Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Secular society must brace for long war against radical Islamist

Posted: 08/08/2014 11:41 AM

Secular society must brace for long war against radical Islamist 



.  .  .  "Now, into the 21st century, we are entitled to ask if we are seeing the start of another long war.

This time it will be a war between secular societies and radical Islamists intent on implementing strict sharia law. To radical Islamists, there is no distinction between religion and politics. The Koran defines how man must live; no deviation is allowed. The recent declaration of a caliphate in Syria and Iraq by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is the latest shot in this new war. The leader of the Islamic State is not the first, nor will he be the last, to seek a caliphate."  .  .  .

Peter Leahy was Chief of Australian Army, 2002-08, and is drector of the Australian National Security Institute.

http://www.theaustralian.com.a...x-1227018463848

Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/08/2014 12:37 PM

Re: Secular society must brace for long war against radical 


A Syrian scholar is recommending that we (the West/Christians) stay out of it and let "evil, fight evil". Focus on containing the damage and wait for the moderate muslims to exert themselves once and for all.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/08/2014 12:41 PM

Re: Secular society must brace for long war against radical 



gpn38 wrote: A Syrian scholar is recommending that we (the West/Christians) stay out of it and let "evil, fight evil". Focus on containing the damage and wait for the moderate muslims to exert themselves once and for all.
That's Clintonian, which led to OBL becoming a hero in the Third World and a belief that calphatism actually was the wave of the future.

However, I disagree that this will be a 'long war'. In adopting social media, ISIS has already ingested the poison pill, though it doesn't know that. What is necessary is that the organization be prevented from destablilizing the region more, and possibly developing the resources to perpetrate a major act of terror (nuclear?) that would require the West to rethink the openness of our institutions.

My mother used to tell me, "Elwood, in this world, you must be oh, so smart or oh, so nice."  For years I was smart.  I recommend nice.  You may quote me. - Elwood P. Dowd

Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/08/2014 12:53 PM

Let evil fight evil 


What a noxious point of view.  Is every human being in Iraq and Syria one one evil team or the other?  The vast majority are decent human beings, stuck between two competing evil elements, with nobody lending a hand to the innocents.  As a result, the innocents much choose one evil side or the other to avoid annihilation.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy.  If we say that everyone in Syria and Iraq is evil, and use that as a justification to do nothing, then eventually all the decent human beings will become radicalized because they have no other options other than to align with  Hezbollah, ISIS, or Shia Militia.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/08/2014 2:52 PM

Re: Let evil fight evil 


it's more let the Sunnis extremists fight the Shiite sp? extremists and eventually they will kill each other off and the moderates, aka, the silent majority (if they exist) will fill the vacuum.
Unfortunately, the majority decent beings are doing nothing right now.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/08/2014 3:28 PM

That model was tried before, Iran vs Iraq 


The betting line in the West was, let Iran and Iraq duke it out; as long as they are fighting each other, they can't fight anyone else.  True enough, in the short term - as long as Iran and Iraq were fighting, they had no bandwidth to do any other damage.  But at the end of the Iran Iraq war, both sides were stronger and more radicalized than before.  Iran was much more active in promoting international terrorism after the Iran Iraq war than before, and of course Iraq took the undergraduate education of the Iran war and applied it to graduate studies in invading Kuwait.  

The observable reality is, letting both sides duke it out winds up killing the innocents in the middle, radicalizing the ones that survive, and when the battle lines stabilize we will be facing terrorist organizations that are stronger and more radicalized than they were status quo ante bellum.  

Letting the animals duke it out does not weaken or kill the animals; it allows them to feed on the innocents and become stronger as a result.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/09/2014 4:10 AM

Re: Secular society must brace for long war against radical 


I can't get to the article.  Is there any way to get behind the paywall without, uh, paying?   devil
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/09/2014 5:42 AM

Re: That model was tried before, Iran vs Iraq 


No, that's not what happened. Both Iran and Iraq were exhausted after ten years of war, much like Europe after WWI. Iran's government was just as radicalized as ever, with the radicalization caused not by the absence of US influence, but as reflexive response to the Shah. And Iraq still had its strongman, who was much weaker in terms only of ability to cause external, but not internal mischief and harm. To say both were stronger, and more radicalized, is a fiction.

And, by analogy to your assertion, we should be entering the Gaza conflict actively as well, to save those good people.

Your point, that in conflicts such as these, that there are many good people, is only partially well taken. For when have those in the middle truly been innocent? Are the Gazans innocent? Many demand they rise up and throw out Hamas. Were the Germans innocent? Patton didn't seem to think so, when he dragged common citizens to see the evidence of the concentration camps.

But even so, when has that ever been reason for an external power to come in and impose right with might? We do that only government against government. Not in this era of asymmetric warfare.

Finally, it would worthwhile to study why our efforts in Japan and Germany post WWII succeeded, while the post-WWI, Iraq, and probably Afghanistan efforts, failed. There is a theory of the good of American exceptionalism, projected through American military might, which for instance the recent QDR takes as a given. But this theory has only succeeded occasionally, and not even frequently. Until we study not only why it succeeds, but why it fails, we must resist simplistic solutions and analyses.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/09/2014 7:59 AM

Re: That model was tried before, Iran vs IraqPARALYSIS BY 


ANALYSIS IS THE BOGUS RATIONALE THIS DOUCHEBAG POTUS USES TO DO NOTHING WHILE THE ISIL OPERATES IN THE VACUUM. WHY NOT AT LEAST ARM THE KURDS WHILE YOURE WAITING TO SEE HOW MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN IN BAGHDAD. THESE MANIACS ARE COMING FOR JORDAN AND ISRAEL WHILE HE FIDDLES. YOUR APPROACH IS IS AS SIMPLE MINDED AS IT GETS.
"...I thought something is brewing inside the head of this Coach. He sees something in me, some kind of raw talent that he can mold. But that's when I felt the handcuffs go on."

Jack Handy
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/09/2014 8:33 AM

a pre & post WWII retrospective for mendi 


1. examining Mendi's non-interventionist approach... ... then the French prime minister and cabinet were right in standing by and failing to counter Hitler's march into the demilitarized Rhineland?... subsequent historical assessment indicates that the German Military high command was prepared to take Hitler and the Nazi's out if the French came in...

but the French played the Pu$$y game and acquiesed.... and then watched while Hitler's star continued it's ascent... he and the Nazi's  were then greatly emboldened...  and gained hugely in esteem, power and strength... both internally and externally,

later when nearly too late,  Chamberlain repeated that same Pu$$y play at Munich

if Hitler had been taken out early at the Rhineland occupation (at a time well before the huge Wehrmacht buildup while the French still held a HUGE military advantage... and well before Hitler's record of success in bullying his neighbors and the West)...  a lot of world misery would have been prevented

Sources: Churchill & Shirer... both recommended reads

'all that is necessary for the forces of evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing'... a maxim worth noting

2. as to why the Japan and German occupations and transformations worked for the US, but not Iraq and Afghanistan... both Japan and Germany were totally crushed and demoralized... we occupied each with hundreds of thousands of troops... and most importantly, we were 100% determined and committed to stay and transform...

not so in Iraq and Afghanistan... the American public, particularly the left, wanted out ASAP... and voted the glib community organizer in

the answer to Mendi is simply said in two words: TOTAL  COMMITTMENT

absent in both Iraq and Afghanistan

just my opinion 


Last edited 08/09/2014 10:58 AM by FrankO

Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/09/2014 8:34 AM

The exhausted Iraqi Army 


The Iraqi Army was exhausted after fighting Iran?  Huh.  I guess it must have been some other Iraqi Army that invaded Kuwait, and kept us on the hop for the next 13 years patrolling a no fly zone.  

Snark aside, yes, of course they were exhausted, but both sides recovered quickly and were immediately MORE capable as a result of their combat experience.  

The Iranian Defense Industries Organization is one of the most capable military industrial complexes in the world.  As an engineer, you should be impressed with what they are doing.  It's top shelf work.  DIO exists specifically because of the Iranian experience fighting Iraq.  

The Iranian Revolution halted all the military activities of the MIO. Plagued by the upheavals of the time, the MIO was left unable to operate without foreign specialists and technicians; by 1981 it had lost much of its management ability and control over its industrial facilities.... The outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War in 1980 and the Western arms embargo served as a massive catalyst for the MIO to reorganize its operations. In late 1981, the new revolutionary government of Iran brought together the now disorganised sections of the MIO and placed them under the Defense Industries Organization. The DIO would from this point onwards supervise all production, research and development.... The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps was put in charge of re-organising the domestic military industry. Under their command Iran's military industry was dramatically expanded, and with the Ministry of Defence pouring capital into the missile industry, Iran soon had an arsenal of missiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...es_Organization
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/09/2014 9:10 AM

Re: That model was tried before, Iran vs Iraq 



mendicant98 wrote: 
But even so, when has that ever been reason for an external power to come in and impose right with might? 
The Civil War.

World War II. 

And - this will horrify you - the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

What I think you forget is that in all these cases the extrenal power was opposing an inhuman seizure of power by a faction that tyrannized an oppressed minority, sometimes majority - slave owners in the case of slaves, Jews, the citizenry of Iraq, the women of Afghanistan.

I think I will tell you a story. My best source on the recent conflicts was a Persian (her word) probation officer, who was fluent in Farsi, and called up four times during the 2000's. Faris turns out to be the most common language in Afghanistan (which I didn't know). So she was used as an interpreter, went everywhere, and saw everything. She used to appear every once in awhile on my sentencing calendar, and was always interesting. 

Back in 2006, she had the same view of Iraq as most. But the story she said was not being reported was the huge, almost universal popularity of the United States in Afghanistan, particularly among Afghani women. They viewed US troops as liberators, plain and simple. They had been tyrannized unde the Taliban, as the whole world knew, but didn't care.

I don't want to see the US as world's policeman, because we don't have the resources and it isn't fair. Biut since the 60's, there's been a far more pernicious attitude among the intelligentsia - and that is US force is somehow Bad and Does Wrong when it is used. As a matter of empirical, observable fact and history, that latter attitude is dead wrong. The situations that do go badly are the ones in which force is NOT in evidence - as in ISIS bow, the Cambodian slaughters way back when, and so on. It's in the absence of American presence that the true horrors have happened. 

The reality is that the 'external force' when that is the US in the 20th and 21st Centuries is invariably in the field in OPPOSITION to the principle of 'might makes right' - be it slaveowners, Nazis, religious oppressors, or oppressors of women. The Demented Left has never been able to come to terms that the forces is supports - beginning with the ARVN - are fascists, the ones who believe in sheer force. We are the power that insists on law - and there is most of the last 60 years in evidence of that.

My mother used to tell me, "Elwood, in this world, you must be oh, so smart or oh, so nice."  For years I was smart.  I recommend nice.  You may quote me. - Elwood P. Dowd

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/09/2014 3:24 PM

I stand by what I said 


Which a number of you failed to read.

I said we only impose right with might, government on government. We do not impose right with might to save an innocent people.

For GR, all horror aside (meaning none), we didn't do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, WWII, the Confedaracy. In WWII and the Civil War, there were declarations of war. In Afghanistan, we had no choice but to invade a government and country allowing/harboring an asymmetric, non-governmental force to train enemy combatants against the US; saving Afghani women from the Taliban was an effect, not a raison d'être. And I've argued before we never should have invaded Iraq the second time. I said that consistently beforehand, and have never fallen into GR's so called liberal trap, and will not re-argue that point of disagreement.

I would agree with Frank about Iraq and Afghanistan, if he could only forget the cheap shot against Democrats, or alternatively take an equally cheap shot against Republicans, for underestimating hugely the required effort to achieve a stable democracy in Iraq, and cynically advocating leaving Afghanistan long before it was time to leave, in order to stick their political opponents with the voters' ire, and the welfare of the Afghan people be damned. As for Frank's assertions about what France and England should have done, I am talking only about the US, and won't speculate on what those two countries should have done in the context of those times.

All that does not mean I am indifferent to the responsibility the US bears as being the leading light in the world for principles of democracy and individual freedom and the rule of law. Far from it. But one does not exercise leadership through imposition of right using military might to save innocents. The use of military force is a last resort. The first resort, in today's modern world of military and existential threats from asymmetric and non-governmental entities, is through economic, financial, mercantile, and similar means -- all the while using the military as the big stick in the background which says, don't F with my bankers, lawyers, traders, shippers, merchants, manufacturers. Co-opt the people of a country through trade: deliver products, even encourage local manufacturing; show them through behavior and production the results of a free society, affect positively every thread in the fabric of their lives, until they demand political leaders who deliver the same to them, as they observe and admire (one hopes) in the US. Democracy cannot be imposed from without. It must be almost lusted for, it must be desired passionately, from within.

In my opinion, the QDR fundamental assumption, that US military force is the means to spread democratic principles and the rule of law, in my view no longer holds -- because, if we spend that much money on military power, we will go the way of all the great powers before us. We will cease to exist, and won't be able to save our own innocents, let alone inspire or save those from other countries.

We have to adapt and change. But if we're forced to war, then we can't go in unless we're determined and committed to achieve the same results we achieved in Japan and Germany. If we're not so determined or committed, as a people, then going in is just a waste of time and money and above all lives. Without that determination and commitment, the use of US military force is actually worse than bad: it leads to false and demoralizing hope of an outcome similar to Japan and Germany. Which is also GR's point.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/09/2014 6:51 PM

Re: That model was tried before, Iran vs Iraq 



mendicant98 wrote: Finally, it would worthwhile to study why our efforts in Japan and Germany post WWII succeeded, while the post-WWI, Iraq, and probably Afghanistan efforts, failed. There is a theory of the good of American exceptionalism, projected through American military might, which for instance the recent QDR takes as a given. But this theory has only succeeded occasionally, and not even frequently. Until we study not only why it succeeds, but why it fails, we must resist simplistic solutions and analyses.

I wrote a paper on that at Stanford (I don't think I still have it anymore, unfortunately).  At that time, the counterexample to Japan and Germany was the Philippines, not Iraq and Afghanistan.  My conclusion was that what enabled Germany and Japan to transition successfully to democracy after WWII was a history of democracy and/or democratic institutions.  If that's right, it suggests a long road (many decades) to stable and prosperous societies in our more recent conquests.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/09/2014 9:17 PM

Re: I stand by what I said WHAT YOU DONT WANT TO SAY IS 


THAT IF WE GO TO WAR, WE SHOULD PLAY TO WIN. WE HAVENT DONE THAT SINCE WWII. WHAT WE MUST DO, IS RAIN HELL DOWN ON ISIL, ARM THE KURDS, AND SUPPORT JORDAN AND ISRAEL. MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE HAVE TO QUIT PLAYING PATTY CAKE WUITH THOSE SATANIC PR*CKS IN TEHRAN, LET ALONE THAT PIKE FACED PR*CK IN MOSCOW. AND WE NEED TO THROW OUR C*CK ON THE TABLE AT THE U.N., AND CUT THE MONEY OFF TO THOSE QUISLINGS TOO. THATS A START, BUT UNTIL OUR MARINE COMES OUT OF A MEX JAIL, AND WE CLOSE OUR OWN BORDER, WE'RE A F*CKING JOKE , DESTABILIZING THE WHOLE SH*TTAREE
"...I thought something is brewing inside the head of this Coach. He sees something in me, some kind of raw talent that he can mold. But that's when I felt the handcuffs go on."

Jack Handy
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/09/2014 9:21 PM

Re: Secular society must brace WE ARENT A SECULAR SOCIETY WE ARE 


A CHRISTIAN NATION, AND WE ARE RUNNING FROM OUR OWN HERITAGE. IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN SOMETHING YOULL BELIEVE AND FALL FOR ANYTHING. WE ARE SPECIAL N HISTORY, AND THE SECPROGS ARE GIVING IT ALL AWAY JUST LKE MARX (AND KRUSCHEV) PREDICTED. GOD HELP US.
"...I thought something is brewing inside the head of this Coach. He sees something in me, some kind of raw talent that he can mold. But that's when I felt the handcuffs go on."

Jack Handy
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/09/2014 11:36 PM

Re: Secular society must brace WE ARENT A SECULAR SOCIETY WE ARE 


Completely agree with your and Navy's comments about what should be done.

What is actually being done (or not being done) is a complete joke and about the worst possible course.  We're serving up motivation and recruiting fodder on a silver platter, while achieving almost nothing positive as a practical matter.  I've never been so disgusted by the action/inaction of a sitting POTUS as I am now with Obama over IS.  

But whether we are a secular society or a Christian nation is irrelevant to what we should be doing.  And it sure is irrelevant to and ought to stay out of any messaging by the POTUS or the US generally.  We can win the battle and the war by doing the right thing and getting the message right, which would involve forceful statements about not tolerating genocide and the forces of evil that attempt to carry it out, regardless of nationality, ideology or religious affiliation.  (Of course, the actual messaging by the whussy in chief accompanying our token military action focuses on assurances of what we WON'T do, including boots on the ground or anything beyond what is necessarily to protect American lives, etc.)

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/10/2014 3:46 PM

huh??? 


Germany, yeah maybe... pre WWI gov't/Reichstag was elected, but the Kaiser called the real shots... the PM and his cabinet came only with the Kaiser appointing/Ok... and  post WWI, Weimar was indeed a democratic system... but ... but as we all know Weimar became a failed democracy...   a disaster set up by Versailles

Japan... near zero, if anything,  in the form of any real/meaningful pre WWII  democratic history/institutions... where did you get that idea??? Suggest a read of Harvard Prof Edwin Reischauer's book 'The Japanese', particularly Ch 8, the post meiji restoration Constitutional system... which in brief says that Japan copied the pre WWI German model with the Emperor the dominant figure  (as was then the Kaiser) with a series of pro-monarchical liberal democratic party puppets rotating as Prime Ministers/cabinets.  

and Philippines, pre WWII  was simply a US protectorate with a psedo-rump government set up by the US

Last edited 08/10/2014 3:59 PM by FrankO

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/10/2014 7:39 PM

Amen 


Neither Germany nor Japan had a ghost of a democratic process. In fact, it was elite conservatism's refusal to accept the Weimar Republic that fatally enfeebled it.

I don't mean to be facetious, but I have to ask what grade you got on the paper.

My mother used to tell me, "Elwood, in this world, you must be oh, so smart or oh, so nice."  For years I was smart.  I recommend nice.  You may quote me. - Elwood P. Dowd

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/10/2014 8:15 PM

Re: huh??? 



FrankO wrote: Japan... near zero, if anything,  in the form of any real/meaningful pre WWII  democratic history/institutions... where did you get that idea??? Suggest a read of Harvard Prof Edwin Reischauer's book 'The Japanese', particularly Ch 8, the post meiji restoration Constitutional system... which in brief says that Japan copied the pre WWI German model with the Emperor the dominant figure  (as was then the Kaiser) with a series of pro-monarchical liberal democratic party puppets rotating as Prime Ministers/cabinets.  

I didn't say Japan was a democracy.  I said it had some history of democratic institutions, meaning a (partially) elected legislature, political parties, etc.  At the end of WWII, the idea of elections, a representative government, and so on, were not completely foreign concepts.  That's significant relative to the Philippines or Iraq.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >