Oh,

all the talk has always been PC. Islam is a religion of peace? Not historically, but you can't say bad things about people and their beliefs. You can't make war on people or organizations, that's mean and insensitive, war has to be on some behaviour (terrorism), or object (drugs), the word "war" itself has been trivialized. Remember, there are no bad people, only bad behaviours. Bush has been no better than most in this regard, but no worse either. This is a case, like immigration, where the public mood will have to lead the leaders.

Declarations of War?

The first Land Military Action by the United States after the Revolutionary War was against a Muslim NGO called the Barbarry Pirates.

Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and the Congress of the day, debated over whether a formal Declaration of War was required Constitutionally.

They decided that while a formal Declaration of War would be required to INITIATE a War, whereas our shipping and our Sovereignty had been attacked we WERE at a State Of War with the Barbarry Pirates and no formal declaration was required

Michael,

The advantage of a vague and possibly inaccurate definition is the range of problems it can be attached to. We are fighting a war on despicable twits, and leaving room to add twits to the list is to our advantage diplomaticly.

I know, I know...you want to go to war with Saudi Arabia yesterday, and there are a lot of reasons to do so. By not having a limited-scope definition of the current conflict, we are accomplishing more change with less blood than we would get from an invasion. The same is largely true in Syria as well.

We are destroying the Islamist forces and supporters for a ridiculously low cost in blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Take a good look at the impact the Battle of the Somme had on the United Kingdom. They lost about 1% of their entire population on that battle alone, and they never achieved as much for that fight as the Battle of Fallujah. We are getting off very cheaply by fighting a small war with global resonance that it is incredible. Changing the terminology to expand the conflict is not really in our best interests.

Although we could probably double the number of troops in the US military without a draft and go ahead to fight against Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Sudan, it would be incredibly expensive. Command and control would be dispersed and much less effective. We would start taking significant casualties, and we would probably start encountering a better class of opponent. I am not convinced that we need to be more exact in our terminology if these are implicit conditions of being more precise.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/575174/posts

From my research I have found that indeed war was declared on the Barbary Pirates, it was declared by President Jefferson, just as President Bush has declared war on terrorism. However; the Congress never formally declared war on the BP, in fact no lesser person than Alexander Hamilton stated outright that a formal declaration of war was NOT required when the nation was attacked by a foreign enemy and it was that interpretation that Congress embraced at the time. The Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing Jefferson to act much in the same way as the Terrorism Joint Resolution authorized President Bush to assume war footing as Commander In Chief

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripolitan_War

Outbreak of war
On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801 the pasha of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration. Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the US Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify

For me this War is Between Us and

radical and Islamist movements that are genuinely enormous. [Emphasis added.]

No Michael not merely the combat wing

AND we are not alone in our struggle against the Mullahs,

In Iran there were TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY
anti-government protests, clashes, strikes, and other forms of social unrest throughout Iran over the past month, according to the opposition Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK, or People’s Mojahedin).

Most of the protests and public actions occurred in Tehran and other major cities, including Isfahan, Mashad, Ahwaz, and Tabriz.

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/CommitteesofCorrespondence/index.blog?entry_id=1057559

Our enemy is the combat wing of radical and Islamist movements that are genuinely enormous. [Emphasis added.]

Exactly. Shouldn’t that be obvious by now? It was obvious to some people then.

It's been obvious to CAIR and MPAC, which is why they try their best to demonize and delegitimize 99.9% of governmental efforts towards fighting that goal, and the media sits by either silent or cheering them on while they issue a fatwa against "terrorism and extremism," despite CAIR's long history of extremism, support for terrorism, and record of officials convicted of or charged with terrorism related offenses.

Nothing to see here.

Michael -

I will cast my vote in 2008 for the candidate best able to prosecute the war.

By whatever euphemism it is called.

After almost twenty two years, there's a small part of me that is grateful that we are doing something constructive against wahabist Islam... even if the something falls far short of what I personally believe is called for.

Time fills.

Is it possible that the US should "really give them something to cry about"? Maybe we should stop trying to be everybody's friend and crack some skulls.

My impression of Friedman if he wasn't a pussy:

So lets say we are all sitting at the table. I am on one side and there are three people across from me. They happen to be Muslims (or jews or christians) and one of them is going to kill me. I ask the three, which one of you wants to kill me? Nobody responds. I know that I will die if I don't take action and I don't know who I should take action against. I shoot all three fuckers in the head and go to the bar, the end.

All good, but the question remains -- what do we call the war? How do we name the enemy? You're a writer, Michael, you must be able to think of something that rolls off the tongue and won't set more than 10% of the world's Muslims automatically against us.
Right now I just don't have the inspiration.

Okay, so here's the thing: We are at war with militant-conservative-Islam. And Bush has supposedly recognized this, we are told. His solution? Democracy! Democracy! Democracy!

Democracy is a good thing. Over the long-term. Usually. But do we really want democracy in places like Egypt, where the democrats are all members of the Muslim Brotherhood? Stop and ask yourself: would the rule of a strict democratic majority advance the cause of gender equality in a place like that?! There are things more important than democracy, than the self-rule of a potentially tyrannous mob. Take, for instance, liberalism. Liberalism is more important! So, why no mention of liberalism instead? If we have to oversimplify the solution to a mere single word, I'd opt for liberalism long before I would think to mention democracy.

Democracy is a necessary component of liberalism. Liberalism isn't a necessary component of democracy, per se. It's long past time someone in a place of power pointed this out to the neo-conservatives shaping presidential policy and rhetoric these days. If today's contemporary American liberals long to redeem the "L-word" in the eyes of the public, revamping the use of it to apply first and foremost to foreign policy and an alternative vision for fighting the War on Terror might help a bit.

It isn't a war against Islam we ought to be fighting. It's not the religion that's the problem. It's the mixing of religion and state. And you damn well better believe Republicans are never going to make this point, not so long as they're consulting Jerry Falwell from the White House.

It's a point that needs to be made, none the less (paging Hillary Clinton! paging Evan Bayh! paging Joe Biden!).

“War against terrorism” is pathetic and always has been. It’s a cliché now to point out that terrorism is a tactic not an enemy. World War II was not a “war against U-boats” or a “war against kamikazes.”

Which is exactly what Juan Cole is saying when he writes, "if they are fighting a war on terror, the enemy is four guys in a gym in Leeds."

Clearly this war is different. It’s asymmetrical. It functions like a global civil war, rather than a state-on-state fight...

Which is exactly what Juan Cole is saying when he writes, "It is not a war. It is counter-insurgency."

If you weren't in such a hurry to climb on your moral high horse, you might have figured that out.

Okay, instead of "War on (some appropriate word or phrase that nobody can agree on after 4 years already), how about flipping it around:

"War FOR Democracy"

or

"War FOR civilization"

etc

Mike,

Honestly, what bothers me more than the new acronym (GSAVE), is the concern that the focus will be only on fancy names, and no real substantive plans to win this war. I don't care if you call it the War on Villainy. If the Adminstration doesn't have real plans to effectively fight this war, then we all lose. Personally, I'm comfortable with the term Global War on Extremism, as long as we recognize that we are engaged in a war with radical Islamofascists and their supporters. Juan Cole is a fool, and the Bush camp is playing politics as usual.

If the Dems can rise up and offer an effective alternative, we can indeed beat the REpublicans come 2008. I can hope, can't I?

We are at war with Islamists. Why? Because they declared war on us. It isn’t any more complicated than that.

Kudos.

I would add: From 1941 to 1945 we started with a somewhat obsolete fleet and a minimal military and then simultaneously knocked two military juggernauts into little bits and ended with truly global reach and a military that could have marched across Russia (something that Napolean and Guderian couldn't do), if we had had the will.

From 2001 to 2005: ???

I think overturning Iraq has the potential of driving a stake into the corrupt heart of the ME, but we seem to be caught in our own PC trap that forces us to speak like idiots even we may be making the right geopolitical moves.

How about this for a new designation:

The War to Save Islam from Itself.

The War Against Intolerant Islamic Militants. They're the ones whose actions declared war on Judeo-Christian Capitalist Human Rights oriented Civilization. Their alternative is a Sharia inspired death squad gov't dictatorship.

Grant, nice try but it is NOT "religion and the state", it is Intolerance and the State. More similar to a state that is Intolerant of Christian prayers in a school, or a state (like SA) that is Intolerant of humans practicing their own belief in Judaism or Christianity. Because the state uses violence against those who disagree.

All too often, religions want to use the violence of the state to impose their beliefs on others -- but non-religious folk who have one belief or another (anti-drug, anti-smoking, anti-helmetless MC driving, anti-Christian) also want the state to use force to punish "un-PC" behavior.

How much force to use, if any, to stop women from executing their unwanted human fetuses is what the Culture War/ abortion war, is about. {When does a human get the right to life? -- protected by gov't force.)

Bush should try to get other democracies to sign up for a Human Rights Enforcement Group, to become the democratic World Cop that the UN can not become -- and won't need to become if the world becomes one without dictators. This will happen if China, Pakistan, and Russia become functioning democracies (Two elected leaders peacefully transfer top power to new leaders. Russia's only had Yeltsin to Putin so far.)

Michael,

I'm pretty sure that Cole was speaking, you know, figuratively, in that he wasn't arguing that the current conflict is literally against only four guys. Pretty short war, right? No, it seems more likely that Cole was trying to argue that rather than fighting a massed army, this conflict is against small groups of men, such as those four guys in Leeds, and that launching the might of the US armed forces against four guys in Leeds wouldn't make too much sense; nor would it make too much sense to launch an invasion of Iran in order to prevent four guys in Leeds from blowing up a bus in London; nor would it make too much sense to invade London in order to stop those four guys in Leeds.

What has been successful, apparently, is the policework performed by British police. Britain, I suppose, could run off and invade Pakistan, if that's their cup of tea, whot whot, or they could keep doing what they're doing.

Or, maybe you're right, and Cole honestly thinks that the only people who want to hurt us are four people in the entire world. Just four. Maybe he really thinks that. But Michael, you're smart enough to know when someone is speaking literally, and when they're speaking figuratively.

Commenter, I too thought for sure that Mr. Totten realized that Cole was using a metaphor but the more the "Cole thinks the WOT is about four guys in Leeds"-meme is spread, the less sure I am. Maybe the centrists have joined the rightwing's War on Metaphor ....

Funny how the hardware/software metaphor description of how guys are recruited is being ignored, maybe it's too hard to understand ....

Let's read that again, shall we?

The "New York Times reported...."

Let's keep things into perspective here. Bush has always called them terrorists, not evil-doers...

When the NY Times claims the "Bush administration" did or said something, it NEEDS to be verified...

From everytime I've hear the President speak, he's always referred to the "terrorists" as well, "terrorists."

The War Against Global Jihad

Funny how J. Cole's Bush-bashing supporters are so fast to say what he means with so few quotes of what he actually says (much like Leftists say what Bush means with minimal quotes).

Cole: "That's right. The old "war on terror" was a war of the world's sole superpower on a few hundred people. (I exclude Iraq because it is not and never was part of any 'war on terror,' though the incredible incompetence of the Bush administration has contributed to the ability of terrorists to operate there.)

Cole has a reasonable argument about how an impressionable Islamic man might become a suicide terrorist -- but Cole denies the Islamism aspect. Cole says it's a war of the 'sole superpower' on a few hundred people.

This is important. A BIG part of what Cole hates, and so many Leftists hate, is the 'sole superpower' status of the USA. David Kennedy of Stanford, in calling for a slave army instead of a voluntary army, also is against this.

Cole does a real good job of describing how the injustices which occur in Arab countries are blamed on America -- the sole superpower, therefore the Great Satan of responsibility.

And of course Cole copies, or leads, the Left chant "incompetence of Bush admin". By what standard? 50 million Liberated (in process), in less than 4 years, with less than 2000 US casualties? He's doing great. Bush is doing a GREAT JOB -- based on results.

Unemployment low, inflation low, productivity high, home-ownership high, job creation high. Great job.

But not perfect. So the Left chants "incompetence", with no honest standard of what a good job would look like.

So I read Cole, he says it's "counter-insurgency," obviously hogwash when most suiciders in Iraq are not Iraqis (therefore not insurgents). Writes well, some good hypotheses about Islamofascist reasons to hate America (personally relevant?), but weak or silly conclusions.

At least he offers a solution:
So how do you fight this form of terror? You disrupt the installation of the software in more and more minds. You adopt policies that make the story the software tells implausible. And you reach out to make sure people hear the implausibility.

Sounds pretty good; but I know it's primarily an excuse to claim Bush-failure at every bomb; at every innocent killed or imprisoned or abused; at every twisted news story (twisted by Bush-haters, including those who say Rove said: "Liberals=traitors").

Free press, including stupid criticism is the right, long term strategy. Free elections in every country is the right strategy. Bush has done great, so far; the media seems to be PR for the terrorists. Including giving PR to Cole.

"A BIG part of what Cole hates, and so many Leftists hate, is the 'sole superpower' status of the USA"

Hate's too strong a word, but, as they say, power corrupts and being the world's only superpower can't be good for a country (short term appearances notwithstanding).

This is important. A BIG part of what Cole hates, and so many Leftists hate, is the 'sole superpower' status of the USA.

I don't know if I'd agree completely with that sentiment. I'd guess he'd have no problem with the U.S. being the sole superpower if it were actively pro-Palestinian, for example.

But since the U.S. rarely does what he wants, objectively, your statement is pretty accurate.

One scary thing I've noticed with some (note: not all, or most, just some) people to my political left is the fairly active rooting for Iran to get nuclear weapons to achieve a military "balance" in the Middle East.

Very short-sighted, in my opinion, and kind of sad. But I suppose if one is more "pro-Palestinian," as opposed to actually being "pro-Peace," then they probably view the Mullahs as their allies more than any current or past elected government of America.

If you weren't in such a hurry to climb on your moral high horse, you might have figured that out.

Juan Cole's own war is to apologize for arabs, islam, palestinians, etc., and to demonize US foreign policy, Israel, the West, etc. Just take a look at his photo montage in response to Michael's. A picture of mujahedin firing a stinger missile? What an idiotic f-ing moron.

Hate's too strong a word, but, as they say, power corrupts and being the world's only superpower can't be good for a country (short term appearances notwithstanding)

Which do you honestly think is more of a threat to "world peace":

- a nuclear-armed America, acting without the restraints of the international community

- Islamist extremism/terrorism

Commentator,

No, it seems more likely that Cole was trying to argue that rather than fighting a massed army, this conflict is against small groups of men, such as those four guys in Leeds, and that launching the might of the US armed forces against four guys in Leeds wouldn't make too much sense.

But that is not an accurate description of this war. We are not simply at war with small bands of terrorists. We are also at war with the states that support them. As long as the Saudis and Saddams of the world fund, train, and arm such groups, we cannot win. We can win battles with the cells, but there will always be new cells to replace the old cells. Therefore, we can win battles but not the war. If we want to win the war, we have to make those states stop supporting terrorism. Invading one or two is a marvelous way to convince the others of your sincerity.

After Afghanistan and Iraq, our negotiators are actually heeded in states such a Libya.

I think MJT's point is that there is question about how serious someone is about this war. If a person tells us that we are only fighting individual cells in London, we have a pretty good notion that he is ignoring the aspects of the conflict which require blood, treasure, and commitment to win. In other words, he is not serious about the war.

I don't think the Dems will nominate a candidate "more like Paul Berman". However, with the aid of a cooperative MSM, they may try to fake it.

Even Senator Lieberman, who supports OIF, isn't a strong candidate. He is so mild-mannered, moderate, and unremarkable that I think he tends to blend in to the wallpaper. Thus, he may be unwilling to make any big changes that might be necessary to successfully conduct the War on Terror.

Right on Michael......If only our "leaders"(rulere?) were as clear

Berman's article, written four years ago, mentions that transformation of ME culture is necessary and that some country there will eventually want democracy and we shall provide it--and their liberty will guarantee ours. Sounds like a prescription for the Iraq War. Could Bush be reading Berman?

"Which do you honestly think is more of a threat to "world peace""

Of the two choices you offered, of course the US is less a threat.
I was thinking in broader (and much longer) terms than just nuclear weapons vis a vis crackpot fundamentalists.

The big problem with Cole's piece is that like a lot of his it's factually inaccurate. For instance:

Reagan also decided to build up Saddam Hussein in Iraq ...In the meantime, Saddam, whom the US had built up as a major military power

That is just pure horseshit. Less than one percent of Saddam's arsenal came from the U.S. And Iraq was, at one point in the 1980s, the world's largest arms importer! France, Germany, Russia, and over a dozen other countries were bigger exporters of arms to Iraq than the United States.

Sheesh, first the Jenin fable, now this. I think it's time to submit Articles of Impeachment to the Middle East Studies Association.

Actually, Mr. Cole isn't the first person to call what we're fighting a worldwide Counter Insurgency. The first time I heard it mentioned, was by Marine Corps Col. Thomas Xavier Hammes, a counter-insurgency specialist. He was being interviewed on NPR, regarding his new book "The Sling and the Stone: In War in The 21st Century". (Which I meant to read but then forgot entirely about until this article. Thanks ;-) )

Anyway, he stated that we would have to fight this as though we were fighting against a worldwide insurgency. (Ergo, Islamists want to overthrow the existing government and replace it with their own). http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4176645

http://www.historyofmilitary.com/The_Sling_and_the_Stone_On_War_in_the_21st_Century_0760320594.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0760320594/002-9955590-9791226?v=glance

Ya know, just because it comes out of Cole's mouth doesn't mean its a stupid idea. I mean, sure we can assume the median on him, but occasionally, he does seem to make a statement or two that probably shouldn't simply be dismissed.

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord and Other Stuff

PS - Never let someone talk you into trying to move a washing machine down the stairs top first... it can be a painful lesson....

I was thinking in broader (and much longer) terms than just nuclear weapons vis a vis crackpot fundamentalists.

In your longer, broader terms, what do you think is the biggest threat to the well-being of Americans?

Commenter,
I greatly fear that you are wasting your time trying to point out the obvious to Michael. Others did so yesterday without response, or even a bit of implicit acknowledgement in today's posting. He still seems quite proud of his "fisking" - hey it got him an Instapundit mention!
I fear the boy is entering that dangerous territory in which ones growing fame and reputation causes one to be greatly concerned with projecting a consistent line - and thus resistant to acknowledging error. Ironic no? It is perhaps one of the root causes for the mistakes that the MSM makes - the problem of being an institution. Credibility is seen increasingly to come from consistency, even at the cost of having to defend absurd positions.

Of course his interpretations of Cole are absurd. Of course he willfully distorts what Cole is saying (at least I hope it is willful, if not then he is just dumb, and we all are wasting our time here). Swopa made the excellent point earlier, where MJ writes "It functions like a global civil war, rather than a state-on-state fight, which is perhaps fitting in the age of globalization. And then criticizes Cole for calling it an insurgency!!!

Maybe Michael is working out, through displacement, some deep-seated issue against some old college professor who dissed him. But he clearly is far more interested in using Cole as a foil than in dealing honestly with the points he makes. And that is pretty boring....

IP,

Don't dismiss Michale so easily. I think that everyone must deal with filters, biases and well, that reality-tunnel I mention so often. I would guess that Michael has simply slipped and forgotten to question his own bias first. It happens... he's usually much more even keeled, let's see what he has to say.

Ratatosk

Commenter,

Juan's point is obviously that using the US military to fight the war on terror is a bad fit. But it's a ridiculous point that misses the much larger picture, which Micahel correctly points out. Four guys in Leeds did not create the Taliban, or the terrorist training camps, or the massive repression and poverty in the Arab world, especially places like pre-war Iraq. Only military force can remove those things.

Juan Cole would of course argue those problems, like everything else wrong in world, are America's fault (and of course the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of freedom has nothing to with the U.S.). Even accepting that illogical premise, one still has to conclude these are problems requiring military force -- not just rounding up four guys in Leeds.

Which do you honestly think is more of a threat to "world peace":

- a nuclear-armed America, acting without the restraints of the international community

- Islamist extremism/terrorism

Errr...

Can I take option three? (Where Option Three would be "Both A and B scare the heck out of me".)

Obviously, right now, Islamic terrorists appear as a potentialy major threat. However, that threat seems to be confined to small attacks that, at their worst, have killed less than 5000 people. If they were to get WMD's then this could obviously be much worse.

However, any superpower with unrestrained nuclear capabilities, seems simply an accident waiting to happen.

The Worst Case with Terrorists, would be a small nuclear device that might level a city... the Worst Case for a Nuclear Superpower... it the end of civilization as we know it.

Short term, I think that Terrorists are the biggest threat. I'm not worried that Bush will shoot off nukes. Long term...

Can I please vote for C? Please?!

Ratatosk

So Al Qaeda invaded the US on 9/11, hence the war in Iraq? Gotcha. Iraqi so-called "insurgents" = 9/11 invaders? OK.

Also, small point, but enough to rub this paddy up the wrong way: "But we are not at war with... the Irish Republican Army. We’d like to see them go away and will do what we can to help... ritain."

C'mon, shout out for the Irish maybe? We been doin' more dyin' than the Brits.

However, any superpower with unrestrained nuclear capabilities, seems simply an accident waiting to happen.

What should be done about this problem?

Michael:

Almost all you write is dead-on -- but the problem with your central thesis should be apparent to you if you read the collection of responses above.

The problem with the word "war" is that it leads the simple mind immediately to the military... and then, shortly, to invasions of other countries... and brings in its train all of the arguments over patriotism and accusations of "treason" that have poisoned debate for the last couple of years.

Unfortunately, the vast majority can't seem to distinguish your use of the word from the concepts they've picked up from WW II movies and 1950's propaganda.

You are right that we need to exert all of our energies to protect ourselves from individuals and groups that would do us harm. When that's not practical militarily, however, use of the word "war" as a catchphrase or slogan is extraordinarily dangerous. The mess we've created by our pointless, impractical, and ultimately deeply harmful invasion of Iraq ought to be ample evidence.

Mary, I'll more or less (70-80 %) second Ratatosk and mention that by short term I mean a couple of decades.

And are worried by "a nuclear-armed America, acting without the restraints of the international community"? and if not, why not? Imagine president Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum or Howard Dean (whichever scares you most) before answering.

However, any superpower with unrestrained nuclear capabilities, seems simply an accident waiting to happen.

What should be done about this problem?

Well, gee Mary, if I had the answer to that I'd write a book and be a millionaire ;-)

The problem that appears to plague nuclear weapons, centers around the complete and total destruction that exists as a potential. Should any single nation, simply because some crackpot got elected, be able to effectively destroy mosbunall living things on this planet?

Dr. Strangelove was a very silly fiction story, but it does make a good point... what happens if someone in power believes in 'purity of essence'?

Any unrestrained power, especially power that could wipe most species off this planet, would, to me, seem a very dangerous thing.

Unfortunately, mosbunall of the world's leaders don't seem able to get past our basic primate instincts, so being top dog and marking their territory appears more important than dumping irresponsible weapons.

Excellent points. I made a similar post a couple of weeks ago. Dar Al Hab
You did an excellent job of making the case that this is a war and we do have identifiable enemies.
Keep up the good work.

James @ Right Face!

This is a deeply confused article.

If one cared about the War on Islamists then:

a. You wouldn't have supported War in Iraq, and tying down so many US forces against a non-Islamist. Unless I've missed it, Totten has not done a mea-culpa from his support for the war. (And he actually in THIS post sounds EXACTLY like Richard Clarke.)
b. An incredibly simplistic interpretation of who it is we are fighting - both in Iraq and out of Iraq. There are differences that make a difference here, and to lump all enemies under Islamists, without noticing that many have different motivations, is profoundly irresponsible and counter to success.
c. Where's the posting on some of the significant analyses of this conflict? Anthony Cordesman? One month of reading Liberals Against Terrorism, or the Counter-Terrorism blog, and the stupid and counter-productive simplistic interpretation that this post embodies should be cured.

Totten has blinders plus, don't read the guy for any type of expertise, insight, or wisdom on these topics.

Part of the art of war is selecting a battlefield that plays to you strengths and to your enemy's weaknesses. Islamofascists prefer weak, soft targets using terrorist techniques because it plays to their strengths and our weaknesses. We prefer 3rd generation warfare (tanks & planes) in open areas because it plays to our overwhelming conventional military strength.

There are all sorts of legitimate ethical, moral and legal arguments against the war in Iraq, but the fact that the USA manipulated the Islamist war so that the central battlefield is Iraq is brilliant from a military standpoint.

1) There are indigeneous allies (Kurds and to a lesser extent the Shia).

2) It one of the most secular Arab/Islamic states. It's as close as you can get to forcing the Islamists to play an "away game" without putting our home front in danger (as no action would have done).

3) The flat, open nature of Iraq maximizes the use of our superior technology (particularly when compared to Afghanistan).

4) There are very few soft targets that don't carry a political price (insurgents killing Iraqi kids isn't going over to well in the Arab world). This takes away their chief weapon.

5) The prior regime was despised by the bulk of the people. This significantly reduces Iraqi anger at US intervention.

the fact that the USA manipulated the Islamist war so that the central battlefield is Iraq is brilliant from a military standpoint.

Exactly. Liberating Iraq was a strategic stroke of military genius that fundamentally changed the nature of the war on terror, similar to Sherman’s March to the Sea or Patton’s charge to the German 3rd Army’s flanks. It removed the need for troops on Saudi soil, ended the perpetually festering sanctions regime that punished ordinary Iraqis and bred resentment of the U.S. among Muslims, created a democratic example in the middle of the Mideast, and forced Al Qaeda to try to fight a defensive war on Islamic turf, one it has very little hope of winning. And in the course of fighting that war they’ve not only been forced to murder Iraqi Muslims by the thousands, which has not gone unnoticed by other Muslims, but are also now seen as fighting against democracy. In the wake of that carnage and the spectacle of free Iraqis joyfully waving purple fingers on January 30th, Islam is increasingly drawn to democracy and less inclined to accept terrorism as a legitimate means of political expression. This trend does not bode well for Al Qaeda.

The problem that appears to plague nuclear weapons, centers around the complete and total destruction that exists as a potential. Should any single nation, simply because some crackpot got elected, be able to effectively destroy mosbunall living things on this planet?

Absolutely. There is no other way to prevent some crackpot getting elected and destroying all living things on this planet. Oh, I suppose we could ban science, execute technologists, and plow universities and industry under, but that seems a bit extreme.

Oh no, not another discussion about what to call this war/conflict/police action/tea party. I think future historians will settle on a name depending on how it all turns out (unless it turns out very badly indeed and there are no future historians to do the job. It might simply be called "The Fall of Western Civilization" or perhaps "The End of Islam". Or both.) In the meantime, how we characterise this situation is important because it will shape our response. Actually, I suspect the problem is too complex for a single phrase or acronym to capture. In that case, maybe looking at the details is more helpful.

1. Is it a war? Good question. I can see the the merits of both sides on this point. There are armed people trying to kill us and we are trying to kill them, which is practically the definition of war. On the other hand, enemy attacks are not of sufficient frequency or intensity to justify the war analogy (except 9/11 of course, and probably not for lack of trying). It's not a standoff like the Cold War, since the enemy kills us and we kill them whenever the opportunity arises. Overall, I think it is a war, but a very slow, long-term one with occasional big flare-ups. Unfortunately, calling it a war also detracts from the non-military elements that are essential for achieving victory. I think the word 'struggle' is OK, but I admit that it's far from ideal.

2. It is global? Definitely. Next question...

3. What does Islam have to do with it? Sadly, I think Islam is central to this conflict and we don't do ourselves or Muslims any favors by pretending it isn't. In a sense it is all about the future direction of the Muslim religion, about whether it can peacefully coexist with other faiths/civilizations. This makes many in the West, both religious and non-religious, very uncomfortable but for different reasons. The non-religious do not understand religion enough to see that many of the problems that Muslims have with the West are theological. Quite aside from specific differences over Iraq or Israel, the existence of a globally dominant West (Christendom as they see it) poses a challenge to Islam in the same way that the continued existence of Judaism challenged Christianity in the middle ages. In this sense, attacks by Islamic terrorists against the West are like the pogroms against European Jews that ultimately led to the Holocaust. Many, but not all, non-religious Westerners fail to grasp this theological element of the conflict, so they look for explanations that they do understand like nationalism, economics, etc. Unfortunately, this leads them to false policy prescriptions, like the idea that solving the Israel/Palestine problem will instantly put an end to Islamic terrorism. It won't.

Religious westerners, and specifically Christians, have a different problem. Christianity responded to the Holocaust by self-consciously deciding that its theological differences with Judaism and other religions didn't really matter, and were certainly not worth killing people over. As a result, they have a hard time coming to terms with the idea that there are people out there who do believe that theological differences matter that much. While only a tiny minority of Muslims that are willing to resort to violence, sympathy for and understanding of such acts is distrubingly widespread in the Islamic world. We need to fight this sympathy as much as we fight the terrorists themselves, but I am convinced that we can only do it with theological arguments respectfully addressed to religious Muslims. Unfortunately, the post-Christian, politically correct West no longer posesses even the vocabulary for such a discussion.

4. What about terrorism? We are not at war with the tactic of terrorism but a specific type of terrorism: the Islamic terrorism of Al Qaeda and its associated groups, which means to cause mass casualties and which does not distinguish between combattants and non-combattants.

So how's this for a title?: The Global Struggle Against Islamic Terrorism (GSAIT). This de-emphasizes the war aspect but clearly identifies the enemy, which is not Islam as a whole but which clearly is an Islamic phenomenon.

(As an aside, here's an intersting article by Canadian columnist David Warren about the refusal of people in the West to address the religious elements of the conflict: http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?artID=495)

I stand by my previous comment...

It isn't a war against Islam or even religion in general. It's a war against theocracy. A war in defense of the separation of church and state, for the sake of both.

It makes a hell of alot of sense to me. If you're a liberal looking for a way to make sense of this current struggle, I think that's it. Promoting democracy shouldn't be our first and foremost concern in alot of these places. Promoting liberalism should be.

The United States lost the "Global War on Terrorism" this is why the name had to be changed.

The United States lost the "Global War on Terrorism" this is why the name had to be changed.

Oh, I don't know, NeoDude. After the Iranian revolution all the leftists were executed. I notice you are still here, so I don't think the war has failed yet.

So, chuck...you believe that it is the army of brave Young Republicans who are preventing the fall of the West?

At best you right-wingers remind me of my little girl...when she smashes a cockraoch, then turns around and proclaims to have saved the family from certain doom.

At worse, you look like some hillbilly who decides to torch his house and his neighbor's house...because he wanted to "kill as many as them cocker-roaches" as he could...his cultur was at peril!

And the Hillbilly declared a war on those varmits.

Grant,

I am not a man of the left, but I am a liberal in the broadest historical sense of the word, and liberalism in that sense is certainly worth fighting for. That is why I agree that Democracy in Egypt is not the answer, but liberal democracy is. We have a constitution, a liberal document to restrain any use of the state for profoundly illiberal ends. That kind of democracy I can certainly support. The Muslim Brotherhood has no place as it currently manifests itself in such an order. That is what we should be fighting for, ideologically and on occasion even militarily.

As for the defenses of Cole, Michael is not being as simplistic as those attacking him here imply. He is well aware of Cole's use of metaphor. That metaphor seeks to minimize this conflict, as does everything Cole writes. To the extent that he realizes it is larger than he claims, he blames it on us, or the Jews.

The responses also ignore the states which give them shelter. Michael linked with Berman for a reason, his comments should be read in light of Berman's. It is also important that Berman does not restrict the war just to the Islamists, but to the Arab nationalists, who despite attempts to deny it, have been cooperating, if inconsistently with the Islamists. They also utilize Islam to justify their actions no matter how secular they might wish to claim to be. See Saddam's embrace of Islamism in the 90's which many wish to deny or ignore. Either way they are a similar threat. We were at War with Saddam and his allies before 2003, before 9/11 and before the first Gulf War whether we were truly cognizant of it or not. Saddam gave comfort, funding, shelter and training to terrorists, many of them Islamists. He, at least after the fact, aided the first world trade center bombers which was intended to be at least as bad as 9/11. That it was unsuccessful in a relative sense makes the act no less horrendous. Why should we have hated him any less for it? The bombers were Islamists, why the distinction? He attempted to assasinate our former President. Once again, he may have been unsuccessful, but what would or should our reaction have been were he successful? Does it matter that he was unsuccessful? He attacked our armed forces enforcing the terms of a ceasefire for over ten years. Is that not an act of war? His representatives and his government attended and hosted terrorist conferences dominated by Islamists. Once again, can we really consider the conflicts separate? Syria, another secular Baathist state has similarly supported Islamist terror groups, especially Hezbollah. They are all different, but they also work together as Berman points out conflicting totalitarian forces always have.

I say that not to endorse the invasion of the Iraq, though I do, but to point out that the conflict is, as Berman says, with the supposed secular arabist and other fascist movements of the middle east as well as Al Qaeda and its fellow travellers. Berman recognized and wrote about this long before 9/11. He and I are on different sides of many issues, but men such as he and Michael are the humane heart of the west, wherever they may reside on the idelogical spectrum of the liberal project.

I, the proud liberal, will now gladly jump at the chance to be the first to call for the banning of NeoDude. He hasn't threatened anyone nor has he called anyone names. He's just a completely irrational troll. Does being completely irrational and annoying qualify these days?

Does being completely irrational and annoying qualify these days? --Grant Mc

My sincerest regards for your honest revulsion towards neo-dudes last drivel. I fear though that if being 'completely irrational and annoying' were the criteria used to separate the 'wheat from the chaff', the internet might become seriously depopulated overnight.

Why ban the doofus though ? He/she/it serves as a glaring example of how not to behave,and of the need to actually THINK before babbling at others. In these stressful times, sometimes it helps to have reminders right there in front of you.

Thanks again for your obvious civility.

Well, Lance, I wasn't at all attacking Michael...or especially Paul Berman, for that matter! Paul Berman, Michael, and I see very much eye-to-eye on this. The only difference lies in the fact I, like Paul Berman, still consider myself a contemporary American liberal whereas Michael does not.

In terms of Iraq however, I still say the verdict is out. In the end, it will either be justified or not justified by the type of society established by the Iraqi people. Women in Iraq right now are in serious jeapordy of losing the basic rights they've held for almost 50 years, even under Saddam. Overthrowing genocidal dictators is a wonderful thing and all, but I sure as hell didn't support the invasion of Iraq in order to see social democracy set back a generation there!

In the end, as events continue to unfold in places like Iraq and Egypt, it is becoming all too clear that "democratization" is hardly the silver-bullet Bush makes it out to be. That was simply my point. Believe me, I'm not a foreign policy realist by any stretch of the imagination. I merely mean to imply that maybe we ought to pay a little more lip service to the advance of liberalism in the world and a little less to the advance of democracy, and that today's left-liberals are just the ones up to the task of doing it. I guess that stems naturally from my understanding of the terrorist threat. They are, in essence, religious-conservative militants: As far right-wing as you get. It therefore makes obvious sense to me that today's secular left-liberals, and not American religious-conservatives, should be the ones leading the charge.

In the end, like Michael, I'd be happy just to see today's liberal Democrats actually get in the game of putting forth constructive foreign policy ideas, whatever they may be. I have one and I said it! Give me credit, at least I'm trying!

I'd like to add something to Michael's remarks about the "war against terrorism", something also drawn from Paul Berman's Terror and Liberalism.

I welcome hearing things like, "'War against terrorism' is pathetic" or "terrorism is a tactic not an enemy". I like to hear this because it misses the point in a very instructive way. I thoroughly appreciated Michael's essential points that it is armed Islamism we are fighting the war on terror against, that this is because they declared war on us, and that they haven't "declared an insurgency against us" in Iraq.

The additional point is this. Writing about Camus(p26), Berman said, "He recognized that, at a deep level, totalitarianism and terrorism are one and the same. He recognized that, if only we could discover the roots of totalitarianism, we would have discovered the roots of terror as well, and vice versa."

Many other organizations employ violence for political ends. Organizations like the IRA (until recently), ETA and others use terrorism (killing innocents to influence political decisions) as part of their campaign of political violence. But this is not the same as the ideological totalitarian organizations, like Hitler's National Socialist Party and Stalin's Communist Party, which were characterized, in Berman's words(p23), by "a politics of mass mobilization for unachievable ends". Islamism is like this. It is very much a "mass mobilization for unachievable ends", and as such it has no other future than homicidal, and ultimately suicidal, violence. Just as Hitler and Stalin had no other future and for the same reasons.

That is how it makes sense to talk about the enemy as 'terror' or 'terrorism'. It is not just a convenient buzzword, but a defining characteristic of the totalitarianism we face. (the emphasis in the quotes above was mine)

I gleaned, from these posts, that irrational behavior was a plus.

The fact that many of you believe Bush and American right-wingers are defending the West from those dark hordes seems a bit irrational. Going after Hussein, after 9-11 was very irrational. Supporting Hussein to go after Iran was irrational (and then pretending it didn’t happen is equally irrational). Lumping all political movements in the Muslim world is very irrational! Declaring a War On Terrorism is irrational. Thank God some right-wingers are finally realizing how irrational it is to declare war on an adjective.

Blaming Islam and the Middle East for terrorism is like blaming Europe for fascism (that's where it started and it was a Roman Catholic phenomenon). Fascism, as a movement, that originated in the hearts of Roman Catholics…yet, I don’t recall that being the cause taught in schools.

Since Europe is, primarily, a Christian continent, let’s start blaming all the irrational killings that started there, on Christianity! The amount of death and destruction executed in the name of Christianity is blinding, the Pogroms against the Jews, the thousands of years of war, were all done in the name of God and Country. The brutal process of “Christianizing” “primitive” peoples in colonized lands was pretty anti-democratic. Yet, unless you were some rabid anti-Christian…it would be ignorant to lay blame on the Gospels for the sins of European Christians. Yet, that’s what you guys are doing here…trying to rationalize your bigotry against Islam.

Grant M: "They are, in essence, religious-conservative militants: As far right-wing as you get. It therefore makes obvious sense to me that today's secular left-liberals, and not American religious-conservatives, should be the ones leading the charge."

How does one get the current liberal/left past its consistent advocacy of the "Other" (usually a brown-skinned "victim" of past western colonialism), irrespective of how illiberal the "Other's" values may in fact be? Figure that one out and it seems to me that westerners - whether defining themselves as "liberal" or "conservative", could find common ground. Frankly, it should be a no-brainer. Why the waste of effort on internecine warfare?

As an aside - my response to MJT's current post, in which he refers to the "combat wing of radical and islamists movements" as the enemy. I would note that it has a name: Jihad. Or more precisely lesser jihad.

I have seen in the previous thread as well as this one, the claim that Islamism is a "political" movement and therefore has nothing to do with Islam. That would seem to be the crux of the matter, where we as westerners are concerned.

But is that claim (that Islamism is distinct from Islam itself) correct? To start with, fundamentalist (pure) Islam as practiced by that most perfect man to Muslims - Muhammad, the prophet - completely fuses politics and religion. Islam itself has never escaped that fusion for any significant period of time for anyone to be able to comfortably claim that Islamism is merely a political phenomenon and divorced from Islam itself as a religion. So no - one cannot as of yet separate "Islamism" (understood in a purely political sense) from "Islam" (understood in a theological sense). Considered from that perspective, it seems that we have folks arguing that we are at war with Islam itself, and that is in many ways correct as Islam, in fact, currently exists. On the other hand, there are those like Michael, who claim that we are at war with "Islamism", as distinct from Islam. IMO, this is to look at Islam in an idealistic way, from the goal of the endpoint, as if Islam as a political movement and Islam itself as a religion have already achieved, historically speaking, clear separation. As if the Islamic reformation is already over and the distinction between the political and the religious in Islam has ALREADY been established. I tend to view this tension between 'Islam' ands 'Islamism' as a tension betwen what IS and what one WISHES TO BE - between the real and the ideal in other words. Because it seems to me to be factually the case that this distinction HAS NOT been established.

In fact, there is no formal body within Islam itself authorized to MAKE this distinction.

I suppose that, in some broad sense then, what we're all caught up in is a great historical upheaval in which Islam itself is undergoing a reformation - a struggle to separate the political domain from the religious. In the meantime it's the folks who have no intention of separating the two who have declared war on the west. And that means that war (Holy War or jihad) has been declared by folks representing Islam - as it currently exists (and not as we nor as many Muslims, ideally wish it to be).

Thus, it would seem reasonable to suggest that westerners are caught up in the Islamic world's Great Reformation. Naturally, reformations are bound to be rather bloody affairs, which raises the question - is there some way to participate in this enormous upheaval without putting ourselves as westerners (who have already been through this) smack damn in the middle of it?

Some would say - support the moderate Muslims (who want the reformation). Others would say the war is against islam itself - as it actually exists now (which is in a pre-reformation state), and that there are actually very few true reformers in Islam right now. And the few there are - get consistently killed!

So, I wonder if there is a way to come to some common language to describe what's going on - a bunch of westerners caught in the midst of a struggle for the Islamic reformation - and like the blind men feeling the proverbial elephant, some describing the problem as Islam itself, some describing the enemy as Islamism (as if there already exists a bona fide separation b/w the political and religious) and some, like Cole, focusing on the narrow political explanations of the jihadists themselves, as if this broader upheaval within Islam itself doesn't even exist at all.

"and like the blind men feeling the proverbial elephant," (from my own post)

Darn it. I blew another metaphor, which is why I've come to think of myself as "Queen of the Bad Metaphor". A google search implies that the proverbial elephant is the elephant in the room that noone wants to talk about. That's not what I meant. In fact, everyone wants to talk about this particular elephant. I thought there was a proverb about some blind men all feeling an elephant and describing different aspects of the same elephant. THAT's the proverbial elephant I had in mind. Or maybe instead it's the proverbial blind men. :-)

Yes! The proper metaphor is, in fact,

The proverbial blind men!

(dunce cap dutifully placed on head...)

Caroline,
Your comparison between the evolution of islam and christianity breaks down, at least for me, upon a moments reflection. As you correctly point out, there is no central authority in islam. There was in christianity - the pope and the established church. The reformation in christianity was against the power of centralized authority within the faith- it was NOT a movement to seperate church and state (think Cromwell).

It was liberalism, an intellectual, rational, and political movement (often downright anti-religous) that moved the ball on church-state separation. It was free-thinking, newly empowered, essentially middle-class urban people who fought to liberate themselves and their government structures from control by the religious authorities.

There are, or have been movements to secularism in islam - Turkey being perhaps the most successful. As far as I can see however, this was purely a political accomplishment, and did not constitute any real change in the faith itself.
Political control by religous authorities can hardly be considered an essential element of islam. In addition to places like Turkey where secularism needed to be asserted, there are also the largest islamic countries, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, which have not been under the political control of religous authorities, at least not in a very long time. India for obvious reasons, but the other three as well.

I think I am basically agreeing with Grant on this one.

It's as close as you can get to forcing the Islamists to play an "away game" without putting our home front in danger (as no action would have done).

Bingo. I'm amazed that, even having been reading about the geopolitical reasons for liberating Iraq for a year before the trigger was pulled, have never seen this point made. It's a sports metaphor, but converts well. When the national touring champs meet the regional upstarts at the big arena, who wins more often and by the wider margins?

HA!!!

My liberalism idea is catching on! Take that you pesky nay-sayers! I should patent this shit!

:)

IP: "Political control by religous authorities can hardly be considered an essential element of islam."

What about the incorporation of Sharia into the legal foundations of the state? (as seems poised to happen,e.g. in Iraq?) Re the Reformation - my grasp of church history is probably on par with my grasp of metaphor :-) but I have seen debates on this issue in which it was suggested that bin Laden is the one who is technically seeking a "Reformation" and so that would be the wrong model to apply but rather Islam is in need of an "enlightenment". That would seemingly gel with your agreement with Grant. On that note, I found Hirsi Ali's (a real contemporary islamic reformer) recent essay interesting:

Muhammad's example

She is a strong advocate of open criticism of Islam, in order to push for change, rather than avoiding any criticism ("Islmaphonia") for fear of offending the moderates.

P.S. My dunce cap is still on, so if I've got it wrong again about the parallels b/w the reformation and the enlightenment in Islam vs Christianity, now is a good time to let me know. :-)

Caroline,
Dont worry about the dunce cap. BTW I got your elephant metaphor just fine the first time. It works for just about any human endeavor, imho.

Islam and the state have a long intertwined history. Like christianity and the state. There has been, and is today, religous law, or advocates for religous law in both traditions, more so in islam perhaps. But I dont think it a necessary linkage, as the largest islamic countries demonstrate.

I do prefer the "enlightment" idea - liberalism, over reformation. Turkey is probably the best example, since the push and pull between the secular forces and the religous parties, now in power, seem to be similar in some senses to our own church state disputes (except of course, that the secularists are supported mainly by the army, and the religous parties are more religous than the gop, so far).

It should probably be the model we push, which makes the current evolution in Iraq far more troubling to me than even under Saddam (at least in long-term ideological considerations, not in short term humanitarian ones).

being the world's only superpower can't be good for a country (short term appearances notwithstanding)

Which do you honestly think is more of a threat to "world peace":

- a nuclear-armed America, acting without the restraints of the international community

- Islamist extremism/terrorism

Posted by mary at August 3, 2005 07:58
************************************************
Sigh more and more I find myself missing the Soviets. At least they were atheists, and for the eventual Victory of the Revolution the World had to still be in one piece.

Now we are dealing with Fanatics who think Armaggedon means everyone on their side would get to Paradise quicker. ;-(

As for the dangers of the US being the World's only super power?

It would be FAR worse if we were not. I don't see the EU stepping up to the plate, except for those member already in the Coalliton of the Willing that is.

If we were on par with Germany and France even combined, would you feel better off or worse?

This is mainly an argument about semantics.

Vietnam was called a "police action" but by now I think it must be a war. So let history decide what to call it.

I believe the more important part of the report where the name change was discussed was the formation of metrics so we can tell if we are winning.

Semantic arguments:

Calling it a "War" helps the nation understand it's a very serious effort and not to slack off. However, that might detract some attention from the non-military aspects. (Though I think this argument is silly - it requires little public support for FBI CPA types to do their job whereas thr troops need massive support.)

Bringing Islam into the name might clarify who the enemy is, but will also help out those on the other side who claim it is a war against their religion. Just imagine how Pakistan is going to join a war against Islamic Terrorism. They won't even if they will fight the same war under the GWOT euphemisim.

to Charon Oar:

Another advantage: I don't want to engage in schadenfreude glee over nasty theological? whatever splits in the opposition, but if not for the invasion of Iraq, the truly pathological Sunni vs. Shiite hatreds would not have been exposed for everybody to see, warts and all. Any doubters need only read the comments section of Joshua Landis' Syria Comment blog to see the out of control Alawite vs Sunni bitterness in Syria, for example. As long as there are totalitarian states in the ME that can suppress any and all discussion, whether those totalitarian states be explicitly Muslim/religious or explicitly secular, as Baathists claim to be, it's easy for those states to maintain an us (Arabs? Muslims?) vs. them ("the West", Israel, Christians, Jews) policy.
But in polycentral society like Lebanon, no government is going to get very far demonizing anybody else. I don't know how we do this on a practical operational way, but IMO championing the rights of Coptic Christians in Egypt, Kurds in Syria ("What? Us Anti-Islam? But Kurds are Muslim!), Black Muslims in Darfur (ditto), and Berbers in the Mahgreb/North Africa. Intrastate ethnic tolerance leads naturally to religious tolerance and lessens Us vs. Them positions.

Warren

As for the dangers of the US being the World's only super power?

It would be FAR worse if we were not. I don't see the EU stepping up to the plate, except for those member already in the Coalliton of the Willing that is.

I don't think it's dangerous for the US to be the world's only superpower - but I have noticed that many of the people who support appeasement or "understanding" of terrorism seem to fear the United States' sole superpower status (and its nuclear capabilities) more than they fear Islamist terrorism.

That fear, more than Leftism, multiculturalism, Liberalism, etc., seems to motivate all of their arguments and opinions. They don't think we're equivalent to the terrorists - they think, in the long run, we're worse.

Grant,

I was unclear. The first part of my point was basically in agreement with you. I was only pointing out that this is a fight for libralism in the broad sense of the word, and includes people such as myself, or for that matter even most conservatives in America. I think your formulation, Michaels and Berman's is correct. There is no need to defend yourself and I find your comments well thought out and worthy of respect.

The second part of my post was in response to some other commenters who wanted to restrict this to just a certain brand of Islamist sentiment, when it is really the totalitarian elements in the Arab and Muslim world in general that are our enemy, and they are by no means distinct from one another, nor are they consistent in how they view us or relate to each other. My guess is that you agree. Berman certainly does.

Neo-dude.

Others have said much about what you have to say, but as a matter of historical record, Fascism was adapted by some who claimed a Catholic mantle (Franco) but it was not an ideology whose basis was in Catholicism. In fact Mussolini (who formulated the modern concept of Fascism) and his followers were disaffected marxists, secular to the core. He viewed his movement as in that tradition, but shorn of Marxist misunderstandings (at least in Benito's mind) of human nature and what moves man to action. What you have engaged in is best described as anti-Catholic bigotry, no more accurate than taking the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as true. I have seen this kind of filth in many places and it is no more becoming than anti-semitism. There are and have been Catholic fascists, secular fascists, Muslim fascists and a host of others. To identify Catholics as its source, or to say as you do that it "originated in the hearts of Roman Catholics" is plainly wrong and disgusting.

PS - Never let someone talk you into trying to move a washing machine down the stairs top first... it can be a painful lesson....

Two words: duct tape. Never forget the duct tape.

I don't think it's dangerous for the US to be the world's only superpower - but I have noticed that many of the people who support appeasement or "understanding" of terrorism seem to fear the United States' sole superpower status (and its nuclear capabilities) more than they fear Islamist terrorism.

Close, but not quite.

If they really feared us, they would jump on board with us and "appease" us. But they know we're not going to nuke Paris or invade Germany (again). And they know that if they are in serious trouble, we'll bail them out...again. They fear the Islamofacists, but can do nothing about it so they resort to their time-honored tradition of appeasement. They hope that they can avoid the wrath of those they really fear by talking tough to those they know won't harm them.

It's practically the definition of cowardice.

If we want them to help us (I think we do. The more help the better, but it needs to be real help) we need to re-examine our alliances. Our "friends" like France need to be shown that ally is a two-way street. If they're not going to help us, we're not going to help them. Then, we need to reward our real allies. Britain, Australia and Poland should be given preferential treatment whenever possible. If France and Germany don't want to be our allies.... then leave them be. They don't have to be. But they don't get the perks that come with being our allies. Our real allies do.

To clarify my previous point:

Islamofascists overestimate and oversell the philosophical unity of the Muslim world in general, and the Arab world in particular. It is much more polycentric and polyethnic and polycultural, and if you consider Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Sufis, and Bahais, more polyreligious than they would like to admit.
If anybody would like to remember stuff in our culture like "Why does X have to be a hyphenated American, and 'X-American'? Why can't he just be a normal American like everybody else?" Well, any trip to the comments section of Joshua Landis' SyriaComment will show the same thing at work there, too. Lots of Sunni vs Alawite sniping, "regular Syrian" vs Kurd sniping, etc. What we're seeing is the same kind of cultural jailbreak that we saw in the U.S. in the seventies.
And whenever anybody over there tries to be "more himself" (sound familiar?), he gets accused of being a tool of the Crusader/International Jewish/Whaterver conspiracy. Sound familiar?

Warren

I'm holding my breath waiting for "Syria: Love it or Leave it" Bumber stickers. Anybody know where I can get one?

Warren

This is almost dumb as the original non-fisking (it's impossible to fisk something you don't understand).

Dude, you need to get past the literal choice of words and get to the meaning of what people say. Juan Cole, in calling this counter-insurgency, wasn't actually suggesting that terrorists are insurgents, but that fighting them requires an anti-insurgency mindset. You know, a little politics, a little military action, a little policing -- that sort of thing.

"you need to get past the literal choice of words and get to the meaning of what people say"

Hey man, centrists do do non-literal.

Tot:

When's your birthday, man? I'm gonna get you a nice big dictionary. You should look up the word "war" sometime. It may be counterintuitive, but it has a technical meaning in addition to and separate from the visceral and metaphorical meaning that apparently is giving you a hard-on.

"...if you kill people in someone else’s country you are an invader." Actually, an "invader" is someone who "invades," a word that usually implies forcible entry into another's country with the intention to conquer or, alternatively, seize property of economic or militarily strategic value.

As for your other words: "Soldier" is an ordinary word with an important technical sense; under the rules of war, uniformed, regular soldiers organized under the authority of a state have the right to kill. Quite obviously, the difference between "soldier" and "terrorist" is importantly different in this respect. "Guerillas" are a kind of soldier; "terrorist" is a word still under a rather serious dispute.

I get that you're frustrated with words that have precise meaning but a connotation that sounds, to your ear, to mean something different. (Linguistically, I'm a prescriptivist, which means I think people ought to use the right word, rather than believing that the right word is whatever it is people happen to use.) You might think that "counter-insurgency" makes claims about the legitimacy of the terrorists' aims. You're not right, and you need to try harder to be right in the future, because all things being equal, it's better to be right than not to be right. "Counter-insurgency" only speaks to tactics and military goals: Namely, the putting down or quelling of disquieted civilians that do not have an organized political leadership and do not rise to the level of revolt or out-and-out warfare. It would be wrong to take Cole as saying something about the internal perspective of the terrorists' organization; they cannot be persuaded to rejoin the ranks of ordinary men. But from a tactical perspective, he has it precisely right, and quite clear-eyed: Whatever instinctive stirrings you get from the phrase "war on terror," when you pull away the pretty drapes of metaphor, you see how inadequate the phrase is analytically. Likewise, "invaders" is a useless term, because the answer to an invasion is the Great Wall of China.

We are at war with Islamists. Why? Because they declared war on us.

No, we're not. And no, they didn't. You know why? Because you can only be at war with a country with its own political organization. Because it takes a legitimate state government to declare war. And the difference is crucial; a soldier may kill another soldier in wartime, but a mere terrorist enjoys no such legal privilege.

One goes to war when another country, with its own legal system, has enacted a state of affairs such that its soldiers may kill one's own legally. When it remains illegal to kill one's own soldiers and civilians, it is enforcement of the laws that is the answer, not war. War is there for those situations where another country's sovereignty makes appeal to legal remedies impossible or pointless. That's why soldiers have the right to kill. Those who don't have the right to kill aren't soldiers, and they aren't fighting a "war." They're criminals by whatever label you want to give them, pirates, terrorists, insurgents, or plain-old murderers.

It's a funny kinda war, most young people have no interest in fighting it. A real war wouldn't require begging young people to sign up to fight it.
Cole didn't get fisked by Totten I'm afraid, Totten doesn't have 1/10th the knowledge about the mideast that Cole does and by this point Cole has been so much more on the money on so many issues than Totten, does it really matter that Totten fantasizes about having 'fisked' Cole?

Most young people who are expected to do the dying in this 'war' know full well it's not a real war, nor one worth dying for or coming back brain damaged for.

Just some quick points:

- Anyone who thinks the Islamists didn't declare war on us needs to go read the al-Qaeda fatwa of 1998.

- However, I agree with Lee Harris that what we're involved with with the Islamists is more of a blood feud than anything else, even if our post-tribal civilization is too unfamiliar with the concept to recognize it as such. The closest we've got is "war," so that has to suffice.

- Cole has his share of thought-out opinions. Unfortunately, he does have this habit of going off the rails from time to time which tends to undermine his chosen place as an authority figure. I also agree with Martin Kramer's criticisms of Cole's tendency to send posts down the memory hole by rewriting them to correct mistakes without bothering to note that corrections have been made.

We're at war, but the majority of men and women between ages 17 and 40 don't think it's a real war and have all kinds of reasons for not wanting to die in the war. Doesn't sound like a real war to me.

I missed the whole "Fisking" phenomenon in the first place, so pardon me if I'm a bit confused. I know Robert Fisk is a veteran Middle East correspondant who has won many awards for his, um, compassion weakness. And I know Juan Cole is a prominent Middle East correspondant who can't seem get behind the Iraq War.
But how much can your bloggy-approved memes and a handful of free pictures really add to the argument?

I missed the whole "Fisking" phenomenon in the first place, so pardon me if I'm a bit confused. I know Robert Fisk is a veteran Middle East correspondant who has won many awards for his, um, compassion weakness. And I know Juan Cole is a prominent Middle East correspondant who can't seem get behind the Iraq War.
But how much can your bloggy memes and a handful of free pictures really add to the argument?

great work..

Scot: check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking for a definition.

Thanks Tagryn.
I checked out Fisking in the Wikipedia, read part of Fisk's account of his mugging in Afghanistan and Andrew Sullivan's criticism of Fisk's writing on the subject and I still don't get it.
The critical difference, it seems to me, is that Fisk was actually there, nearly losing his life to file a story from the perspective of the bombed. Whereas Sullivan was sitting in front of a computer in New York commenting on Fisk's pathology. Makes you wonder about Sullivan's charges of elitism.
Sullivan is a hard one to place altogether. Reading his column back then, he's a superhawk typing aplenty about a "fifth column" how he "loves Rummy" and musing on whether we should "nuke tora bora."
Today he covers the prison abuse and torture stories like no one's business, with an almost Robert Fisk-like concern for the underdog.
Go figure.

Thanks Tagryn.
I checked out Fisking in the Wikipedia, read part of Fisk's account of his mugging in Afghanistan and Andrew Sullivan's criticism of Fisk's writing on the subject and I still don't get it.
The critical difference, it seems to me, is that Fisk was actually there, nearly losing his life to file a story from the perspective of the bombed. Whereas Sullivan was sitting in front of a computer in New York commenting on Fisk's pathology. Makes you wonder about Sullivan's charges of elitism.
Sullivan is a hard one to place altogether. Reading his column back then, he's a superhawk typing aplenty about a "fifth column" how he "loves Rummy" and musing on whether we should "nuke tora bora."
Today he covers the prison abuse and torture stories like no one's business, with an almost Robert Fisk-like concern for the underdog.
Go figure.

Fisk was once a great reporter; his book "Pity the Nation" is a must-read for those interested in the Lebanese civil war & subsequent Israeli occupation. Unfortunately, he lost any claim to objectivity some time ago; his dispatches have been reliably anti-Western for nearly a decade now. I also have to wonder how grounded in reality a guy like Fisk is when he wrote about how the U.S. would find Baghdad "impenetrable" if they tried to assault it (http://new.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20030403071123899); his story ran on the same day Coalition tanks were sweeping into the capital. Oops.

Sullivan tends to obsess & get fixated on particular topics for long periods. For the past half-year or so, its been torture. Before that, it was gay marriage, and before that it was the GWOT. However, his criticisms of Fisk in that particular incident were on the money.

Good points tagryn. And thanks again for the tips. I guess writers are just writers.
I tried to have a look at Fisk's latest, but the Independent online wants money for the effort. I wonder at what point Fisk turned his back on the West, if in fact that was the case. And did he lose objectivity in a fit of moral vanity, of having gone native, or was he trying to warn us?

Dear Michael:

I noticed recently that you’d favorably mentioned Paul Berman’s Terror and Liberalism on your blog and thought you might be interested to hear that we are publishing a new book of Paul’s called Power and the Idealists. You can download a sample chapter at: http://www.softskull.com/detailedbook.php?isbn=1-932360-91-3

It officially publishes Sept 28th, though books should be available in stores and online beginning in a couple of weeks.

All the best,
Richard Nash
--
Publisher, Soft Skull Press
55 Washington St, Suite 804
Brooklyn NY 11201
PLEASE NOTE NEW ADDRESS
phone: 718.643.1599
fax: 866.881.4997
mobile: 917.804.0716
richard@softskull.com
www.softskull.com

naked ebonys @ naked mature black woman @ naked thick black woman @ name of black female @ nasty black sex @ nasty black sluts @ nasty ebony girl @ nasty ebony teen @ natural ebony boob @ natural ebony hairy @ natural ebony tit @ natural teen ebony @ new black porn site @ new jersey ebony escort @ nice black ass @ nice black butt @ nice black tit @ nj ebony escort @ non nude ebony @ nude amateur ebony @ nude black amateur @ nude black ass @ nude black bbw @ nude black body builder @ nude black booty @ nude black butt @ nude black celeb @ nude black celeb pic @ nude black celebrity @ nude black celebrity free @ nude black dancer @ nude black dancerscom @ nude black female @ nude black female body @ nude black female celebrity @ nude black female model @ nude black gay man @ nude black guys @ nude black lady @ nude black lesbian @ nude black male celeb @ nude black male celebrity @ nude black man @ nude black man pic @ nude black model @ nude black pussy @ nude black sex @ nude black sluts @ nude black thug @ nude black tit

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino
online casino
online roulette
online poker
internet casinos
online slots
online blackjack

Very nice site. notebooki

online poker
online casino
online viagra sale
try viagra online
order viagra online
buy viagra online
order cialis online
free levitra online
cheap meridia online
buy xenical online
order propecia
order viagra online
online casino
online slots
phentermine
phentermine
levitra
tami flu
online poker
poker
poker
online poker
online poker
poker
poker

Adult Personals adult dating service sex dating adult
club erotic personals adult dating online
dating service join free.

adult personals Adult personals online
personals
adult dating
adult dating sex dating
adult
personals adult personals sex dating
Internet Dating Service Internet Dating Service
dating
services dating services - adult dating
service
adult dating
service adult dating service adult
personals
adult photo personals adult photo personals
sex
dating sex dating adult dating service
sex
dating sex dating adult personals
personals
personals adult personals
adult sex
dating adult sex dating adult personals
adult dating
online adult dating online adult personals
online
personals online personals adult personals
adult dating
service adult dating service adult
personals
adult dating
personals adult dating personals adult
personals
adult dating
adult dating service
adult dating
service adult dating service
adult dating
online adult dating online
single woman single woman
singles singles
singles match singles match
sexy singles sexy singles
singles dating singles dating
single dating single dating
dating service dating service
dating tips dating tips
adult personals adult personals
adult dating adult dating
adult personals adult personals
adult personal ads adult personal ads
adult dating adult dating
adult singles adult singles
adult picture personals adult picture personals
adult personal page adult personal page
adult personals pic adult personals pic
adult photo personals adult photo personals
xx xx
adult personal ads adult personals ads
adult singles adult singles
adult photo personals adult photo personals
adult personals pic adult personals pic
adult personal page adult personal page
adult picture personals adult picture personals
adult dating adult dating
personals ads personals ads
adult dating adult dating
adult personals adult personals
adult dating ads adult dating ads
adult singles adult singles
adult single dating adult single dating
adult personal adult personal
free adult dating free adult dating
adult dating online adult dating online
adult dating site adult dating site
adult swingers adult swingers
adult friend finder adult friend finder
xx xx
x x
singles adult singles adult
sexy singles sexy singles
singles personals singles personals
singles dating online singles dating online
adult singles dating adult singles dating
adult singles adult singles
singles site singles site
singles club singles club
singles dating service singles dating service
adult swingers adult swingers
adult personals adult personals
adult dating adult dating
singles on line singles on line
personals singles personals singles
sex personals sex personals
swingers swingers
swingers club swingers club
dating sex dating sex
personals sex personals sex
adult personals dating adult personals dating
online adult dating online adult dating
personals adult dating personals adult dating
sex dating sex dating
adult personals adult personals
personal ads personal ads
adult personal ads adult personal ads
free personals free personals
adult personals adult personals
sex dating sex dating
Autosurf For Cash autosurf for cash
Get Paid To Surf get paid to surf
satellite tv satellite tv
adult personals adult personals
sex site myspace.com sex site myspace.com
Discount Airfare discount airfare
Discount Hotels discount hotels
Discount Travel discount travel
Discount Cruises discount crusies
Discount Hotel Rooms discount hotel rooms
Discount Car Rentals discount car rentals
Discount Airline Tickets discount airline tickets
Discount Vacations discount vacations
Discount Airline Tickets discount airline tickets
Discount Air Travel discount air travel
Discounted Airfare discounted airfare
Airfare airfare
Levitra Generic Levitra
online pharmacy online pharmacy
Prozac Prozac
Cialis Generic cialis soft tabs
Cialis Generic cialis soft tabs
tadalafil tadalafil cialis
meridia generic meridia Sibutramine
Zenegra Zenegra
Celebrex Generic Celebrex Celecoxib
sildenafil sildenafil
sibutramine sibutramine Generic Meridia
celecoxib celecoxib Generic Celebrex online pharmacy
adult personals adult personals
home security home security
nanny cam nanny cam
nanny camera nanny camera
home security system home security system
home automation kits home automation kits
wireless camera systems wireless camera systems
universal remotes universal remotes
camera systems camera systems
home automation home automation
home security systems home security systems
credit card offer credit card offer

Adult Personals adult dating service sex dating adult
club erotic personals adult dating online
dating service adult singles join free.