SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: foundation who wrote (62)9/16/2001 1:39:40 PM
From: foundation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Smoking or Non-Smoking?

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
September 14, 2001

JERUSALEM -- If this attack on America by an extensive terrorist cell is the equivalent of World War III, it's not too early to begin thinking about what could be its long-term geopolitical consequences. Just as World Wars I and II produced new orders and divisions, so too might this war. What might it look like?

Israel's foreign minister, Shimon Peres, offers the following possibility: Several decades ago, he notes, they discovered that smoking causes cancer. Soon after that, people started to demand smoking and non-smoking sections. "Well, terrorism is the cancer of our age," says Mr. Peres. "For the past decade, a lot of countries wanted to deny that, or make excuses for why they could go on dealing with terrorists. But after what's happened in New York and Washington, now everyone knows. This is a cancer. It's a danger to us all. So every country must now decide whether it wants to be a smoking or non-smoking country, a country that supports terrorism or one that doesn't."

Mr. Peres is on to something — this sort of division is going to emerge — but we must be very, very careful about how it is done, and whom we, the U.S., assign to the smoking and non-smoking worlds.

As Mr. Peres himself notes, this is not a clash of civilizations — the Muslim world versus the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish worlds. The real clash today is actually not between civilizations, but within them — between those Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews with a modern and progressive outlook and those with a medieval one. We make a great mistake if we simply write off the Muslim world and fail to understand how many Muslims feel themselves trapped in failing states and look to America as a model and inspiration.

"President Lincoln said of the South after the Civil War: 'Remember, they pray to the same God,'" remarked the Middle East analyst Stephen P. Cohen. "The same is true of many, many Muslims. We must fight those among them who pray only to the God of Hate, but we do not want to go to war with Islam, with all the millions of Muslims who pray to the same God we do."

The terrorists who hit the U.S. this week are people who pray to the God of Hate. Their terrorism is not aimed at reversing any specific U.S. policy. Indeed, they made no demands. Their terrorism is driven by pure hatred and nihilism, and its targets are the institutions that undergird America's way of life, from our markets to our military.

These terrorists must be rooted out and destroyed. But it must be done in a way that doesn't make us Osama bin Laden's chief recruiter. Because these Muslim terrorists did not just want to kill Americans. That is not the totality of their mission. These people think strategically. They also want to trigger the sort of massive U.S. retaliation that makes no distinction between them and other Muslims. That would be their ultimate victory — because they do see the world as a clash of civilizations, and they want every Muslim to see it that way as well and to join their jihad.

Americans were really only able to defeat Big Tobacco when whistleblowers within the tobacco industry went public and took on their own industry, and their own bosses, as peddlers of cancer. Similarly, the only chance to really defeat these nihilistic terrorists is not just by bombing them. That is necessary, but not sufficient, because another generation will sprout up behind them. Only their own religious communities and societies can really restrain and delegitimize them. And that will happen only when the Muslim majority recognizes that what the Osama bin Ladens are leading to is the destruction and denigration of their own religion and societies.

This civil war within Islam, between the modernists and the medievalists, has actually been going on for years — particularly in Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan. We need to strengthen the good guys in this civil war. And that requires a social, political and economic strategy, as sophisticated, and generous, as our military one.

To not retaliate ferociously for this attack on our people is only to invite a worse attack tomorrow and an endless war with terrorists. But to retaliate in a way that doesn't distinguish between those who pray to a God of Hate and those who pray to the same God we do is to invite an endless war between civilizations — a war that will land us all in the smoking section.

nytimes.com

----------

World War III

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

September 13, 2001 FOREIGN AFFAIRS

JERUSALEM

As I restlessly lay awake early yesterday, with CNN on my TV and dawn breaking over the holy places of Jerusalem, my ear somehow latched onto a statement made by the U.S. transportation secretary, Norman Mineta, about the new precautions that would be put in place at U.S. airports in the wake of Tuesday's unspeakable terrorist attacks: There will be no more curbside check-in, he said. I suddenly imagined a group of terrorists somewhere here in the Middle East, sipping coffee, also watching CNN and laughing hysterically: "Hey boss, did you hear that? We just blew up Wall Street and the Pentagon and their response is no more curbside check- in?"

I don't mean to criticize Mr. Mineta. He is doing what he can. And I have absolutely no doubt that the Bush team, when it identifies the perpetrators, will make them pay dearly. Yet there was something so absurdly futile and American about the curbside ban that I couldn't help but wonder: Does my country really understand that this is World War III? And if this attack was the Pearl Harbor of World War III, it means there is a long, long war ahead.

And this Third World War does not pit us against another superpower. It pits us — the world's only superpower and quintessential symbol of liberal, free-market, Western values — against all the super-empowered angry men and women out there. Many of these super-empowered angry people hail from failing states in the Muslim and third world. They do not share our values, they resent America's influence over their lives, politics and children, not to mention our support for Israel, and they often blame America for the failure of their societies to master modernity.

What makes them super-empowered, though, is their genius at using the networked world, the Internet and the very high technology they hate, to attack us. Think about it: They turned our most advanced civilian planes into human-directed, precision-guided cruise missiles — a diabolical melding of their fanaticism and our technology. Jihad Online. And think of what they hit: The World Trade Center — the beacon of American-led capitalism that both tempts and repels them, and the Pentagon, the embodiment of American military superiority.

And think about what places in Israel the Palestinian suicide bombers have targeted most. "They never hit synagogues or settlements or Israeli religious zealots," said the Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit. "They hit the Sbarro pizza parlor, the Netanya shopping mall. The Dolphinarium disco. They hit the yuppie Israel, not the yeshiva Israel."

So what is required to fight a war against such people in such a world? To start with, we as Americans will never be able to penetrate such small groups, often based on family ties, who live in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan or Lebanon's wild Bekaa Valley. The only people who can penetrate these shadowy and ever-mutating groups, and deter them, are their own societies. And even they can't do it consistently. So give the C.I.A. a break.

Israeli officials will tell you that the only time they have had real quiet and real control over the suicide bombers and radical Palestinian groups, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, is when Yasir Arafat and his Palestinian Authority tracked them, jailed them or deterred them.

So then the question becomes, What does it take for us to get the societies that host terrorist groups to truly act against them?

First we have to prove that we are serious, and that we understand that many of these terrorists hate our existence, not just our policies. In June I wrote a column about the fact that a few cell-phone threats from Osama bin Laden had prompted President Bush to withdraw the F.B.I. from Yemen, a U.S. Marine contingent from Jordan and the U.S. Fifth Fleet from its home base in the Persian Gulf. This U.S. retreat was noticed all over the region, but it did not merit a headline in any major U.S. paper. That must have encouraged the terrorists. Forget about our civilians, we didn't even want to risk our soldiers to face their threats.

The people who planned Tuesday's bombings combined world-class evil with world-class genius to devastating effect. And unless we are ready to put our best minds to work combating them — the World War III Manhattan Project — in an equally daring, unconventional and unremitting fashion, we're in trouble. Because while this may have been the first major battle of World War III, it may be the last one that involves only conventional, non-nuclear weapons.

Second, we have been allowing a double game to go on with our Middle East allies for years, and that has to stop. A country like Syria has to decide: Does it want a Hezbollah embassy in Damascus or an American one? If it wants a U.S. embassy, then it cannot play host to a rogue's gallery of terrorist groups.

Does that mean the U.S. must ignore Palestinian concerns and Muslim economic grievances? No. Many in this part of the world crave the best of America, and we cannot forget that we are their ray of hope. But apropos of the Palestinians, the U.S. put on the table at Camp David a plan that would have gotten Yasir Arafat much of what he now claims to be fighting for. That U.S. plan may not be sufficient for Palestinians, but to say that the justifiable response to it is suicide terrorism is utterly sick.

Third, we need to have a serious and respectful dialogue with the Muslim world and its political leaders about why many of its people are falling behind. The fact is, no region in the world, including sub-Saharan Africa, has fewer freely elected governments than the Arab-Muslim world, which has none. Why? Egypt went through a whole period of self- criticism after the 1967 war, which produced a stronger country. Why is such self-criticism not tolerated today by any Arab leader?

Where are the Muslim leaders who will tell their sons to resist the Israelis — but not to kill themselves or innocent non-combatants? No matter how bad, your life is sacred. Surely Islam, a grand religion that never perpetrated the sort of Holocaust against the Jews in its midst that Europe did, is being distorted when it is treated as a guidebook for suicide bombing. How is it that not a single Muslim leader will say that?

These are some of the issues we will have to address as we fight World War III. It will be a long war against a brilliant and motivated foe. When I remarked to an Israeli military official what an amazing technological feat it was for the terrorists to hijack the planes and then fly them directly into the most vulnerable spot in each building, he pooh-poohed me.

"It's not that difficult to learn how to fly a plane once it's up in the air," he said. "And remember, they never had to learn how to land."

No, they didn't. They only had to destroy. We, by contrast, have to fight in a way that is effective without destroying the very open society we are trying to protect. We have to fight hard and land safely. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules, and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. It won't be easy. It will require our best strategists, our most creative diplomats and our bravest soldiers. Semper Fi.

nytimes.com



To: foundation who wrote (62)9/16/2001 11:20:16 PM
From: amadeus  Respond to of 281500
 
a related article about the historical context
the extremists see themselves in:

foreignaffairs.org



To: foundation who wrote (62)11/4/2001 3:27:08 AM
From: Doc Bones  Read Replies (7) | Respond to of 281500
 
Another interesting column by Georgie Ann Geyer on the struggle in the administration about whether to take on Iraq, which she feels could be very damaging to The U.S.

--------

10/25/01

PRO-ISRAELI, ANTI-ARAB CAMPAIGNS COULD ISOLATE AMERICA

WASHINGTON -- Parallel to the international war against terrorism, a smaller "war" of interests, beliefs and realities is going on beneath the surface, which could endanger the final outcome of everything that has been accomplished since Sept. 11. So far, this parallel conflict is being contained by cool heads in the administration, but that could change at any time.
Essentially, the discussion is over Baghdad: whether Iraq and its "state sponsorship" is really to blame for the terrorism that has struck America and whether we should not then go "straight to Baghdad." That simple exhortation is deeply misleading.

The "Get Iraq" campaign, which to some people means finishing the Gulf War, started within days of the September bombings, long before the anthrax attacks and the new questions they raised. It emerged first and particularly from pro-Israeli hard-liners in the Pentagon such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and adviser Richard Perle, but also from hard-line neoconservatives, and some journalists and congressmen.

Soon it became clear that many, although not all, were in the group that is commonly called in diplomatic and political circles the "Israeli-firsters," meaning that they would always put Israeli policy, or even their perception of it, above anything else.

Barbara Slavin, the USA Today diplomatic correspondent, wrote in mid-October that "Pentagon officials, frustrated by the anti-terrorism campaign's focus on Afghanistan, have quietly gone around the intelligence establishment and asked a former CIA director to look for an Iraqi connection to the Sept. 11 attacks." The sources said that James Woolsey was sent to "seek evidence that would justify U.S. attacks on Iraq." She called it an "unorthodox role," which is surely a kind description.

The campaign also has another target, which has now become obvious in the think tanks, in Congress and in daily meetings here. This bitter attack on both Egypt and Saudi Arabia seeks to discredit both, partly to discount the idea that the Palestinian conflict plays a core role in terrorism against America, and also partly to diminish, or ruin, the United States' relations with any Arab states.

Usually the attacks take the form of criticizing Egypt and Saudi Arabia for not taking a more active role in supporting the United States. Much of the pro-Israeli part of the campaign is directed at proving that this fall's terrorism was instigated not by "Arab street hatred" over the war in Israel and Palestine, but by "unrepresentative" and "oppressive" Arab governments.

The U.S. diplomats I have spoken to, most with long experience in the Middle East, are uniformly enraged by these campaigns. Next to the war, it is the main topic at receptions and meetings. "It's a very simple proposition," one former ambassador to the region told me. "Now's the chance for us to get rid of all of Israel's enemies in the Middle East." And another formerly high-ranking diplomat told me, "It's the old story, that Israel simply can't bear to see any Arab countries close to the United States."

Friendly Arab delegations who have visited here, such as a delegation of high-level Egyptian businessmen who were here last week to express their sympathy, have been assured by the highest levels of the administration that there are no plans to attack Iraq. This has been the restrained and cautious policy of the president, the vice president, the secretary of state and the secretary of defense.

The visitors also point out that, even as this campaign against them was gaining steam in Washington, 15,000 American troops were participating in exercise "Bright Star" in Egypt with Egyptian troops, the Egyptian government was openly supporting the United States, and overflight rights were immediately granted for U.S. planes.

Leading Arab ambassadors have also warned privately that any attack on Iraq would sabotage Arab participation in the series of "coalitions" forming around the conflict. These other agendas, as they euphemistically call them, would drive the moderate Arabs away from the West. They point out, again privately, the fragility of this moment when the Arab masses are at best ambivalent about the anti-bin Laden campaign because of the war with the Palestinians.

Meanwhile, Israel's hard-line Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has refused even to temper his attacks against the Palestinians, despite President Bush's constant requests. Even many of his own coalition say that he wants to destroy the Palestinian Authority, to see the Palestinian radicals installed as the next "government," and then to work toward driving the Palestinians into Jordan.

The Bush administration, concerned by the rising speculation about Iraqi involvement in the anthrax mailings, this week attempted to clarify the public rhetoric. There was still no proof of Iraqi involvement, spokesmen said. And when and if there is, the United States will revisit the question of Iraqi complicity.

Meanwhile, it does not take a von Clausewitz or a Sun Tzu to figure out, militarily and also politically, that it would be the worst kind of madness to isolate America in this difficult, poisonous struggle. The idea of thrusting America into two wars at once and eviscerating the support it needs in the region is not some mischievous theoretical game. It is a deadly, real-life game, and its players should certainly know better.

uexpress.com