Full Version: The War on Terrorism as a "Cold War"?
Link
To be debated:
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
QUOTE
Waging an uphill struggle for Muslim hearts and minds, some in the West are wondering if the time has come to dust off their Cold War textbooks in search of tips for winning the war on terrorism.
But those arguing for an information and propaganda campaign that would borrow from the largely successful Cold War battle against communism face critics who argue it could dramatically backfire.
. . .
At a recent conference in Oxford, the former head of Britain’s foreign spy service MI6 argued it was time for a propaganda campaign on a “mass of different fronts across the world” to win over young Muslims.
. . .
But some security analysts see parallels between the Cold War and the war on terrorism as misplaced.
They argue that Islamism is competing on an altogether different premise from communism, which claimed to offer an alternative to capitalist democracy but failed in its promise to deliver a better quality of life than the West.
“Radicalism is not fighting us on that terrain. The sympathy of many ordinary Muslims for al-Qaida cannot be affected simply by showing them that people in the West have a better life, unless we can also help them achieve that life, of course,” said Anatol Lieven of the New America Foundation in Washington.
. . .
Sebestyen Gorka, a Budapest-based security analyst and the son of Hungarian dissidents, said stations such as Radio Free Europe were preaching to the converted during the Cold War.
. . .
But he said modern equivalents like Alhurra, the U.S.-funded, Arabic-language satellite TV channel, were targeting a Muslim audience that was far more hostile.
“The concept of ‘let’s have an Arab TV station and an Arab radio service in Iraq and that’ll convince the moderates to talk up against the extremists’ is utter balderdash, it doesn’t reflect the reality,” Gorka said.
Lieven said a much more pertinent lesson from the Cold War was the need for massive injections of Western aid, like the U.S. support for East and Southeast Asia from the 1950s to 1970s that laid the foundation for dynamic economies in South Korea, Taiwan and elsewhere.
“The main thing is, you have to give more aid to critical countries,” he said, citing Pakistan as an example.
“It’s no good just preaching at people. You’ve to show them that being our ally actually makes a difference to their lives and to their economies,” Lieven added.
But those arguing for an information and propaganda campaign that would borrow from the largely successful Cold War battle against communism face critics who argue it could dramatically backfire.
. . .
At a recent conference in Oxford, the former head of Britain’s foreign spy service MI6 argued it was time for a propaganda campaign on a “mass of different fronts across the world” to win over young Muslims.
. . .
But some security analysts see parallels between the Cold War and the war on terrorism as misplaced.
They argue that Islamism is competing on an altogether different premise from communism, which claimed to offer an alternative to capitalist democracy but failed in its promise to deliver a better quality of life than the West.
“Radicalism is not fighting us on that terrain. The sympathy of many ordinary Muslims for al-Qaida cannot be affected simply by showing them that people in the West have a better life, unless we can also help them achieve that life, of course,” said Anatol Lieven of the New America Foundation in Washington.
. . .
Sebestyen Gorka, a Budapest-based security analyst and the son of Hungarian dissidents, said stations such as Radio Free Europe were preaching to the converted during the Cold War.
. . .
But he said modern equivalents like Alhurra, the U.S.-funded, Arabic-language satellite TV channel, were targeting a Muslim audience that was far more hostile.
“The concept of ‘let’s have an Arab TV station and an Arab radio service in Iraq and that’ll convince the moderates to talk up against the extremists’ is utter balderdash, it doesn’t reflect the reality,” Gorka said.
Lieven said a much more pertinent lesson from the Cold War was the need for massive injections of Western aid, like the U.S. support for East and Southeast Asia from the 1950s to 1970s that laid the foundation for dynamic economies in South Korea, Taiwan and elsewhere.
“The main thing is, you have to give more aid to critical countries,” he said, citing Pakistan as an example.
“It’s no good just preaching at people. You’ve to show them that being our ally actually makes a difference to their lives and to their economies,” Lieven added.
To be debated:
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
To be debated:
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
In some ways, yes. The WoT is a struggle against an ideology, as was the Cold War. The Islam's status as a religion should not blind us to the fact that its an ideology, one that is anti-thetical to our values.
The WoT is also comparable to the Cold War in that its likely to be long, we're going to have some wobbly allies, and we're going to pray to God that it doesn't go nuclear. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of disimilarities.
We, as in the non-Communist world, didn't need the Communist world for much of anything. As a result, it was much simpler to economically isolate them than it will be with the Islamic world.
"Crazy Russians" usually referred to the amount of Vodka they would drink, or their penchant for swimming in Siberian lakes in the winter for the fun of it. "Crazy Jihadists" refers to their penchant for blowing themselves up along with any infidels they can get close too. This disparity renders MAD a far riskier proposition.
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
I can't see how it would hurt, but I don't think it would be as effective, certainly not in the beginning, as Radio Free Europe and the like were. I still think its worth doing.
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
Not really. The corruption endemic within the culture of most of the "critical countries" will likely result in the aid being siphoned off invisbly or seen as supporting those in power. In all the countries where the aid was most effective, Americans were essentially "embedded" in the country. Without that, I don't see it working, especially when faced with the different, non-materialistic rhetoric of the Islamicists. The "converted" in the Soviet bloc had been primed by the contradictions between the dogma of what Communism would achieve, and the reality they lived in. The Islamicist's ideology is at much lower risk of contradiction via economic improvement, as its primarily focused on metaphysical and moral matters. Frankly, I think the most effective means of "foreign aid" would be a massive missionary effort setting up schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc, along with very heavily armed troops that kill anybody who messes with the missionaries. I don't see that happening. Our current political climate wouldn't tolerate the government sending out missionaries, or even specifically protecting them, and I doubt if many of the "critical countries" would accept them. Winning their hearts and minds means having to be able to engage their souls as well, and as a gov't undertaking, we aren't prepared.
With all that said, a "engagement" of critical countries is still workable, I think. The catch is, the countries come in three varieties. The toughest to engage are the oil rich Islamic "allies." Their economic well being isn't dependent on "buidling up". Next are countries like Pakistan, where economic engagement has potential, as long as there's some opportunity for real trade. Unfortunately, the 1200 lb panda is vacuuming up much of the entry level of the markets. To transform these countries, it needs to be real economic growth, not "make work." Finally, there are the non-Islamic countries that "hang in the balance." Primarily in Africa, these countries present real opportunities, but only if we get serious about getting in there. Doing so means abandoning our misappropriated "colonial guilt", cleaning up the governing and economic structures, insuring that they have real markets for their goods, and making it clear that we're going to protect them. It means a certain amount of nation building. If our retreat from VietNam had happened in the 50s, most of the world would be under Communist domination today. Fortunately for us, the Soviet bloc was already getting arthritic, so it wasn't able to take advantage of our collapse of will. This is especially important today, because whether the war in Iraq is illegal or not, whether it was a wise thing to go in or not, none of that matters to the "critical countries." The only thing that matters is are we going to repeat this: image
Edited to remove image in accordance with forum Rules - Jaime
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
In some ways, yes. The WoT is a struggle against an ideology, as was the Cold War. The Islam's status as a religion should not blind us to the fact that its an ideology, one that is anti-thetical to our values.
The WoT is also comparable to the Cold War in that its likely to be long, we're going to have some wobbly allies, and we're going to pray to God that it doesn't go nuclear. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of disimilarities.
We, as in the non-Communist world, didn't need the Communist world for much of anything. As a result, it was much simpler to economically isolate them than it will be with the Islamic world.
"Crazy Russians" usually referred to the amount of Vodka they would drink, or their penchant for swimming in Siberian lakes in the winter for the fun of it. "Crazy Jihadists" refers to their penchant for blowing themselves up along with any infidels they can get close too. This disparity renders MAD a far riskier proposition.
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
I can't see how it would hurt, but I don't think it would be as effective, certainly not in the beginning, as Radio Free Europe and the like were. I still think its worth doing.
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
Not really. The corruption endemic within the culture of most of the "critical countries" will likely result in the aid being siphoned off invisbly or seen as supporting those in power. In all the countries where the aid was most effective, Americans were essentially "embedded" in the country. Without that, I don't see it working, especially when faced with the different, non-materialistic rhetoric of the Islamicists. The "converted" in the Soviet bloc had been primed by the contradictions between the dogma of what Communism would achieve, and the reality they lived in. The Islamicist's ideology is at much lower risk of contradiction via economic improvement, as its primarily focused on metaphysical and moral matters. Frankly, I think the most effective means of "foreign aid" would be a massive missionary effort setting up schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc, along with very heavily armed troops that kill anybody who messes with the missionaries. I don't see that happening. Our current political climate wouldn't tolerate the government sending out missionaries, or even specifically protecting them, and I doubt if many of the "critical countries" would accept them. Winning their hearts and minds means having to be able to engage their souls as well, and as a gov't undertaking, we aren't prepared.
With all that said, a "engagement" of critical countries is still workable, I think. The catch is, the countries come in three varieties. The toughest to engage are the oil rich Islamic "allies." Their economic well being isn't dependent on "buidling up". Next are countries like Pakistan, where economic engagement has potential, as long as there's some opportunity for real trade. Unfortunately, the 1200 lb panda is vacuuming up much of the entry level of the markets. To transform these countries, it needs to be real economic growth, not "make work." Finally, there are the non-Islamic countries that "hang in the balance." Primarily in Africa, these countries present real opportunities, but only if we get serious about getting in there. Doing so means abandoning our misappropriated "colonial guilt", cleaning up the governing and economic structures, insuring that they have real markets for their goods, and making it clear that we're going to protect them. It means a certain amount of nation building. If our retreat from VietNam had happened in the 50s, most of the world would be under Communist domination today. Fortunately for us, the Soviet bloc was already getting arthritic, so it wasn't able to take advantage of our collapse of will. This is especially important today, because whether the war in Iraq is illegal or not, whether it was a wise thing to go in or not, none of that matters to the "critical countries." The only thing that matters is are we going to repeat this: image
Edited to remove image in accordance with forum Rules - Jaime
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
Not really. There were such clearly defined and easily understood boundries in the Cold War. We all knew who the enemy was and where he was. Each side had its own clearly defined ideology and each side had an equal footing.
Now we are stumbling around in the dark, unable to even identify our enemies, at odds with each other over just who or what the enemy is and we are at a severe disadvantage. Where as the Soviets played by the rules of international law and diplomacy, Islam* does not.
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
No. It would be pointed to as another example of western depravity. The Muslim leaders use the west as a means to drum up antagonism in the faithful. Their whole approach is to turn Muslims against the west and to do this they refer to those aspects of the west of the west they consider negative.
And just what are we going to tell them anyway? They do not consider us worthy of admiration. They look upon human rights, upon gender equality, as being ungodly, homosexuality as a sin. They regard banking as immoral, capitalism as immoral. They do not regard our laws as having precedence over their faith. In all things they look upon us kuffar, infidel. People to look down upon. Those few who do believe as we do, are marginalized, even in our own countries, they have no way to counter the influence of the bearded nutters who run Islam.
If the information freely available in the west doesn't make a difference to the perception of Muslims already living in the west then whats a campaign going to do in the greater Muslm world? We'd be wasting our time, money and breath.
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
We already give large amounts of foreign 'aid' to most Islamic countries. It makes no difference.
There is such a thing as culture and culture is the real anvil upon which the hammer must fall. Western aid in some countries succeeds because the cultures of those countries gladly accepts outside help and uses it to its own ends. Other cultures cannot, or will not do this. What worked in Europe and parts of Asia there fore do not work in Africa or the Middle East.
* I consider the ideology of Islam to be the enemy
Not really. There were such clearly defined and easily understood boundries in the Cold War. We all knew who the enemy was and where he was. Each side had its own clearly defined ideology and each side had an equal footing.
Now we are stumbling around in the dark, unable to even identify our enemies, at odds with each other over just who or what the enemy is and we are at a severe disadvantage. Where as the Soviets played by the rules of international law and diplomacy, Islam* does not.
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
No. It would be pointed to as another example of western depravity. The Muslim leaders use the west as a means to drum up antagonism in the faithful. Their whole approach is to turn Muslims against the west and to do this they refer to those aspects of the west of the west they consider negative.
And just what are we going to tell them anyway? They do not consider us worthy of admiration. They look upon human rights, upon gender equality, as being ungodly, homosexuality as a sin. They regard banking as immoral, capitalism as immoral. They do not regard our laws as having precedence over their faith. In all things they look upon us kuffar, infidel. People to look down upon. Those few who do believe as we do, are marginalized, even in our own countries, they have no way to counter the influence of the bearded nutters who run Islam.
QUOTE(Times online)
Khan is particularly worried about how mosques are brainwashing children and young people: “To me, it is starting to look like a cult.” And her local community certainly seems to be in denial. “After the raid I went to the corner shop here, and they were all saying it was a conspiracy. I turned round and said, ‘No, it is not. Let us be honest’.
“They say we’re being victimised. We’re not. The truth is coming out at last, but it’s 20 years too late.” The trouble is, says Khan, that many of the Pakistanis who have come to Birmingham are all too easily swayed. “Most of them are ignorant, uneducated, illiterate people from rural areas. It is very easy for them to be brainwashed, very easy. These are people who have been taught from the beginning that our religion is everything, it is the right way. You are going to Hell simply because you were not born a Muslim.” Khan is far too independent-minded to accept these beliefs wholesale. “I would say to my mum, ‘Are you telling me that Mother Teresa is going to Hell?’ and she didn’t have an answer. My mum was not backward, but everyone is being taught that Islam is going to take over, there are going to be mosques everywhere. This is something jihadists have planned for centuries. They were just looking for our weaknesses, which they have found.”
Link. “They say we’re being victimised. We’re not. The truth is coming out at last, but it’s 20 years too late.” The trouble is, says Khan, that many of the Pakistanis who have come to Birmingham are all too easily swayed. “Most of them are ignorant, uneducated, illiterate people from rural areas. It is very easy for them to be brainwashed, very easy. These are people who have been taught from the beginning that our religion is everything, it is the right way. You are going to Hell simply because you were not born a Muslim.” Khan is far too independent-minded to accept these beliefs wholesale. “I would say to my mum, ‘Are you telling me that Mother Teresa is going to Hell?’ and she didn’t have an answer. My mum was not backward, but everyone is being taught that Islam is going to take over, there are going to be mosques everywhere. This is something jihadists have planned for centuries. They were just looking for our weaknesses, which they have found.”
If the information freely available in the west doesn't make a difference to the perception of Muslims already living in the west then whats a campaign going to do in the greater Muslm world? We'd be wasting our time, money and breath.
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
We already give large amounts of foreign 'aid' to most Islamic countries. It makes no difference.
There is such a thing as culture and culture is the real anvil upon which the hammer must fall. Western aid in some countries succeeds because the cultures of those countries gladly accepts outside help and uses it to its own ends. Other cultures cannot, or will not do this. What worked in Europe and parts of Asia there fore do not work in Africa or the Middle East.
* I consider the ideology of Islam to be the enemy
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
Of course not. Unless the "terrorists" are actively draining their GDP's to keep pace with US military spending levels.
In other words, Russia had an active army numbering millions. How is that the same as a few thousand 'extremists'? Also, the Cold War so-called because it was a system of mutual agreements where an attack on one guarantees swift deadly reprisal. Are Americans coldly staring at the enemy across a barren frontier? No. They're attacking and fighting them whereever they are found. Big difference.
Of course not. Unless the "terrorists" are actively draining their GDP's to keep pace with US military spending levels.
In other words, Russia had an active army numbering millions. How is that the same as a few thousand 'extremists'? Also, the Cold War so-called because it was a system of mutual agreements where an attack on one guarantees swift deadly reprisal. Are Americans coldly staring at the enemy across a barren frontier? No. They're attacking and fighting them whereever they are found. Big difference.
.
In only one respect IMO. The enemy which is a group of stateless cadre has several non negotiable demands which this country cannot easily meet. The primary demand that we cease all support for Israel will never be met. We may be able to maneuver Israel into giving the Palestinians a country but that remains to be seen. IMO we have no intension to leave the ME completely which is another part of this demand.
We have done this but IMO without dropping our support for Israel it will have little effect. Even the moderated are unhappy with Israel and our strong support of the country.
We do this now. Although more aid to Pakistan might help.
QUOTE
Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
In only one respect IMO. The enemy which is a group of stateless cadre has several non negotiable demands which this country cannot easily meet. The primary demand that we cease all support for Israel will never be met. We may be able to maneuver Israel into giving the Palestinians a country but that remains to be seen. IMO we have no intension to leave the ME completely which is another part of this demand.
QUOTE
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
We have done this but IMO without dropping our support for Israel it will have little effect. Even the moderated are unhappy with Israel and our strong support of the country.
QUOTE
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
We do this now. Although more aid to Pakistan might help.
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
Not especially.
Though an appreciation that the Cold War ended for a more complex mix of reasons than just "America won" or "America outspent the Soviets in the arms race", including for example the inability and/or unwillingness of the Soviet bloc to suppress domestic movements for democracy in satellite states indefinitely (e.g. Solidarnosc in Poland), might help to inform the likely way that America & her allies will win the WoT. Just bombing the bejaysus out of anyone who so much at looks at you funny is not going to do it.
It IS about hearts and minds, and not just about bombs and guns.
Which is where there really is a parallel with the commonplace assertion that "America won the Cold War by outspending the Soviets".
America, and the West in general, need to identify a modern and moderate strain of Islam and put as much if not more money into backing and spreading that around the world as the Saudi's are doing with Wahabism. It won't be easy; they've got a 30-year head start, and very deep pockets (we will insist on giving them huge quantities of money, and allowing them to form a cartel to manipulate the price upwards to keep the cash coming in).
But on a 30 year time scale going forward, they won't have as much money (by that time, we might be reducing our oil consumption for environmental, politico-social or simple cost reasons). We should be able to overtake them, especially if we can cajole the Chinese, Indians and Brazilians into the fold. This should be at least possible for the Chinese and Indians, who have their won domestic reasons not to want to see continuing Islamic unrest.
The reason for doing this is that, if you trace the roots of all fundamentalist Islam of all denominations, it usually comes back to Wahabism. And nearly all the Islamic radicalism among Western Muslims comes from people who worship, or converted, in mosques whose imams were trained in and preach fundamentalist Wahabism.
Wider Islam is not really the enemy - Wahabism is. In the same way that Medieval Catholicism itself was not necessarily dangerous, but the Jesuits were.
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
It depends who you target, and what you say to them, and how well what you say is backed up by daily experience of ordinary people.
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
Categorically yes.
Why do I say that? Egypt is the second largest recipient of US aid in the Middle East, and both it's people and government have been a great deal less critical of the US and allies since 9-11, and especially since the invasion of Iraq, than might otherwise have been the case.
Even in countries with "hostile" governments, a substantial aid program, coupled with effective information delivered through sources that people trust (e.g. al-Jazeera and not Fox News) would help win over support for America.
The jihadi vision of a united ummah is a lot harder for mullahs to pull off if Joe al-Publiq knows that the school his kids go to and the hospital in which his wife gave birth to them and his father had his eyesight restored were all funded by the USA. 'The Americans are nice to me because it's the right thing to do. Maybe if they are not nice to some other Muslims, it's because those other Muslims are not nice.'
Not especially.
Though an appreciation that the Cold War ended for a more complex mix of reasons than just "America won" or "America outspent the Soviets in the arms race", including for example the inability and/or unwillingness of the Soviet bloc to suppress domestic movements for democracy in satellite states indefinitely (e.g. Solidarnosc in Poland), might help to inform the likely way that America & her allies will win the WoT. Just bombing the bejaysus out of anyone who so much at looks at you funny is not going to do it.
It IS about hearts and minds, and not just about bombs and guns.
Which is where there really is a parallel with the commonplace assertion that "America won the Cold War by outspending the Soviets".
America, and the West in general, need to identify a modern and moderate strain of Islam and put as much if not more money into backing and spreading that around the world as the Saudi's are doing with Wahabism. It won't be easy; they've got a 30-year head start, and very deep pockets (we will insist on giving them huge quantities of money, and allowing them to form a cartel to manipulate the price upwards to keep the cash coming in).
But on a 30 year time scale going forward, they won't have as much money (by that time, we might be reducing our oil consumption for environmental, politico-social or simple cost reasons). We should be able to overtake them, especially if we can cajole the Chinese, Indians and Brazilians into the fold. This should be at least possible for the Chinese and Indians, who have their won domestic reasons not to want to see continuing Islamic unrest.
The reason for doing this is that, if you trace the roots of all fundamentalist Islam of all denominations, it usually comes back to Wahabism. And nearly all the Islamic radicalism among Western Muslims comes from people who worship, or converted, in mosques whose imams were trained in and preach fundamentalist Wahabism.
Wider Islam is not really the enemy - Wahabism is. In the same way that Medieval Catholicism itself was not necessarily dangerous, but the Jesuits were.
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
It depends who you target, and what you say to them, and how well what you say is backed up by daily experience of ordinary people.
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
Categorically yes.
Why do I say that? Egypt is the second largest recipient of US aid in the Middle East, and both it's people and government have been a great deal less critical of the US and allies since 9-11, and especially since the invasion of Iraq, than might otherwise have been the case.
Even in countries with "hostile" governments, a substantial aid program, coupled with effective information delivered through sources that people trust (e.g. al-Jazeera and not Fox News) would help win over support for America.
The jihadi vision of a united ummah is a lot harder for mullahs to pull off if Joe al-Publiq knows that the school his kids go to and the hospital in which his wife gave birth to them and his father had his eyesight restored were all funded by the USA. 'The Americans are nice to me because it's the right thing to do. Maybe if they are not nice to some other Muslims, it's because those other Muslims are not nice.'
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
Not very. Wars (cold or otherwise) between states differ from rogue agents. Wars between states are stable and predictable by comparison. For starters, there is more of an avenue for accountability, and capacity to control violence within larger states. For wars between states, the most important intelligence usually concerns things like the other nation's combat capability or the presence of tanks near the border.
By contrast, the most valuable intelligence about terrorists concern their future intentions. Intelligence-gathering has now shifted almost entirely towards human intelligence of the kind that can only be produced through clandestine infiltration, interrogation, ect. Satellites, surveillance systems, giant listening devices, and ground-penetrating radar won't alert the CIA and FBI to the next terrorist attack, or tell military forces where the insurgents have placed their improvised explosive devices. This is an important concern for us because throughout the past, whenever battle tactics have changed, so have political institutions.
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
I like the IDEA of a propaganda campaign to lure moderate Muslims over. I just don't see it working. We would have to make some major policy changes that we are unwilling and/or unable to make for such a tactic to be even marginally effective.
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
I don't think the cost to gains equation would be worth it, and it likely wouldn't work. Keep in mind we were in fact Afghanistan's largest donor before 911. Also keep in mind that we do already send a great deal of aid to the Middle East, including Pakistan...so we have some basis already to judge the effectiveness of such measures.
First, we are speaking of enormous, unbelievable amounts of aid. And the results still won't necessarily be good. I must disagree with Jules above regarding Egypt. Many of Al Qaeda's highest power players spent a great deal of time in Cairo, embraced by the secret society Muslim Brotherhood that has been plotting for seven decades to install an Islamic Government and sever ties with the western world. More troubling, this used to be a fringe group of old physicians and scholars but now the younger generation and moderates have been embracing such ideas too. Egypt is a disaster waiting to happen, and Mubarak hangs by a thread, trying to pacify his increasingly fundamentalist population while caving to western pressures in order to fund his large army. I predict that in another 10 years or so, if things continue on this path, Egypt will be either a virtual Islamic state or in the middle of a civil war (already armed to the hilt by us of course).
Edited to add: Just thinking further, isn't this an old story? Haven't we invested enormous amounts of aid in the past, funding more moderate segments of the population and had it come back to bite us? Such relatively more moderate governments/segments are then regarded as corrupt by the more fundamentalist population (sometimes with merit, but what's the better alternative?), and the US ever more evil for that funding (whether the support was in credits, monetary aid, development, or military aid).
Not very. Wars (cold or otherwise) between states differ from rogue agents. Wars between states are stable and predictable by comparison. For starters, there is more of an avenue for accountability, and capacity to control violence within larger states. For wars between states, the most important intelligence usually concerns things like the other nation's combat capability or the presence of tanks near the border.
By contrast, the most valuable intelligence about terrorists concern their future intentions. Intelligence-gathering has now shifted almost entirely towards human intelligence of the kind that can only be produced through clandestine infiltration, interrogation, ect. Satellites, surveillance systems, giant listening devices, and ground-penetrating radar won't alert the CIA and FBI to the next terrorist attack, or tell military forces where the insurgents have placed their improvised explosive devices. This is an important concern for us because throughout the past, whenever battle tactics have changed, so have political institutions.
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
I like the IDEA of a propaganda campaign to lure moderate Muslims over. I just don't see it working. We would have to make some major policy changes that we are unwilling and/or unable to make for such a tactic to be even marginally effective.
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
I don't think the cost to gains equation would be worth it, and it likely wouldn't work. Keep in mind we were in fact Afghanistan's largest donor before 911. Also keep in mind that we do already send a great deal of aid to the Middle East, including Pakistan...so we have some basis already to judge the effectiveness of such measures.
First, we are speaking of enormous, unbelievable amounts of aid. And the results still won't necessarily be good. I must disagree with Jules above regarding Egypt. Many of Al Qaeda's highest power players spent a great deal of time in Cairo, embraced by the secret society Muslim Brotherhood that has been plotting for seven decades to install an Islamic Government and sever ties with the western world. More troubling, this used to be a fringe group of old physicians and scholars but now the younger generation and moderates have been embracing such ideas too. Egypt is a disaster waiting to happen, and Mubarak hangs by a thread, trying to pacify his increasingly fundamentalist population while caving to western pressures in order to fund his large army. I predict that in another 10 years or so, if things continue on this path, Egypt will be either a virtual Islamic state or in the middle of a civil war (already armed to the hilt by us of course).
Edited to add: Just thinking further, isn't this an old story? Haven't we invested enormous amounts of aid in the past, funding more moderate segments of the population and had it come back to bite us? Such relatively more moderate governments/segments are then regarded as corrupt by the more fundamentalist population (sometimes with merit, but what's the better alternative?), and the US ever more evil for that funding (whether the support was in credits, monetary aid, development, or military aid).
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
No, not at all. The Cold War was two superpowers basically pointing thousands of nuclear missiles at each other, and the only reason a real "war" wasn't fought was because of Mutually Assured Destruction. The only fighting on the ground between the two was done by proxy wars such as Korea and Vietnam. On the other hand, the WoT isn't us (the superpower) against say what today would be another (China or Russia possibly), but against organizations, not necessarily state-sponsored (although there are exceptions) and individual people. We are in countries trying to kill the people we want to kill in them, but not officially fighting the individual countries themselves.
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
We could try it, and it would be effective to a level, but as of now most Muslims in the Middle East hate the United States and are starting to see us as the Iranians do, "the great Satan".
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
No, because once again it isn't a country on country battle, but a kill people within a country battle. If we were to give money to anti-terrorist organizations or governments maybe.
No, not at all. The Cold War was two superpowers basically pointing thousands of nuclear missiles at each other, and the only reason a real "war" wasn't fought was because of Mutually Assured Destruction. The only fighting on the ground between the two was done by proxy wars such as Korea and Vietnam. On the other hand, the WoT isn't us (the superpower) against say what today would be another (China or Russia possibly), but against organizations, not necessarily state-sponsored (although there are exceptions) and individual people. We are in countries trying to kill the people we want to kill in them, but not officially fighting the individual countries themselves.
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
We could try it, and it would be effective to a level, but as of now most Muslims in the Middle East hate the United States and are starting to see us as the Iranians do, "the great Satan".
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
No, because once again it isn't a country on country battle, but a kill people within a country battle. If we were to give money to anti-terrorist organizations or governments maybe.
There is no comparison between Communism and that of Islam, which is of course a divine faith by which its followers base their whole life willingly and willingly is the defining difference.
It is a waste of time trying to throw money and propaganda against Muslims, because in essence you are asking them to revoke their beliefs and faith, would you expect your hardliner Southern Baptist people to stop believing in their religion?
Ted, why should you feel that it is the US divine right to stay in the Middle East and why should the US protect Israel from condemnation when it openly commits attrocities yet is swift to condemn the Palestinians when they attack Israel. Regardless of what Bush tries to tell you, it is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that is one of the prime reason for Islams attacks on the US around the Globe.
I have no love for Islam and see it as a threat to Global peace, but US interference and destabilization in Islamic states does nothing to lessen Islamic fears of the US in their daily lives.
It is a waste of time trying to throw money and propaganda against Muslims, because in essence you are asking them to revoke their beliefs and faith, would you expect your hardliner Southern Baptist people to stop believing in their religion?
Ted, why should you feel that it is the US divine right to stay in the Middle East and why should the US protect Israel from condemnation when it openly commits attrocities yet is swift to condemn the Palestinians when they attack Israel. Regardless of what Bush tries to tell you, it is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that is one of the prime reason for Islams attacks on the US around the Globe.
I have no love for Islam and see it as a threat to Global peace, but US interference and destabilization in Islamic states does nothing to lessen Islamic fears of the US in their daily lives.
To be debated:
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
Yes, The government has invented another threat to "freedom" so as it can resrict the amount of "freedom".
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
By this are you associating all Muslims with Terrorists?.......... What would this campaign say
Sorry we have screwed your countries over the past fifty years, Sorry we look upon your race and religion as inferior to ours, Sorry we have no respected your traditions and values.
or...........
Put down your bombs and get a free Brittney Spears album and 10% off your next Burger King purchase
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
[/quote]
Why not just buy them some guns and explosives and cut out the middleman?
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=8331
The Truman Doctrine, authored by George F. Kennan, was:
QUOTE
a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies . . . by the adroit and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points.
The Truman Doctrine was officially announced by Truman in 1947 with the pronouncement:
QUOTE
"it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure."
The "Cold War" was far from entirely cold, and 100,000 American soldiers died fighting it. It lasted until the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact fell apart in 1989.
Elioit A. Cohen, a leading military strategist, says that we are in nothing less than World War IV, and this war involves:
QUOTE
...a mixture of violent and nonviolent efforts; that it will require mobilization of skill, expertise, and resources, if not of vast numbers of soldiers; that it may go on for a long time; and that it has ideological roots.
According to Norman Podhoretz:
QUOTE
If the Truman Doctrine unfolded gradually, revealing its entire meaning only in stages, the Bush Doctrine was pretty fully enunciated in a single speech, delivered to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
It was then clarified and elaborated in three subsequent statements: Bush’s first State of the Union address on January 29, 2002; his speech to the graduating class of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on June 1, 2002; and the remarks on the Middle East he delivered three weeks later, on June 24. This difference aside, his contemporaries were at least as startled as Truman’s had been, both by the substance of the new doctrine and by the transformation it bespoke in its author.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm
Norman Podhoretz lays out the Bush doctrine by providing a set of speeches made by Bush :
QUOTE
of the "global terrorist network" that had attacked us on our own soil, he [Bush] said:
"We have seen their kind before. They’re the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies."
"Great harm has been done to us...We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment."
"The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us. Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."
"I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them."
"For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy."
"Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march."
"This conflict will take many turns, with setbacks on the course to victory. Through it all, our confidence comes from one unshakable belief: We believe in Ronald Reagan’s words that 'the future belongs to the free.'"
You cannot attack terrorism as a whole just as we could not attack the USSR due to MAD. What you can do is attack strategic countries to lay out the battlefield in which will allow the enemy ideals to crumble in on themselves instead of expanding.
I believe no matter what your take on comparison's between the cold war and the current war on terror the underlined and bolded quote by none other than GWB is a simple hard cold truth. It's only two sentence's but has large implications.
QUOTE(Vampiel)
The Truman Doctrine, authored by George F. Kennan, was:
QUOTE
a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies . . . by the adroit and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points.
The Truman Doctrine was officially announced by Truman in 1947 with the pronouncement:
QUOTE
"it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure."
The "Cold War" was far from entirely cold, and 100,000 American soldiers died fighting it. It lasted until the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact fell apart in 1989.
Elioit A. Cohen, a leading military strategist, says that we are in nothing less than World War IV, and this war involves:
QUOTE
...a mixture of violent and nonviolent efforts; that it will require mobilization of skill, expertise, and resources, if not of vast numbers of soldiers; that it may go on for a long time; and that it has ideological roots.
According to Norman Podhoretz:
QUOTE
If the Truman Doctrine unfolded gradually, revealing its entire meaning only in stages, the Bush Doctrine was pretty fully enunciated in a single speech, delivered to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
It was then clarified and elaborated in three subsequent statements: Bush’s first State of the Union address on January 29, 2002; his speech to the graduating class of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on June 1, 2002; and the remarks on the Middle East he delivered three weeks later, on June 24. This difference aside, his contemporaries were at least as startled as Truman’s had been, both by the substance of the new doctrine and by the transformation it bespoke in its author.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm
Norman Podhoretz lays out the Bush doctrine by providing a set of speeches made by Bush :
QUOTE
of the "global terrorist network" that had attacked us on our own soil, he [Bush] said:
"We have seen their kind before. They’re the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies."
"Great harm has been done to us...We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment."
"The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us. Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."
"I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them."
"For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy."
"Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march."
"This conflict will take many turns, with setbacks on the course to victory. Through it all, our confidence comes from one unshakable belief: We believe in Ronald Reagan’s words that 'the future belongs to the free.'"
You cannot attack terrorism as a whole just as we could not attack the USSR due to MAD. What you can do is attack strategic countries to lay out the battlefield in which will allow the enemy ideals to crumble in on themselves instead of expanding.
I believe no matter what your take on comparison's between the cold war and the current war on terror the underlined and bolded quote by none other than GWB is a simple hard cold truth. It's only two sentence's but has large implications.
The Truman Doctrine was officially announced by Truman in 1947 with the pronouncement:
QUOTE
"it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure."
Does anyone else find this quote completly ironic. The US does not seem to listen to the "free peoples" that are resisting subjugation by an armed US minority using lots of outside pressure.
Wow the US has come along way since 1947
QUOTE
"it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure."
Does anyone else find this quote completly ironic. The US does not seem to listen to the "free peoples" that are resisting subjugation by an armed US minority using lots of outside pressure.
Wow the US has come along way since 1947
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War? I don't think so; but, it's an interesting thought to ponder, for me anyway. Of the many flavors of "types and styles" of war, the one's that include what we are referring to as "The War on Terror", which as a term of reference bothers me as having a bit too much spin content, would be Guerrilla Warfare, and Psychological Warfare. The Cold War was "Mutually assured destruction nuclear warfare----always pending!"
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective? I believe so, and it could include much of another type of warfare activity, known as Civil Affairs. It sure is a cheap form of warfare and if the Special Forces of old Vietnam days could be revised, and the present SEAL mania and Special Ops Commands shut down, I think it would work. Add in the Peace Corps of old too please.
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective? I doubt it! Our largess folks always seem too interested in image and spin, and are way too ignorant of "ground truth" anywhere to do an effective job. Certainly though properly (to be defined shown and proven) applied $$$'s would be helpful. But it sure has a terrible history of mis-use!
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective? I believe so, and it could include much of another type of warfare activity, known as Civil Affairs. It sure is a cheap form of warfare and if the Special Forces of old Vietnam days could be revised, and the present SEAL mania and Special Ops Commands shut down, I think it would work. Add in the Peace Corps of old too please.
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective? I doubt it! Our largess folks always seem too interested in image and spin, and are way too ignorant of "ground truth" anywhere to do an effective job. Certainly though properly (to be defined shown and proven) applied $$$'s would be helpful. But it sure has a terrible history of mis-use!
For the "War on Terror" read the more truthful fact the "Battle with Fundamentalist Islam"
There are some signs that a battle has broken out in that cradle of hardline Islam, namely Pakistan as a result of Talibanic Islam seeking to enforce its view of life on the majority of Pakistan's Islamic population and that population fighting back. As to whether moderate Islam will successfully confront hardline Islam is very much open to question and they have certainly left it late in the day to start reacting to those attrocities being carried out by fundamentalists in the name of Islam.
US and UK actions in various parts of the World seems to have forced moderate Islam into providing tacit support to the hardliners, by our heavy handed actions where ever our military footprint is found. It will take very careful and clever handling by the US of the current friction in Pakistan to ensure that the moderate Muslim population wins the day.
There are some signs that a battle has broken out in that cradle of hardline Islam, namely Pakistan as a result of Talibanic Islam seeking to enforce its view of life on the majority of Pakistan's Islamic population and that population fighting back. As to whether moderate Islam will successfully confront hardline Islam is very much open to question and they have certainly left it late in the day to start reacting to those attrocities being carried out by fundamentalists in the name of Islam.
US and UK actions in various parts of the World seems to have forced moderate Islam into providing tacit support to the hardliners, by our heavy handed actions where ever our military footprint is found. It will take very careful and clever handling by the US of the current friction in Pakistan to ensure that the moderate Muslim population wins the day.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Feb 12 2007, 05:22 AM) 
To be debated:
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
1. I've got to say Yes & No. The War on Terrorism "is" comparable to the Cold War because it is a direct assault on American citizens' pocketbooks. Borrow-Borrow-Borrow and Spend-Spend-Spend. That's all the Republicrats / Demoplicans in Washington know how to do. Dig US deeper and deeper in debt. All the while their cronies in the Defense Industry line their own pockets. At our expense.
It "isn't" comparable because it isn't real. In the Cold War we had a clearly defineable adversary. Hard Evidence and Proof. The Soviets were real. The War on Teorrorism isn't anything. Its a sham. Another way for THEM to line THEIR pockets at OUR expense.
2. I say no. We've been "informing" them people for more'n 1000 years. They ain't seen the light and I don't reckon they ever will see it. I ain't no friend of Islam. I reckon the reason we've got so many problems in the Middle East is because we haven't started playing Cowboys and Islamfanatics, yet. We're in the middle of the American Crusade to rid the Holy Land of Islamofanatics and I'm for doin' it. Boom-Bada-Boom-Boom-BOOM! No more Mecca. No more Medina. No more Tehran and No more Demascus too. Grit your teeth Ahyatollaha!
3. Again, I say no. My Grandfathers and all of their brothers and sisters knocked down the Third Reich and the Japaneese Empire too. My mother and father and all my aunts and uncles built up them countries with American Foreign Aid. We've been sending boatloads upon boatloads of money over there for the past 50 years. I'm tired of it. I'm for cashing in our chips. Where's my dividend check?
Welcome Grimes, please be sure your posts are constructive and not inflammatory.
TOPICS:
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
TOPICS:
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Feb 12 2007, 06:22 AM)
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
I believe the war on Terrorism is very much comparable to the Cold War, as it is being fought with similar tactics. I might also speculate that it is being fought for similar reasons. I do not personally buy that it is actually related to terror in any way. It appears that the point of the war on Terrorism is a war to control resources and strategic territory.
QUOTE
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
It could be. What information are we trying to convey? If the information is "denounce Allah, throw down your Burkas, and be like the West," then no, it will be useless. If the information is more along the lines of "we are not your enemy. We stand for Freedom of Religion, and are through supporting corrupt leaders who oppress you," I don't see why it couldn't be effective.
QUOTE
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
Why yes it would, but it had better be effective foreign aid. I don't think it's just about throwing money at the problem. I honestly believe that improving the quality of life for people can have an amazing impact on the stability of any given region. Call it "the Imperialism of Mercy," but if you can give people hope, these same people can be valuable allies against those whose sole mission is to create unrest and instability.
1. Is the War on Terrorism comparable to the Cold War?
No, for several reasons. First, the Cold War was largely between state actors. Much of the fighting in the WOT is asymmetrical and not (directly) tied to state actors.
Second, the ability to separate the "good" from "evil" in this equation is elusive and sometimes highly fluid. Whereas in the Cold War the lines were far easier to draw. The situation in Iraq is an excellent example of this fluidity. Currently, the US is supporting the Sunni insurgency on the provision that the support is used to fight Al Qaeda. While the maxim of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was a common exercise in the Cold War, under the Bush Doctrine this boolean construct can change on a daily basis.
Third, the Cold War was a clear fight against an ideology, whereas terrorism is specific to a political action. The reality in Iraq is that both our friends and enemies use terrorism to achieve political ends. So are we at war with both sides?
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
Perhaps, but only if it is accompanied with actions. As long as terrorism is successful in achieving political goals (the bombings in Spain being a good example), it will continue to be used by any non-state actor regardless of their religious underpinnings.
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
As part of the overall strategy, perhaps. Aid has to be effective, however. We've spent billions on reconstruction in Iraq, with very little to actually show for it. If the country had power at levels prior to the invasion and unemployment were at pre-invasion levels, do we think the insurgency would be as strong as it is today? Aid is only one part of this equation.
No, for several reasons. First, the Cold War was largely between state actors. Much of the fighting in the WOT is asymmetrical and not (directly) tied to state actors.
Second, the ability to separate the "good" from "evil" in this equation is elusive and sometimes highly fluid. Whereas in the Cold War the lines were far easier to draw. The situation in Iraq is an excellent example of this fluidity. Currently, the US is supporting the Sunni insurgency on the provision that the support is used to fight Al Qaeda. While the maxim of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was a common exercise in the Cold War, under the Bush Doctrine this boolean construct can change on a daily basis.
Third, the Cold War was a clear fight against an ideology, whereas terrorism is specific to a political action. The reality in Iraq is that both our friends and enemies use terrorism to achieve political ends. So are we at war with both sides?
2. Would an information campaign to the Muslim world be effective?
Perhaps, but only if it is accompanied with actions. As long as terrorism is successful in achieving political goals (the bombings in Spain being a good example), it will continue to be used by any non-state actor regardless of their religious underpinnings.
3. Would large amounts of foreign aid to "critical countries" be effective?
As part of the overall strategy, perhaps. Aid has to be effective, however. We've spent billions on reconstruction in Iraq, with very little to actually show for it. If the country had power at levels prior to the invasion and unemployment were at pre-invasion levels, do we think the insurgency would be as strong as it is today? Aid is only one part of this equation.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.