Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Hawkmoon who wrote (133085)	5/14/2004 7:36:52 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Received this from a friend via email. It was written by Anthony Cordesman, who works with CSIS: Beheadings and the Desecration of Corpses: Atrocity and Alienation as a Political and Psychological Weapons Anthony H. Cordesman One has to be careful about ascribing motives to terrorism. Far too often, terrorist acts are committed simply because they can be committed and with limited thought about the consequences. The fact remains, however, that atrocities like desecrating corpses and beheadings are effective political and psychological weapons for those Islamic extremists whose goal is to divide the West from the Islamic world, and create an unbridgeable "clash of civilizations." Experts have long pointed out that one of the key differences between Islamic extremist terrorism and previous forms of terrorism is that they are not seeking to negotiate with those they terrorize, but rather to create conditions that can drive the West away, undermine secular and moderate regimes in the Arab and Islamic worlds, and create the conditions under which they can create "Islamic" states according to their own ideas of "Puritanism." Terrorists and insurgents also know that such violence successfully undermined the Israel peace process and now helps drive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A relative handful of terrorists in Hamas and the PIJ, and the Israeli, who killed Rabin, effectively defeated both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Dramatic incidents of violence in Beirut and Somalia created political and psychological conditions that helped catalyze US withdrawal. This is why it serves the purposes of Islamic extremists, as well as some of the more focused opponents of the US and the West, to create massive casualties and carry out major strikes even if the result is to provoke hostility and anger. The goal of Bin Laden and those like him is not to persuade the US or the West, it is rather to so alienate them from the Islamic and Arab world that the forces of secularism in the region will be sharply undermined, and Western secular influence can be controlled or eliminated. The goal of most Iraqi insurgents is narrower - drive the US and its allies out of Iraq - but involves many of the same methods. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon served this purpose. They open up a gulf between the US and Arab countries and Islam that is still a major force in Middle Eastern politics. The attacks in Madrid were more focused, but achieved the same goal. Attacks on UN and NGO personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq are subtler, but have the same effect. So do kidnappings and hostage taking, or bombings of crowds during holidays and religious festivals. Rather than divide and conquer, the tactic is anger and divide. The US and the West are often provoked into playing into the hands of such attackers. The careless treatment of detainees and prisoners, and careless and excessive security measures are a case in point. So is careless political and media rhetoric. Bin Laden, the Iraqi insurgents, etc. All benefit from every Western action that unnecessarily angers or frustrates the Arab and Islamic world. They are not fighting to influence Western or world opinion; they are fighting a political and psychological war to dominate Iraq and the Arab and Islamic worlds. Seen in this context, the more horrifying the attack on the US the better. Simple casualties do not get the same media attention. They are a reality of war. Killing (or sometimes releasing) innocent hostages does grab the attention of the world media. Large bombs in crowds do the same, as does picking targets whose innocence or media impact grabs headlines. Desecrating corpses, beheadings, and similar acts of violence get even more media attention -- at least for a while. These actions also do far more to breed anger and alienation in the US and the West and to provoke excessive political and media reactions, more stringent security measures, violent responses and all of the other actions that help provoke a "clash of civilizations." Each such incident damages the US and Western image of the Arab and Islamic world. At the same time, any attack or incident that provokes massage media coverage and a political reactions appears to be a "victory" to those who support Islamic extremism or are truly angry at the US - even though a the actual body count is often low, and victory does not mean creating stronger forces or winning political control. This is especially true when there is some popular excuse or cover for such attacks: In this case, the abuse of prisoners. There is only one clear counter to such tactics: expose them for what they are: deliberate political and psychological efforts to provoke broad tensions and divisions between the US and the West and the Arab and Islamic worlds. US and Western politicians and media must avoid overreacting in ways that serve the interests of Islamic extremists and groups like Iraqi insurgents, and implying they somehow represent the attitudes and values of Arab and Islamic states and peoples. It is to look beyond the actions of crowds or mobs -- when they are involved - and to ask who is manipulating and provoking them. Above all, the US and the West must not fall into to trap of help to create a real "clash of civilizations." The US and the West it is to reach out to Arab and Islamic moderate and intellectuals, to strengthen ties to friendly regional regimes, and concentrate on the defeating the real enemy: Islamic extremists, terrorists, and insurgents who are just as much the enemy of reform and progress in their own countries and cultures as they are of the US and the West.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (133085)	5/15/2004 7:08:39 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

But I still don't hear whether you're WILLING to help them... I always ask myself what decision I'd make if there were a good chance my child could die depending on my choice. Given that point of view, when it comes to "helping" them, I may see things differently than Bush does. The possibility that a majority of Iraqis might "want" democracy doesn't mean much if those who want some other type of system are willing to fight for it and those who want democracy are not. I think you can help those who are willing to help themselves. The fact is that those Iraqis who say they "want" democracy have done damn little to show they want it enough to fight for it. The picture gets even worse when you recognize that they are passively supporting or tolerating the insurgency by not only failing to fight the insurgents; they're not even willing in most instances to give us "intelligence" on who and where they are. That tells you, at the least, that they aren't willing to fight for our "help" in "giving" them democracy and, additionally, that they may not be willing to fight for democracy on their own. Do I want to spend our fortune and send our young to die for those people? What do you think? A strong minority is often far stronger than a weak majority, especially when the strong minority is willing to fight for its views and the weak majority is not. That's a reality that the Bush Administration should have figured out long ago. From some of your posts it appears that you similarly do not, or will not, recognize that truth.