Muslim threat to our way of life

[BaneOfTheBeast]

 

[grasshopper]

James Kurth's Strategy For Defeating Radical Islam

If I ever teach a class, I'm going to do it the way that Swarthmore Professor James Kurth does. He outlines every class on the chalkboard beforehand, and then goes through each section in-depth. He is a dynamic lecturer - indeed only former UVA Dean Bob Scott stacks up to him among professors I've had - who isn't afraid to yell to get his point across. And he loves to get students arguing and yelling at each other to bring out the different arguments at stake. In other words, he did the 2 most important things a professor can do: he actually taught us stuff, and he made it interesting. And perhaps most impressively, he's the only professor I've ever had that actually used Bakke's famed student diversity to actually further serious educational objectives, as opposed to just being a Supreme Court derived pretense to engage in racial preferences. My favorite example was when he had a friend of mine explain what her life was like in war torn Sierra Leone hiding out in her home as roving bands of maniacs massacred her town.

His political views are also interesting. He's the only Swarthmore professor I'm aware of who's ever voted Republican. But the current administration has completely alienated him because he's an isolationist. On the other hand, Kurth is well aware of the serious threat the radical Islam, terrorism and the nuclear bomb pose. He just disagrees with the Administration's notion that democracy is the solution to this mess - in Kurth's view democracy is just an utterly new and bizarre construction that has no foundation in local reality.

Instead, Kurth's solution is basically the same as French Cardinal Richelieu's was in the 30 Years War in the early 17th century. Richelieu presciently knew that the largest strategic imperative of France was to keep Germany weak and disunited, so he instigated and propogated a bloody, internecine, and ultimately worthless civil war amongst the various German principalities and neighboring companies. The result was that Germany remained weak and disunited until Bismark, and France reigned supreme as the pre-eminent continential European power for two more centuries than it would have otherwise.

Likewise, Kurth views the Islamic world as a foe that cannot be tamed or solved through constructive means. Ideally we'd like the Islamic world to rid itself of terrorism, nuclear weapons, and Medieval religious convictions, and instead devote itself to liberal ideals and getting rich. But hard as we try, this isn't going to happen. Instead, our best bet is to make sure that America isn't a target of this craziness. And Kurth argues that our best means towards this end is to basically do what the Richelieu did to Germany and Britain did all over the world to establish its empire - exploit intra-Islamic tensions and rivalries to make sure that they fight each other, and not us. The most obvious tension is the Shiite / Sunni rivalry, which only goes back about 1300 years.

The easiest application of this concept is Iraq. As Kurth notes, the Sunnis are erupting because they're worried about losing their long-held strangehold over Iraq, and that the other ethnic groups that they'd long persecuted will massacre them. In Kurth's view, there's not a heck of a lot we can do about this, so why not withdraw our American forces from Iraq, and let the groups battle it out? America will stop being the target of this insanity, and the Muslim world will turn on itself. The same goes with the Iranian bomb. When (not if) Iran gets nuclear weapons, our goal should be to ensure that these weapons are most likely directed at neighboring Sunni Pakistan, rather than us. Encouraging this Sunni/Shiite rivalry may help accomplish this end. Either which way, Kurth wants America to get the hell out of the entire region. Given 3 new nuclear states, insane religious beliefs, and preposterous, arrogant, and belligerant regional beliefs in re-establishing an Islamic caliphate over the Muslim world, America's best bet is to say our goodbyes, and just try to make sure this craziness doesn't engulf us.

I'm torn on the Kurth solution. On the one hand, I agree with Kurth that attempting to impose democracy throughout the Middle East isn't going to work, though we disagree on why. For Kurth democracy is a Western social construction, while I think democracy is a universal impulse, but its dependent on a universal set of pre-conditions. Democracy only works once you have a plurocratic, wealthy society, and oil will prevent the necessary proliferation of different power centers throughout Islamic society that empirically has proven to be a necessary pre-requisate towards successful republican governance. On the other hand, Kurth has a long history of underestimating America's ability to accomplish the impossible. For example, I was taking a Kurth class during the semester that encompossed 9/11 and the successful Afghan campaign. Throughout the semester Kurth lectured and handed out articles on how hopeless past Afghan campaigns by the British and Soviets had been, and how doomed and haughty the American military effort was. A month later, the Taliban was routed. A similar thing apparently happened in 1999. Kurth was furious at how hopeless the Kosovo campaign was, and he was lobbying his ex-students in Congress to put a stop to it. Then suddenly, the Serbs withdrew.

But to say that Kurth has been wrong before does not necessarily mean he is wrong this time. I agree with him that Bush's democratic ambitions are hopeless. On the other hand, I don't think a hands-off approach by America will lead to a desirable end outcome. Given the mobility of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, our increasing inability to determine their source, and the possibility of terrorist networks, I don't think the world's most powerful nation - indeed an empire, to use Kurth's terminology - can just withdraw from the world, and hope that clever machinations can ensure that the world's crazies will use destructive new weapons against each other, rather than us. We should certainly try to not make ourselves a target, but it's also important that we try to help create an international framework that in the long run promotes liberal values. An application of this principle is that we don't just pull out of Iraq - we only leave when we have created stability. And we don't just say "nothing we can do about it" regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions - we try and use every carrot and stick in the book to prevent a crazy regime from acquiring nuclear capability.

One last thing I want to touch on. After 9/11 Kurth tore up the syllabus for the Defense Policy class, and one of the articles he handed out convicingly argued that the nation state was doomed. There will always be crazy people driven my maniachal religious conviction, and nuclear and other terrifying weapons will soon be owned by everyone in the planet. The nation-state is a fairly new creation - basically it's only existed since the Treaty of Westphalia - and its main purpose is to protect its citizens. Given the nexus of religious lunatics and terrible weapons, the nation state will eventually prove unable to protect its citizens, and the nation state will break down in favor of loose conglomerations, not necessarily bounded by land or borders.

This sounds like a crazy notion at first, but the more I've thought about it, the more plausible it sounds. 9/11 resulted in the U.S. fundamentally altering our foreign policy, detaining all sorts of terror suspects interminably, and changed our balance between protecting our civil liberties and protecting ourselves. Now we can argue all day about whether these policy shifts were a good idea or not, but there's no question they are the direct result of 9/11. Imagine what would happen with a more severe terrorist attack, or a set of attacks. It is not at all implausible that we would fundamentally change our form of government and social organization if the nation state proves ineffectual at preventing mass attacks.

In my mind, U.S. foreign policy's main goal should be avoiding this apocolytic prospect, much as Marty McFly and Doc Brown's main goal in Back to the Future II was avoiding Biff's 1985. Kurth thinks the best way to avoid this possibility is to withdraw from the world, and try to distract the crazies into battling each other rather than us. Bush thinks that the best way to avoid this future is to democritize the Islamic world so that the crazies either become sane, or are marginalized. Both solutions in my mind are idealistic and torn from reality. I think that elements of each solution should be used, but neither seems likely to prove a panacea.

So what's the point of this massive, rambling post? For one, Kurth is a really interesting fellow and an amazing professor. Second, democritizing the Islamic world is a long-term goal at best, and a counterproductive sham at worst. Third, Kurth offers some good ideas to solving the big problem of preventing undeterrable WMD attacks on America, but he also offers some bad ideas. But all his ideas are interesting and worth contemplating though. Fourth, the question of preventing mass casualties due to crazies using undeterrable weapons is the greatest dilemma facing our foreign policy today. There aren't any ideal and comprehensive solutions to this dilemma other than worldwide disarmament, which incidentally is the solution that most futuristic societies come up with in science fiction novels. In the short-term our best bet is to try to stop the proliferation of WMD, fight terrorist networks, try to reduce the likelyhood that crazies will want to strike out against America, and try to get foreign societies to fight crazies themselves rather than helping them. None of these solutions is easy; none is comprehensive; and several of them are internally contradictory. Nevertheless it's our best best.

Oh God, I want to chime in on this.  I'll be nice though.
   If a person wants to blow ME up, cut my head off, slice my skin off, cut out a baby from its mothers womb...  ect.ect.ect...  Those people should be gathered into a group and "treated". 
  Now, these people, have people, that train them, support them.  Sometimes it gets confusing who to blame in situations like we are dealing with now in America with Illegal immigration, radical leftist doctrine and radical Islam, each of which have the same goals, do bring down the United States of America and to take our freedoms by deception in most cases.
   It is really simple to see who these people are, foreign and domestic by looking at how they try to move public opinion, shape discussions and try to have "We the people" come up with "their" plans as we have come up with the plans to destroy ourselves, "ourselves".  I forgot the description of this technique but for this part of this discussion, we'll call it Soviet Style Mind Control, as developed by Joseph Berra.
   I watch the tube and I see the Politicians of this country selling us out to foreign interests and not letting private corporations search for oil in the continental USA as well as the waters of the planet as well as our coastal waters, I see the damage they have done to this nation, see 9/11, 9/11 of this year also where in Mexico, "leftist terrorists" destroyed a few oil pipe lines and blew up inferstructure for distribution of Petrol products.  In all these cases, most of the American people don't care.  They care more for their American Idol, and their fucking childish games with bats and balls (pronounced BWALL) and some gangster with a basket Ball, foot Ball, etc.etc...
   All of these things have what I call a little something in common.  What is it you say? Most of these actions are created by a few very rich people in Europe and in the good old USA for obvious reasons.  It is obvious to me that the accumulation of Power in a world that is turning against Us, the USA, is in some minds first and foremost a means of self defence for the painters of these "mosaics", or the perpetrators/writers of our unconstitutional laws and alphabet organisations that enforce our unconstitutional laws and protect those who are responsible for the destruction of our great nation.
   Now to get on topic again.  These same people are letting foreign fighters into this country to hasten up its destruction, illegal immigrants getting assistance for popping out tricycle motors, the overwhelming of our hospitals and the closing of them to help along socialised health care, the destruction of our educational system to promote dumbness. (less resistance to socialism/communism) and the ignoring of paramilitary threats to our way of life (call it what you will).
   The stopping of radical Islam is going to be like the fight against drugs.  It will be fought to help erode our rites!  This is the scenario the ruling class has used for over 50 years.  It works!
   Remember, "non violence" is the way. Education vs gun fights.  Talking vs. brawling.
   Our ruling eleat have been trying to start a race war in this country for over 40 years also.  I just like to teach freedom in stead of spreading hatered.  I can see the look on Sen. Fatboy Kennedy's face if all illegal aliens could recite the constitution and the bill of rites!

[Riddler]

ahhh yes.
back from the dead.
but all the more relevant today, no?

southpark cartoonists LIVES are threatened....right here in the good 'ol USA...by???
wait for it

muslims

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/20/comedy-central-censors-south-park-episode-muslim-threats/

what say you now, naysayers???

call me nostrodamus

[MaineShark]

Yeah, because no one other than Muslims ever threatens anyone's lives...

I wonder what the religious breakdown among cops is?  Bet most American cops are Christians, and they threaten innocent people's lives (dozens? hundreds? of times) every day.

A belief that attacking innocents is appropriate behavior is the common ground among these thugs, not any particular religion.

Joe

[AntonLee]

I took a large dump today, and I called it "Riddler"

[Riddler]

I took a large dump today, and I called it "Riddler"

hopefully you lost some weight, fat fuck

[Riddler]

Yeah, because no one other than Muslims ever threatens anyone's lives...

I wonder what the religious breakdown among cops is?  Bet most American cops are Christians, and they threaten innocent people's lives (dozens? hundreds? of times) every day.

A belief that attacking innocents is appropriate behavior is the common ground among these thugs, not any particular religion.

Joe

you miss the big picture....
i'm talking about freedom of speech.

& angry muslims that will curtail your free speech, by cutting off your fucking head, if necessary, if it offends their precious religion.
that boil it down any for ya?
name another religious group doing that kind of shit today..
i don't give a good fuck about ''christian police''
that's a bit broad, and off-topic, isn't it?

[Tom Sawyer]

Please don't feed the troll...
He can sit around and fret about the Islamo-Fascists imposing Sharia Law on us...  They can't control their side of the world much less ours.

As to the terrorist threat let's not overlook that the best they have thrown at us is shoe bombs that don't go off. If there really was a real threat, they would be using military grade high explosives... The only ones that have tried are the lone cells that have virtually no support...