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:
Sep '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
This strategy has worked so well in the 60 or so years since the state of Israel was established. By all means, let us continue.
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
I'm not advocating that we appease governments or try to get them to like us. For example, I think supporting an Israeli military strike against nuclear facilities in Iran makes all the sense in the world; as does supporting the expansion of Israeli settlements in as many territories as their citizens are willing to colonize.
Nor am I suggesting that any option is simple or cheap. But as an end-goal, democracy without capitalism is worse than what we faced before. And capitalism without democracy is perfectly common and while often repressive and immoral -- does not threaten our domestic security.
And an American military empire is simply not feasible. We were able to reconstruct Germany and Japan because they had the necessary foundation. Nation building in this part of the world is nonsensical.
Feb '11
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Trace Urdan
Conventional warfare against conventional nation-states with lots to lose. Completely irrelevant to this example. Do you think that if we razed Benghazi, that the population of Cairo would then conclude that we mean business and they'd better not mess with Al Quaeda? ·
Uhm...Yeah.
What conclusion do you think groveling and doing nothing inspires them to draw?
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
drlorentz
Trace Urdan
The most effective thing it has done it to draw fire away from American soil.
This is a worthy goal. That's the main reason for having a military force: to protect our citizens. You would have more attacks on US soil (cf. Madrid and London bombings) instead? · 6 minutes ago
I'm not sure the American electorate is prepared to accept this as an explicit objective, but it is at least logical and viable: permanent war on the ground against Muslim extremists near their home base keeps Americans safer and less expensive that the alternative.
I suppose to some extent this actually describes the current administration's policy: Drone warfare against suspected terrorist targets regardless of location or sovereignty.
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Xennady
Trace Urdan
Conventional warfare against conventional nation-states with lots to lose. Completely irrelevant to this example. Do you think that if we razed Benghazi, that the population of Cairo would then conclude that we mean business and they'd better not mess with Al Quaeda? ·
Uhm...Yeah.
What conclusion do you think groveling and doing nothing inspires them to draw? · 1 minute ago
Right. So you think we should declare war against the government of Libya?
I'm saying that with a population with so little to lose that its celebrates its children blowing themselves up in the hope of a groovy afterlife, you have to rethink what "winning" means. There is no way the American electorate is prepared to go country by country attempting to clean up the Middle East.
Edited on September 14, 2012 at 6:57pmSep '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
In the days following the September 11th attacks, I heard Martin Kramer give a talk at the Kennedy School of Government. He said something that impressed me deeply (paraphrasing):
In case you might think the words 'hate' and 'despise' are synonymous, please note the difference:
The attacks happened because they had contempt for us, not because they didn't like us. If you don't understand this difference, you'll make poor policy choices. Mr. Obama thinks they hate us.
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
drlorentz: In the days following the September 11th attacks, I heard Martin Kramer give a talk at the Kennedy School of Government. He said something that impressed me deeply (paraphrasing):
In case you might think the words 'hate' and 'despise' are synonymous, please note the difference:
The attacks happened because they had contemptfor us, not because they didn't like us. If you don't understand this difference, you'll make poor policy choices. Mr. Obama thinks they hate us. · 3 minutes ago
I don't disagree one bit. But self-interest always trumps contempt.
You have to have an achievable goal.
We spent over a trillion dollars trying to make them fear us. It hasn't worked. So, what's next? It should cost us half-a-billion per country (maybe more for Egypt.) Is that really the right approach?
Jun '12
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Trace Urdan
ConservativeWanderer
It worked well enough with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
The problem is, our Political Class doesn't have the guts to do it any more. · 7 minutes ago
Conventional warfare against conventional nation-states with lots to lose. Completely irrelevant to this example. Do you think that if we razed Benghazi, that the population of Cairo would then conclude that we mean business and they'd better not mess with Al Quaeda? · 22 minutes ago
If they don't, then we raze Cairo.
After Italy was conquered, Germany could have come to her senses. She didn't, so we conquered her.
After Germany was conquered, Japan could have surrendered. She didn't, so we conquered her.
Jun '12
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
And just what nations are you using as an example of capitalism without democracy or the rule of law? Let's take a good hard look at your examples and how much "capitalism" actually exists without democracy.
Feb '11
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
"Because there is simply no amount of force for which we would ever have the stomach that could effectively cow this mob."
Then it's time for new leadership. Back when the US wasn't the brokest nation in history we had such leadership. We can again.
"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..."
Hogwash. What you suggest is that Americans be forced to labor in order that the mob in the middle east will become so prosperous that they will forget to be murderous. In other words we will be enslaved lest we be killed. You advocate surrender. No thanks.
"I fear that large American cities will increasingly have to resemble Tel Aviv."
I have another option, that somehow escapes the political class: Seal the US border, and stop admitting large numbers of potentially hostile foreigners.
Crazy, but it just might prevent American cities from looking like they are besieged. Once upon a time that sort of thing was a high priority for the US government, now it isn't.
That needs to change. Now.
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Their strength is, presumably, in their numbers. Probably 3,000 years ago, a man from the same general region wrote, in Proverbs 14:28, "A large population is a king’s glory but without subjects a prince is ruined."
Our strength, in this situation, lies in our ability to make a city a wasteland devoid of population. If that is the only message they understand -- and I suspect it is -- and if our leaders refuse to send that message, for whatever reason, then we are doomed.
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
ConservativeWanderer
Trace Urdan
ConservativeWanderer
It worked well enough with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
The problem is, our Political Class doesn't have the guts to do it any more. · 7 minutes ago
Conventional warfare against conventional nation-states with lots to lose. Completely irrelevant to this example. Do you think that if we razed Benghazi, that the population of Cairo would then conclude that we mean business and they'd better not mess with Al Quaeda? · 22 minutes ago
If they don't, then we raze Cairo.
After Italy was conquered, Germany could have come to her senses. She didn't, so we conquered her.
After Germany was conquered, Japan could have surrendered. She didn't, so we conquered her. · 1 minute ago
Wow. OK points for consistency. It's a cogent plan with a defined goal. Double down.
Jun '12
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
drlorentz: In the days following the September 11th attacks, I heard Martin Kramer give a talk at the Kennedy School of Government. He said something that impressed me deeply (paraphrasing):
In case you might think the words 'hate' and 'despise' are synonymous, please note the difference:
The attacks happened because they had contemptfor us, not because they didn't like us. If you don't understand this difference, you'll make poor policy choices. Mr. Obama thinks they hate us. · 13 minutes ago
Very good point.
Sep '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Trace Urdan
I don't disagree one bit. But self-interest always trumps contempt.
You have to have an achievable goal.
We spent over a trillion dollars trying to make them fear us. It hasn't worked. So, what's next? It should cost us half-a-billion per country (maybe more for Egypt.) Is that really the right approach?
I agree we need clear and attainable (albeit difficult) goals. It's not clear to me that we have not created some fear. More important, we may have earned some grudging respect. Perhaps drone strikes are part of the puzzle, perhaps the killing of bin Laden was part of it. It's hard to know which parts work and which do not.
John Wanamaker supposedly once said,
This was not an argument against advertising.
Jun '12
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Trace Urdan
ConservativeWanderer
If they don't, then we raze Cairo.
After Italy was conquered, Germany could have come to her senses. She didn't, so we conquered her.
After Germany was conquered, Japan could have surrendered. She didn't, so we conquered her. · 1 minute ago
Wow. OK points for consistency. It's a cogent plan with a defined goal. Double down. · 0 minutes ago
And you're not refuting it.
What you're doing, in essence, is saying, "here's a cookie, please don't hurt us again."
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
ConservativeWanderer
And just what nations are you using as an example of capitalism without democracy or the rule of law? Let's take a good hard look at your examples and how much "capitalism" actually exists without democracy. · 5 minutes ago
I said without democracy, not without the rule of law. I grant your point that you can't have capitalism without order. And I will stipulate that I am using an expansive term here. My point is simply that until and unless the population is concerned with protecting its own material wealth, it will all too readily tolerate extremism.
Dubai and China are my most ready examples.
My other point was to call your bluff on the sabre rattling, but you have absolutely answered that one definitively. I just wonder how many share your conviction to the same (ultimate) extent.
Feb '11
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Trace Urdan
Right. So you think we should declare war against the government of Libya?
There is no point declaring war against something that doesn't effectively exist.
I think we should send enough troops into the Benghazi area to hunt down and kill anyone involved in the murder of the ambassador- and make real sure the folks in the area fear involvement in any similar scheme. Yes, I know some of them would die.
Trace Urdan
I'm saying that with a population with so little to lose that its celebrates its children blowing themselves up in the hope of a groovy afterlife, you have to rethink what "winning" means.
I don't care about the poor pitiful population and their willingness to kill their children.
I'm interested in keeping American children safe. You seem to have given up on that.
And to me "winning" means I don't have to worry about murderous foreigners killing Americans with the quite realistic hope that the gutless people running the United States will grovel and give in to their demands.
That's not "winning". That's "surrender".
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Trace Urdan
ConservativeWanderer
It worked well enough with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
The problem is, our Political Class doesn't have the guts to do it any more. · 7 minutes ago
Conventional warfare against conventional nation-states with lots to lose. Completely irrelevant to this example. Do you think that if we razed Benghazi, that the population of Cairo would then conclude that we mean business and they'd better not mess with Al Quaeda? · 31 minutes ago
I think that if the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia saw the sand of Cairo turned to glass, uninhabitable for 20 or 30 years and a million citizens/minions vaporized, THEY would decide that exporting Wahabbism and terrorism might be a bad idea for THEIR long term best interests. The population of Cairo wouldn't be thinking much of anything.
May '10
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
ConservativeWanderer
And you're not refuting it.
What you're doing, in essence, is saying, "here's a cookie, please don't hurt us again." · 4 minutes ago
No I'm not refuting it. Your are saying basically let's keep making more Iraqs until we feel safe. I can't say that wouldn't work, only that its not feasible as foreign policy.
And I don't think I'm advocating something as foolish as throwing money at the problem. I'm just suggesting that the only way to squash terrorism is with prosperity.
And so I'm asking, how -- if at all -- do we attempt to achieve that more permanent solution when, as you rightly note, the population despises us.
I miss Claire and Judith.
Jun '12
Re: To Those Who Demand A Tougher Stance Toward the Egyptian Mob
Trace Urdan
ConservativeWanderer
And just what nations are you using as an example of capitalism without democracy or the rule of law? · 5 minutes ago
I said without democracy, not without the rule of law. I grant your point that you can't have capitalism without order. And I will stipulate that I am using an expansive term here. My point is simply that until and unless the population is concerned with protecting its own material wealth, it will all too readily tolerate extremism.
Dubai and China are my most ready examples. · 1 minute ago
Dubai is not an independent country, it is part of the United Arab Emirates. The UAE is a republic, similar to the US, except that the President is elected by the rulers of the emirates... in the US, this would be as if the President was elected by the Governors of the States. Therefore, it can be considered a democracy. Your first example falls flat.
And China? CHINA is your second example? Good God, man, how much real capitalism do you think happens in China? Read this and be educated, sir.