on the economic destitution of the middle east and are warping the image of the United States to portray us as occupiers. If we were not in the Middle East, the anti-amercan sentiments would not be so acute.
gswitzerland | 11/15/07
Report Offensive Comment
gswitz - You're right: If we were not in the middle east, many of its population would not resent us so much. But that's not to say that we should not be there. Islamofascists resent us for our liberty, not because we are protecting our interests with our presence. Their goal is to force the US to accept Islamic rule. We did not force the Islamofascist attacks on the WTC in '93, or the attack on the USS Cole, or the attack on our embassy, or the 9/11 attacks. Since we have responded vigorously to the 9/11 attacks, however, we have not yet had one such attack on our soil. If those who attack us are downtrodden, it is not our fault that they are. They should lift themselves up; bring their culture into the 21st century. We would welcome a democratic, free, and open middle east.
swdowning | 12/05/07
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Jay Redd, I agree with your point that the major tool for terrorist recruitment is the desperation of the oppressed and poverty stricken. Yet there is one crucial element of the equation that most people don't consider. America is not judged solely on our military or our foreign policy. We are also judged on our economic foreign policy. And it is the case that our corporations take advantage of the natural and labor resources of third world nations. Sometimes it benefits these nations but many times it is to their detriment. The bottom line for a corporation is to make money, not build economies or increase the quality of life for their workers. The same exploitation occurred in our own nation as recently as the 20th century (and I would argue still occurs to some degree with companies like Wal-Mart). But it is the corporate face that these desperate people see, not the average people of our nation, nor the valor of our soldiers. So, if these desperate people's view of us is formed by the exploitive corporate machine and the occupation of our military, I can see how they are swayed by Islamo-fascist propaganda. Let us not forget, it was a similar situation lead to Hitler's before WWII.
politicalartist | 02/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
If our foreign policy was to our benefit but for the fact that it generates terrorists then it would behoove us to steam forward with that policy and put out a meatgrinder to catch all the terrorists. Eventually they would run out of population. The assertion is only half true. Our policies do not exactly generate terrorists. Fanatical belief systems generate terrorists. Except for the Taliban. We generated the Taliban. They have now served their purpose. We should now recycle them in the nearest Island prison. Oh wait. We do.
FLIPSIDE | 02/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
Al Qaeda was created to topple the Saudi monarchy (The near enemy) which it despises as oppressive and corrupt. When they realized they can't topple the Saudi monarchy without getting rid of its main intelligence, military and economic supporter (The United States / The Far Enemy), the focus shifted to us. US policies undoubtedly are the reason we were attacked on 9/11, bin Laden has even stated so himself, pointing out that if al Qaeda hated freedom and democracy then, "Why didn't we [al Qaeda] attack Sweden?" That all said, al Qaeda is absolutely terrible for the world and especially Muslims. They do recruit from the poorest and least educated areas of the Muslim world because those people are the easiest to mold since they can't even read, much less critically analyze Islamic jurisprudence. The best way to fight al Qaeda is through ideas, not bullets or tomahawk missiles, because that reinforces the al Qaeda teaching that the US seeks to oppress true Muslims and eventually kill them... It's a self fulfilling prophecy. Ironically, the reason our government is forced to take such drastic action against terrorist actions is because we're a democracy. Leaders need to appear to be doing something or else they don't get re-elected.
MarkW2525 | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
This war is not a totally different war for everyone britain has fought this type of war b4 look at northern ireland and malaya. This types of war take time that is wot people dont understand and you dont have to throw alot of troops into the country you must win over the heart and minds of the local people then get them to fight back the terriosts
Terminator | 06/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
Don't you open your eyes? The surge is working! Violence is down 70-90%. The Iraqi's are taking over more and more of their territory. Reconciliation within Iraq is happening. Al Qaeda is being kicked out of one location after another. Iranian influenced gangs are being taken on and reduced not by US forces alone but primarily by Iraqis. By having a government in Iraq that has gone from attempting to kill our president and supporting terrorists to becoming a friend of the US we will be greatly reducing the number of terrorists in the long run. All of this couldn't have happened without sufficient force to protect and support the local population. Obama predicted the surge of additional troops would increase the violence and make things worse. Less than one year later he couldn't have been more wrong. A clear example of his poor judgement.
Dave in LV | 06/27/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Pakistan's Vulnerable Northwest Passage
Armed militant groups push into Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province and its principal city, Peshawar, threatening the stability of a key transit point in the American effort to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan
(Mohammad Sajjad / AP)
Mark Twain: Portraits
The celebrated author and humorist was feted in photographs his entire career
(Bettmann / Corbis)
Sadly, Losstarot makes the same common error of many in our nation. He claims that "the strongest recruitment tool the radicals possess" is that we "appear to be ... arrogant warmongers." That is incorrect. Anyone who has ever been to the Middle East can tell you (so don't just take my word for it), the best recruitment tool the so-called radicals employ is hopelessness breed from poverty and oppression. Poverty is extreme throughout the Middle East. Despite the fact that many of the countries have considerable GDPs and per capita GDPs, median household income is a joke. Unemployment is epidemic, especially among the 15-25 year old segment of the population. And don't think this is by chance; this is done by design. Tyrants and terrorists alike prey off the common doubts and fears that life is bad and can never be good. Like European peasants during the Middle Ages, who were gladly willing to march to slaughter, or to be slaughtered, as long as they had the promise of a better next life, so to our current foes are willing to end their own suffering in displays that they are promised will assure their families better lives here and now, and them better lives in the here after. Once again, the enemy of Freedom is not the ideology in and of itself; it is the Tyranny that breeds that ideology. As such, the stronger the military pressence we have in that region, the better, as long as it is a pressence that brings with it hope for better tomorrows (like in Germany when, after having conquered the country by bombing cities to the ground, we started dropping candy during our fly-overs). And yes, so I'm not mistaken, I did in fact just say that, from my experience with that region, I think we could best fight this war with chocolate bars.
Jay Redd | 11/15/07
Report Offensive Comment