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: Sam who wrote (220792)	2/24/2007 7:54:56 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

This blanket term confuses the American public about the nature of the struggle they are facing. This is not World War II, where an Adolf Hitler was bent on, and capable of, territorial conquest. This is not a war of standing armies seeking to capture land. Crap. AQ seeks to recreate the caliphate, to undo "the humiliation of the last 80 years" (since the Ottoman Empire fell) to use their own words. Everytime they gain control of any land, as they did in Afghanistan or in al Anbar in Iraq, or still have in Waziristan, they set up an Islamic emirate. I don't understand for the life of me how the same people can say that the war is hopeless, lost, time to run away from Afghanistan and Iraq, but on the other hand dismiss the idea that AQ could win or actually means business. The West is engaged in a long-term fight against disparate radical Islamist groups that are alienated by globalization and the backwardness of their countries. In the words of Steven Cook, Mideast expert for the Council on Foreign Relations: "There are different groups with different political interpretations of Islam and different goals. There is no real address for 'Islamo-fascism.'" Fascism is the name of an ideology, not an address. The nature of Islamist rule is totalitarian and fascist. The state is designed for war; the populace is designed to serve the state. Calling them Islamo-fasicsts is accurate. This is true for both Wahhabi and Khomenist versions. Lumping all these groups under a single rubric creates the image of one worldwide and powerful jihadi movement rather than disparate groups whose differences can be exploited. For example, Iranians hate al Qaeda, which considers them to be infidels. And Arab Sunnis will never follow the lead of Shiite Iranians, no matter the current cockiness of Tehran's leaders. But they will all make common cause against the US or Israel. Hamas considers Shiites to be infidels, is that stopping their alliance with Iran? Syria is now Iran's client, is it stopped by the fact that most of its citizens are Arab Sunnis? Sure, exploit the differences if you can, but don't fool yourself for a second that those differences will protect you. Raising the "Islamo-fascist" cry fosters false hope that terrorism can be halted with one great military strike -- a Berlin or Hiroshima. This is a straw man. You have never heard Bush or Blair say so. However, as Blair just explained in his FA article, any long ideological struggle involves an accurate description of the enemy. "Islamo-fascist" may be a very general label, but it is far more accurate description than "the tiny minority of Muslim extremists" whom we were supposedly fighting before. This whole essay is profoundly retrograde. As if any war that doesn't resemble the tank battles of WWII could not be a real war. The author should wake up and notice what has been happening in Indonesia, Thailand or Algeria for the last 10 years.