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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (106031)	1/3/2010 10:22:02 AM
From: Hawkmoon	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Skeeter, I hate taking up BW on this thread over this, but I'll try and give as concise and answer as I can. why now? Why not now?? Why not earlier? Why did Fascism arise when it did and not earlier or later?... There are two fundamental reasons as to "Why Now?" In part, it's the failure of the Arab world to achieve economic and social parity with the West. And probably most importantly, is demographic change brought about by the Arab "baby boomers". The Arab world has an identity crisis. This has become increasingly evident since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire unleashed the competing forces of modernization and progressive change versus reactionary religious fundamentalism. In fact, many of the same forces of social conflict that have faced the West during its political and economic development. It's bad enough for conservatives to accept change. They want it to be moderate in tempo, over generations, if necessary. But Reactionaries? Reactionaries HATE change, especially Religious Reactionaries who fear that change will dilute the power of their faith, or the place their religious beliefs grant them within their culture (like misogynistic views towards womem). Since 1917, the Arab world has been trying to "fit in" with the rapid changes that are threatening to leave it behind even further. They've toyed with the various economic models but none of them have quite "fit" with their cultural and social past ("baggage" some my opine). The rise of Islamic militancy is not just a sudden occurrence. It's been increasing in severity for many decades. It's intellectual and religious logic has been progressing for decades. And it was the Shi'a who first were able to seize control over an entire nation/state (Iran), focusing it's resources on waging their "version" of Jihad against both their Sunni rivals, as well as the West. But Egypt has been the center of Sunni Militancy. The Muslim Brotherhood has been a significant problem there since before Egyptian Islamic Jihad assassinated Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel. And btw, Ayman Zawahiri, the #2 of Al Qaida, was the head of EIJ and merged it with Bin Ladin to form Al Qaida. So Skeeter, Al Qaida is only the most recent manifestation of Islamic Militancy. It's certainly been the most creative and deadly of them, and unlike Arab nationalist groups like the PLO, it's focus is primarily religious in nature. Now.. to quickly address the Demographic changes in the region. The majority of Arab and Muslim countries in SW Asia have very high percentages of young people. About 50% of Afghanistan's population is under 18 years of age. This is the case is much of the Muslim world. Thus, while the West's population is aging and not replacing itself, the Muslim world is youthful and looking to "change the world". Think about it.. Of the approximately 1.3 Billion Muslims, probably over 400 million are young adults or children. These young people are being radicalized at a growing rate Skeeter. They are the "cannon fodder" that provides the martyrs for the Jihadist cause. And just as the message of "Aryan Supremacy" resonated with youthful Germans, restoration of Islamic Supremacy resonates with Muslim youth. Now understand this following premise Skeeter. It's important. These are religious militants, not nationalists. What motivates them are their heavenly rewards, not materialistic ones. They believe they are manifesting "Allah's Will" on earth against the unbelievers and it's their holy duty to fight, and to die, to bring this about. In their thinking, this reality CANNOT BE DEFEATED, only delayed. For Allah's Will cannot be denied. This religious idealism (propaganda) is how they recruit, motivate, and sustain their cause. So long as they perceive that "Allah is with us", they will continue to fight. But when they are defeated, and especially when they are defeated by both "infidels" and fellow Muslims, it becomes an inescapable conclusion that Allah is NOT with them. What I'm essentially stating is that if we cannot leave the region without impressing upon them that "Allah is NOT with them". If we do, it will only provide them a useful recruiting tool. "Look!! We defeated the Infidel Crusader forces.. Allah is with us!!" And part of this strategy of creating such an impression of doubt and defeat requires us to deploy our forces into their "backyard". We cannot isolate ourselves from this interconnected world, especially when we're perceived as the major force holding it together. We're a primary target, as is Europe. That's why I believe that Mish and others have failed to understand the nature of the threat. We'd better offer the Moderate side of the Muslim world some assistance in providing a "brighter future", or they are likely to "default" back to a fanatical and militant religious Jihad in order to get the respect they think that is their due. That's about a concise as I can make my case in this sitting.. Hawk