Hi Steven,
I have a couple of questions about your analyis of the Rubin article.
When an enemy’s strength is growing, an aggressive stance is called for. When the enemy’s strength is waning, especially when they are threatened with internal dissent, biding time and adopting a conciliatory posture are more effective strategies. Aggressive maneuvers will be counterproductive; they only make it easier for the opposing leaders to push that “external threat” button.
How would you define "conciliatory posture"? Would this only apply when the enemy is an actual state or government? An enemy like Al-Queda would I think view any conciliatory posture, whether to themselves or to a government that supports it, as a victory and a reason to continue the battle.
Rubin believes that radical Muslim governments and terrorist groups are sustaining themselves by convincing their people that the US is a real and present threat to them. In this environment, we have to consider that a threatening posture might end up reinforcing this argument. It is easier to convince people that the US is a threat to Muslims when diplomacy is being conducted with cruise missiles and armored divisions.
Well, the US IS a military threat (theoretically) to any country or entity it opposes. It stands alone in that respect and that won't change anytime soon, unless some entity I'm not presently aware of plans to invest the money to compete with it. And the US is a threat to radical Islam, considering the damage it did and wants to do. I don't see radical Islam adopting "live and let live" or "win-win" philosophies, so it must be destroyed or neutralized.
convince Muslims that the US does not threaten them and that their own leaders do.
The US can much more easily demonstrate that it supports the non-radical Muslims and the advantages that brings than to convince Muslims in general that the US doesn't threaten them. Both are necessary, as are "selling the product" as you said, but I believe the short-term threat is too strong for the US to limit itself to strategies that are either reactive or will take decades to have a noticeable effect. |
