To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Here's the thing.
We just spent half a trillion dollars and over 2,000 American lives trying to clear Afghanistan and prevent it from serving as a safe haven for terrorists. And it's far from clear whether we will have succeeded for any meaningful length of time.
We actually invaded Iraq at a much higher cost in both blood and treasure, and while that country has a somewhat more stable government, it seems perfectly clear that this big, expensive lesson in American resolve and strength sunk in not one bit to the average anti-American Middle Easterner.
Now, thanks to the Arab spring and whatever part we played in that, we have unstable democracies sprouting up throughout the region, and if Benghazi is any example, each one of them offers a potential safe haven to terrorists.
So we can fault the president for not showing sufficient resolve and not being tough enough, but this is not the world of Ronald Reagan where tough talk and a big stick could cow the leaders of the Soviet Union. There is no peace through strength strategy that makes any sense for this threat. Because there is simply no amount of force for which we would ever have the stomach that could effectively cow this mob.
And let's be honest with ourselves. Even if the United States had stood behind Mubarak, his government would never have lasted for any meaningful length of time -- certainly not beyond his own death. The strong man era of Middle Eastern politics is imploding, with or without our blessing, so to fault the president for being responsible for that is foolish.
Our best hope is not to mentor these countries in democracy, charm them with our cultural sensitivity, or to frighten them with our military might, but to persuade them through capitalism. The only thing that will reduce the long term security risk emanating from this part of the world is a general improvement in their standard of living so that they actually have something to lose from inviting and encouraging zealous chaos. A middle class, Middle East will not harbor terrorists or condone suicide bombings for fear of discouraging Trader Joe's or IKEA from coming to town.
So I would like to hear someone speak of that reality in cogent tones.
Until then, for all our indignation over lines in airports, I fear that large American cities will increasingly have to resemble Tel Aviv.
- Comment (173)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (13)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Trace Urdan
There are far more middle class Muslims living in the West that have reconciled their religion to capitalism than there are Muslims in the West advocating for Sharia law. · 1 hour ago
But there is a regrettably large supply of the latter.
Aug '12
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Dad of Four: I am willing to bet that none of the people involved in the actual attacking were the dis-affected rich. And, that a huge majority of the attackers live day to day and have no hopes for amything better for their children. · 12 minutes ago
Edited 11 minutes ago
The terrorists heavily involved in planning and executing 9/11 and the bombings in England were all middle to upper class people who had lived years in their host countries.
Would we see fewer radicals if the Middle East had democracy and free markets etc? Probably but I don't think enough of an effect. Part of the problem is one of economics and freedom but there is also a cultural aspect that we can't really solve.
Sep '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Mendel
Some strong similarities, some glaring distinctions. I don't know that Germany is very useful as a model. · 51 minutes ago
Agreed, the point being that Mr Urdan is making the sweeping argument that capitalist countries won't be a danger. There are counterexamples. The argument is too broad and simplistic.
Nov '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Tel Aviv was the easiest airport security I've ever gone through. Really. Now, I went through early in the morning, like 8am or something (the sun was up), but I expected something different. Of course, they don't screw around there.
Dec '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Yes, they only fund the jihadis from afar instead of housing them in their swank sky scrapers.
Sep '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Only a fool, a dupe or a knave wouldn't expect what happened after this comment at the Democratic National Convention:
"Ask Bin Laden if he's better off than he was four years ago."
The Obama administration got a 3 am phone call and it went straight to voicemail. Military personnel at US embassies aren't allowed to carry live ammunition? Intelligence services warning for weeks? Canada cutting off diplomatic ties with Iran in advance of the attacks? Netanyahu unable to get a meeting with the White House?
Don't drop your gloves and then complain about getting hit while you're staring at the ring girls in Las Vegas.
You're not dealing with a religion; you're dealing with an ideology. The Closing of the Muslim Mind is an excellent place to start.
Edited on September 14, 2012 at 10:16pmSep '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Review of The Closing of the Muslim Mind in Asia Times Online.
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
It might be helpful to consider the impact 9/11 had on the ME. OBL upset the status quo in the Muslim World, sending it into a tailspin that eventually and inevitably created the Arab Spring. Throughout the ME, dictators would be challenged and deposed, creating instability and chaos. Religious leaders would foment anger toward the "Great Satan," attempting to distract the masses from sectarian infighting. Iraq was an example, "a roadmap to peace," to demonstrate to the Muslim world that rule of law works. Afghanistan was a response to an attack on our soil. Both were the right and inevitable responses. No, things are not sunshine and roses, but we have made an important footprint in the region that should remain in some form. Under Bush, our entrance into OIF/OEF had an important objective - We knew the ME was going to hell, and we'd give them two options: enough rope to hang themselves (Arab Spring) or enough rope to pull themselves out. Their choice. Obama has dropped the rope. Going forward, we make clear that our rules of engagement with regard to embassies and consulates call for deadly force if threatened. Secondly, we pick up the rope.
Nov '11
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Sounds original . . . but is actually old, tried and untrue.
It used to be called "constructive engagement."
Something similar, given time, might have worked with the Shah, if Carter hadn't undercut him, or with Mubarek, if Obama hadn't doublecrossed him, or even with Gaddafi, if Hillary hadn't reneged on him.
It did work with South Africa, and might still work with PRC or even DPRK.
But constructive engagement will never work with Islamic theocrats. Unlike communists, who live in a decidedly material world, Islamists do not live in a material world.
It hasn't worked with Iran. Ask Europe and Russia. And it won't work with the Moo Slim Bros., Inc., because that's not just some Fat Free Frozen Yogurt company looking for a good trade deal.
An alternative to constructive engagement:
Constructive Disengagement.
Cut all interaction with Muslim regimes. Let them stew in their own putrid juices for a couple of decades.
Internal reform (englightenment!) will dawn upon Islam only after muslims have been left alone so long that they have no choice but to admit they have no one to blame for their misery except themselves.
Mar '12
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Capitalism and Islam are incompatible. Capitalism requires rule of law and freedom of speech. Islam allows neither. Sharia allows neither.
Dar Al Islam only respects "the strong horse".
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
A few additional points: My notion is not so simplistic as to sell hamburgers to the masses and all will be well. It is simply that one necessary ingredient to long-term security must be to raise the standard of living in these countries.
This does not mean that capitalistic societies cannot also be aggressors, but they become more rational adversaries.
And I am surely aware that wealthy Muslims fund jihad, but jihad finds root only because the masses are so miserable. Wealthy leaders depend on abject followers.
I cannot judge Islam and have no interest in trying, but surely concluding that the entire society is beyond redemption makes anything other than pure isolationism unworkable.
I am persuaded that a marginally more aggressive stance can yield marginally more positive results, but can't help feeling discouraged that regardless of who is president things are going to get worse for us in the years ahead.
I do think that it might make some sense for Romney to offer a policy speech on Middle East policy to better articulate how his approach would set a different tone and hopefully yield better results.
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Astonishing
An alternative to constructive engagement:
ConstructiveDisengagement.
Cutallinteraction with Muslim regimes. Let them stew in their own putrid juices for a couple of decades.
Internal reform (englightenment!) will dawn upon Islam only after muslims have been left alone so long that they have no choice but to admit they have no one to blame for their misery except themselves. · 1 minute ago
Do you think this approach could actually be sold to voters? And how do you maintain enough intelligence to anticipate threats and respond to threats if you are not dealing with/subsidizing these regimes?
Apr '12
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Trace Urdan:
And I am surely aware that wealthy Muslims fund jihad, but jihad finds root only because the masses are so miserable.
As long as Americans think like this, there is no hope of dealing with Muslims. Material poverty, by American standards of what is poverty, is not of itself the cause of Jihad.
You must be an atheist, Trace, because it sounds as if you don't understand the power of religious belief. It was not materially miserable lives that motivated the rich Muslims who drove those planes into the Twin Towers. It was deep faith in Allah and Muhammad. It was belief in Paradise with its gardens through which run streams of running water, where, sitting in brocade robes and on brocade couches, eating fruits and drinking wine that won't intoxicate, the martyrs will be waited on by those virgins they have been promised.
Faith is belief in things not seen and not proven. It is unbelievably strong and hard to change.
Jun '12
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Red Feline
You must be an atheist, Trace, because it sounds as if you don't understand the power of religious belief. It was not materially miserable lives that motivated the rich Muslims who drove those planes into the Twin Towers. It was deep faith in Allah and Muhammad. It was belief in Paradise with its gardens through which run streams of running water, where, sitting in brocade robes and on brocade couches, eating fruits and drinking wine that won't intoxicate, the martyrs will be waited on by those virgins they have been promised.
Faith is belief in things not seen and not proven. It is unbelievably strong and hard to change. · 25 minutes ago
If memory serves, he said earlier that he's agnostic.
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
R. Craigen: snip
Switzerland is a brilliant example of this. Everyone, I gather, is aware that they are by, comparative standards on national scale, "armed to the teeth"? Yet they remain neutral internationally and have not engaged in conflicts for a remarkable length of time, even weathering both WW's because it was simply not worth the sacrifice of blood and resources to try to win that prize.
Switzerland is, in my opinion, a very poor example. They are, to be sure, armed to the teeth. Every man has an automatic rifle. People assigned as machinegun teams each have a part of the weapon. But Switzerland is an extremely mountainous country. The highways accessing the interior are pre-mined with explosives. And they can defend themselves from anyone foolish enough to try. I happened to be driving in Switzerland on a "guard duty weekend", and seeing deuce-and-a-halfs dropping armed soldiers at every block is impressive. But they pose no significant offensive threat to anyone. They simply do not have a big stick unless you are foolish enough to send tanks into steep mountain terrain.
That example doesn't apply anywhere else in the world.
Nov '11
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Trace Urdan is 100% right in his premise, by the way. Exporting capitalism is the way to peace. If people have the choice of blowing each other up or trading with one another for mutual benefit, they'll choose the latter.
The solution for a lot of you is more violence. We've tried violence. We've tried violence for generations, centuries, millenia. It doesn't work.
We've tried the other thing too, freedom. It works a lot better than violence.
There are two ways for human beings to deal with one another: By choice or by force. The former is always superior to the latter.
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Fred Cole: A lot of you are remarkably blood thirsty. Raze Cairo? Cairo is a city of 17,000,000 people. Are you kidding me?
No. We're a civilized people. We don't do that any more.
Fred, you are correct. And that is why we are doomed. When strength is the lingua franca and the strong man refuses to speak he will be bullied just like the weak man.
Many years ago Isoroku Yamamoto worried, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant." Does anyone in the world worry about that today?
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Astonishing
Sounds original . . . but is actually old, tried anduntrue.
It used to be called "constructive engagement."
...
But constructive engagement willneverwork with Islamic theocrats. Unlike communists, who live in a decidedly material world, Islamists do not live in a material world.
...
An alternative to constructive engagement:
ConstructiveDisengagement.
Cutallinteraction with Muslim regimes. Let them stew in their own putrid juices for a couple of decades.
Internal reform (englightenment!) will dawn upon Islam only after muslims have been left alone so long that they have no choice but to admit they have no one to blame for their misery except themselves.
I prefer DEstructive Disengagement. Along the lines of "an eye for an eye" except in a manner to make clear that we can hurt them worse than they can hurt us. Then, carry on as above. That is the language they understand. It is, therefore, the language we must speak to them if we want to achieve our objective of a peaceful and stable ME.
Aug '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Trace Urdan
I mean to say that Iraq is a failure as a deterrent. I am granting that replicating Iraq across the Middle East could be effective. Just really expensive, and really unpopular. · 5 hours ago
Tell that to Qaddafi - as I recall he gave up his WMD program based on the invasion of Iraq after being caught red-handed. The problem is that the current administration repudiated that deterrent - first by decrying the invasion of Iraq and then by bombing Qaddaffi anyway - thereby telling then next guy (ahem Iran) that it doesn't matter if they give up their program.
Aug '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Pseudodionysius
Only a fool, a dupe or a knave wouldn't expect what happened after this comment at the Democratic National Convention:
"Ask Bin Laden if he's better off than he was four years ago."
That is the only thing on which Bin Laden and I could agree - we are both worse off, only he more so.