Multi-Million Dollar Question: What is the best and practical and realistic way to defeat the beast?
Wrong question. Islamicism barely existed before the US started arming the Mujahideen in the 1980s as part of the Warrrr on Commernism. And where it did exist, it had more to do with Oil Sheikhs flexing their political muscles than with any serious attempt to convert the West.
Islamic terrorism barely exists now. The background level threat in real terms in the West is no worse than it has been from other terrorist groups of the last fifty years or so. Iraq isn't suffering from Islamic terrorism so much as local tribalism - which is something very different.
Only someone clinically delusional could seriously believe that Iraq's Sunnis and Shias are at all likely to start attacking each other on the streets of Washington. But still - the US seems obsessed with this ridiculous confrontational narrative in which the West, and especially effete old Europe, is in imminent danger of being over-run by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
I think this has less to do real Islamicists, and more to do with the fact that the US is charging headlong into economic and cultural decadence and needs a misdirection and a scapegoat to persuade itself that it's still a mighty and colossal military superpower.
Hence these massively assymetrical wars against countries which really shouldn't stand a chance against the US - but against which it still manages to lose, as often as not.
There's some kind of deep masochistic need to be punished and hated twitching around in the soul of the US at the moment. Secretly, Bush and the NeoCons may well realise they're bad, bad people. So they seem to be trying to get away with as much as they can before Mother comes along and spanks them.
(Or maybe not. But as explanations go, this makes as much sense as any other that I've seen.)
But anyway. The US has plenty of real challenges to deal with which don't require a fake Warrrr on scary brown people. If the leadership wasn't drifting along in a doomed and rudderless Zeppelin of political irrelevance, it would be tackling real issues - sustainable energy, sustainable and fair economic policy, sustainable health care - instead of fantasising about the threat from invading barbarian hordes.
With a professional Executive, the pre-9/11 security services were mostly capable of dealing with those invading barbarian hordes.
If the hordes succeeded on 9/11, it wasn't because of some astonishing new fundamentalist virulence. It was because Bush completely fucked up.
The US might want to deal with that reality before it starts trying to eliminate Islamic support from the rest of the planet. Who knows - it might even accidentally end up starving the beast if it goes down that parh.
This isn't really as new as you'd make it though. The Much Olympics, The Iran hostage crisis of 79, the WTC bombing of 1993...
Bush's incompetence is hugely to blame for our current situation. But Islamic fundamentalists did attack our country. At some point, they are responsible for those actions.
I focus on Bush because I can't effect the Islamic world. But I sure hope to god someone is dealing with the insanity on that side of the coin too. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Known as Persia until 1935, Iran became an Islamic republic in 1979 after the ruling monarchy was overthrown and the shah was forced into exile. (CIA World Factbook)
In reviewing "All the Shahs' Men" the Economist took a similar perspective about the taking over of the US Embassy to what Colman is saying. The Economist stated that the US embassy was taken over to make sure that the US could not meddle in Iranian history again, as it had w/ Mossadegh.
Fisk, describes how in the early days of the Iranian revolution there was not the blood bath/ reign of terror quality to it, that was soon to come. However, as the religious leaders became more seated in power, then it quickly turned into a killing spree with widespread public hangings.
There is a recording of a talk given by the author of "All the Shah's Men", Stephen Kinzer, on Alternative Radio. Along with asking the question would we(the US) be in the mess it is today had it not overthrown a democratically elected Prime Minister (I think Mossadegh was a PM) Kinzer draws parallels between the intelligence back then and the intelligence leading up to the current Iraq war. Kinzer -or another journalist spoke with several of the foreign service officers who were in Tehran during the rise of Mossadegh. These foreign service officers were sending back information that Mossadegh was associated with Communist and that Communism was growing in Iran. Kinzer states that all other historical evidence does not show this to be the case. When he (or this other journalist) asked these foreign services officers about this discrepancy they replied that they were aware that their reports were overblown, but Washington wanted to hear that Mossadegh was a Communist and that there was a growing Communist threat in Iran.
It is an interesting conundrum for the US. We have been hearing the rhetoric about spreading Democracy in the Middle East, but we never hear about Mossadegh.
This is the United States of Amnesia, and history is for losers. (A friend of mine likes to say that in the Middle East, what happened a thousand years ago is far more important than yesterday's news. Here, they're both irrelevant.)
With greater protections under international law than civilians.
I personally feel entitled to justify those I can identify with in one way or another. To criticise "the other", especially when they are not a part of the conversation, doesn't seem very productive. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
Damn typos. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
"The claim that we lost is unfounded. Half of Lebanon is destroyed; is that a loss?"
However, the Munich Olympics has little to do with Islam. The hostage-taking was made by the Palestinian movements, which at that time were secular (in fact, some of their members were Christians).
"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char
Bush's incompetence is hugely to blame for our current situation.
Regrettably, Fischer shows himself to be too much of a 'Realo' here, to the extent of being unreal. (The establishment got the worse out of him.) First, the negative sides of US foreign policy very well served as frustation and inspiration for the attackers and Bin Laden himself. (To deny that seems motivated by fear that acknowledging this would amount to the justification of the attacks, which is based on a rather naive and irrational view of the relationship of morals and rationality.) Second, other parts of US (and US-supported Israeli) foreign policy actively helped the rise of Islamic terrorists, like the Pakistan policy, the support for the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, or the support of the rise of Hamas and Islamic Jihad to weaken the PLO during the First Intifadah. Third, half a century of US foreign policy of supporting dictatoral regimes and helping organise clampdowns on democratic movements helped ensure the very reason Fischer names, the lack of modernisation. Fourth, the worse forms of oth Khomeinist and Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalism don't simply consitute a lack of modernisation, but a reversal of existing modernisation, and not just that of the last one century.
Applebaum:
If "war on terrorism" has become an unpopular term, then call it something else. Call it a "war on fanaticism".
Which makes about as much sense.
Or - as we used to say in the Cold War - call it a "struggle for hearts and minds"
Which it isn't. It is a war, which involves shooting across hearts and blow up brains that hold minds.
Joerg in Berlin: what is often ignored is that American and European intelligence and law enforcement agencies have increased their cooperation significantly and successfully.
This is something to point out to many Americans; on the other hand, we Europeans should notice that that cooperation also included assisting to the illegal kidnap and outsourced torture of susspects, and the introducion of a number of security laws suspending basic rights like arrest without trial, neither of which I'd call either successful or morally right.
Doyle McManus in LA Times:
On longer-term strategic issues, they warn, the U.S. may have lost ground since 2001:
While McManus says the right things overall, I am annoyed by these over-cautious wordings like "...may have lost ground...". With such spin-down the establishment ensures that it will never grasp the full gravity of the problem, even if (belatedly) getting a sense of it. (McCain would be another example here, recognising that hubris is a direct problem but treating it as a problem of image, not deeds.) *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Juan Cole (via Milwaukee Journal Sentinel via Informed Comment): Think again: It's wise to challenge some 9-11 assumptions (Sept. 9, 2006)
The attacks on the United States were neither a clash of civilizations nor an unqualified success for al-Qaida. They were, however, a clash of policy that continues to this day. As al-Qaida struggles to strike again, the United States wrestles with a confused war on terror that won't end until Americans are forced to choose between Medicare and missiles. 'Sept. 11 changed everything.' No. The massive forces of international trade and globalization were largely unaffected by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. China's emergence as a new economic giant in East Asia continues, with all its economic, diplomatic, and military implications. Decades-old flash points remain. ... '9-11 was a victory for al-Qaida.' Only somewhat. The operation was certainly a tour de force of large-scale, theatrical terrorism. But did it really advance the goals of the organization? As a result of the attacks, al-Qaida lost its bases and its Taliban hosts in Afghanistan. Some al-Qaida strategists had wanted to expand the Taliban's rule from Afghanistan to neighboring countries, including Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and eventually Pakistan. ... 'Small attacks by local cells have replaced 9-11-style operations.' Probably. Post-9-11 terrorism - from Bali to Madrid to London - has become the province of small, local groups who are emulating al-Qaida but not in direct contact with it. These cells can learn a few tricks on the Internet, and they can certainly inflict pain, but they cannot hope to accomplish much. At most, they can carry bombs onto trains. The economic and social disruption of these operations is limited, which is why al-Qaida itself would not bother with them. ... '9-11 was a clash of civilizations.' False. The notion that Muslims hate the West for its way of life is simply wrong, and 9-11 hasn't changed that. The exhaustive World Values Survey found that more than 90% of respondents in much of the Muslim world endorsed democracy as the best form of government. Polling by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has found that about half of respondents in countries such as Turkey and Morocco believe that if a Muslim immigrated to the United States, his or her life would be better. ... 'The war on terror has no end.' That's the plan. The Bush administration has defined the struggle vaguely precisely so that it can't end; President Bush clearly enjoys the prerogatives of being a war president. So the administration has expanded the goals and targets of this war from one group or geographical area to another. There is an ongoing counterterrorism effort against al-Qaida and, more broadly, the Salafist jihadi strain of Sunni radicalism. ... '9-11 radically changed U.S. foreign policy.' No. American policy has changed only at the margins. The attacks temporarily removed constraints on U.S. political elites, allowing them to pursue their policies more aggressively. As we now know, Bush and his advisors wanted to undermine Hussein's regime well before Sept. 11. Absent the attacks, the administration might have employed a limited bombing campaign, a covert operation or a coup attempt. The attacks suddenly made a years-long land war in the Middle East politically palatable. ... 'The next 9-11 will be even worse.' It's anyone's guess. Al-Qaida's efforts to acquire nuclear material have been amateurish. In 2002, U.S. agents in Afghanistan seized canisters from Taliban and al-Qaida compounds, only to discover that al-Qaida operatives had likely been duped into purchasing phony nuclear materials. ...
As al-Qaida struggles to strike again, the United States wrestles with a confused war on terror that won't end until Americans are forced to choose between Medicare and missiles.
'Sept. 11 changed everything.'
No. The massive forces of international trade and globalization were largely unaffected by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. China's emergence as a new economic giant in East Asia continues, with all its economic, diplomatic, and military implications. Decades-old flash points remain.
...
'9-11 was a victory for al-Qaida.'
Only somewhat. The operation was certainly a tour de force of large-scale, theatrical terrorism.
But did it really advance the goals of the organization? As a result of the attacks, al-Qaida lost its bases and its Taliban hosts in Afghanistan. Some al-Qaida strategists had wanted to expand the Taliban's rule from Afghanistan to neighboring countries, including Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and eventually Pakistan.
'Small attacks by local cells have replaced 9-11-style operations.'
Probably. Post-9-11 terrorism - from Bali to Madrid to London - has become the province of small, local groups who are emulating al-Qaida but not in direct contact with it. These cells can learn a few tricks on the Internet, and they can certainly inflict pain, but they cannot hope to accomplish much. At most, they can carry bombs onto trains. The economic and social disruption of these operations is limited, which is why al-Qaida itself would not bother with them.
'9-11 was a clash of civilizations.'
False. The notion that Muslims hate the West for its way of life is simply wrong, and 9-11 hasn't changed that.
The exhaustive World Values Survey found that more than 90% of respondents in much of the Muslim world endorsed democracy as the best form of government. Polling by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has found that about half of respondents in countries such as Turkey and Morocco believe that if a Muslim immigrated to the United States, his or her life would be better.
'The war on terror has no end.'
That's the plan. The Bush administration has defined the struggle vaguely precisely so that it can't end; President Bush clearly enjoys the prerogatives of being a war president.
So the administration has expanded the goals and targets of this war from one group or geographical area to another. There is an ongoing counterterrorism effort against al-Qaida and, more broadly, the Salafist jihadi strain of Sunni radicalism.
'9-11 radically changed U.S. foreign policy.'
No. American policy has changed only at the margins. The attacks temporarily removed constraints on U.S. political elites, allowing them to pursue their policies more aggressively.
As we now know, Bush and his advisors wanted to undermine Hussein's regime well before Sept. 11. Absent the attacks, the administration might have employed a limited bombing campaign, a covert operation or a coup attempt. The attacks suddenly made a years-long land war in the Middle East politically palatable.
'The next 9-11 will be even worse.'
It's anyone's guess. Al-Qaida's efforts to acquire nuclear material have been amateurish. In 2002, U.S. agents in Afghanistan seized canisters from Taliban and al-Qaida compounds, only to discover that al-Qaida operatives had likely been duped into purchasing phony nuclear materials.
One this is certain, though, whether or not "the next 9-11 will be even worse", the political reaction of the US will be even worse. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
The suspects in the failed train bombing in Germany mentioned the Mohammed cartoons as their (main) motivation.
The 9/11 pilots lived in Europe for several years...
The London bombers had some issues with the British.
etc. etc
Ergo:
How do we decrease the number of terrorist recruits and their supporters and the motivation and ideology to engage in terrorism?
How's the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership doing? How to reinvigorate it?
End the War on Terrorism and the War of Civil Liberties going on under its cover. Treat terrorism as a crime issue as Europe has always done before the neo-cons came about. And address the political issues underlying it, politically.
Where did the Mohammed Cartoons come from? A Danish "culture editor" who is a fan of Richard Perle.
The 9/11 pilots also lived in the US for several years...
The London bombers has issues with British foreign policy going along with American post-9/11 policy.
Europe is trying to engage everyone in the Middle East instead of lecturing countries and peoples about values and democracy, endorsing war and occupation, or getting involved in an escalation of diplomatic snubs. The biggests recent failure of European Middle-East policy was getting dragged into an embargo of the Palestinian Authority's democratically elected government.
We stop bombing them. We stop supporting undemocratic regimes that suppress them. We stop making islamism the only political outlet people in the Middle East have left.
There is also the Alliance of Civilisations sponsored by Annan, Erdogan and Zapatero.
How's the Euromediterranean Partnership doing? I don't really know, I should read everything under that link.
The fact is, the US' middle-east policy is a big part of the problem. What is the Eu doing about it? Rolling over, containment, maybe stalling with the Iranians so Bush doesn't have a clear opening for another war.
Oh, and the EU is providing the bulk of the new UNIFIL. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
Oh, and the EU is providing the bulk of the new UNIFIL.
Will UNIFIL reduce the risk of terrorism to Europe? I doubt it. DoDo makes a good point on how peacekeeping looks from the ground.
I think UNIFIL is more likely to piss off Israel then the Lebanese. It already has. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
According to Alexander Ivanko, spokesman for the UN interim force in Lebanon (Unifil), there have been more than 100 recorded ceasefire violations by Israeli forces in the last month. These have been mostly over-flights and incursions by tanks, troops and bulldozers. Mr Ivanko said that 24 Lebanese civilians - including four men from Aita al-Shaab - had been detained at gunpoint by Israeli troops. All were later released. In addition to the incursions, there have also been a number of shooting incidents - described by the residents of Aita al-Shaab as "intimidation fire". ...Talk of the UN met with a similar lack of enthusiasm. "We don't know them and they don't know us - so how can their be any real trust between us? They will not stand against the Israelis; they are Europeans that are coming now," said Kalamia. Villagers had seen UN troops roll through the village without stopping a few days earlier. "They have come and gone before, it's the same old story. Whether they're here or not, it doesn't make any difference to us," said Fatmeh Srour.
In addition to the incursions, there have also been a number of shooting incidents - described by the residents of Aita al-Shaab as "intimidation fire".
...Talk of the UN met with a similar lack of enthusiasm. "We don't know them and they don't know us - so how can their be any real trust between us? They will not stand against the Israelis; they are Europeans that are coming now," said Kalamia. Villagers had seen UN troops roll through the village without stopping a few days earlier. "They have come and gone before, it's the same old story. Whether they're here or not, it doesn't make any difference to us," said Fatmeh Srour.
If UNIFIL would block IDF tank incursions, that would indeed constitute a move lessening the terrorism threat, by changing perceptions. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
But I agree, this is a diversion. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
You are not saying that this was a US plot, are you?
The cartoons were published in many European papers out of solidarity. And EU politicians defended the publication.
The US media (with small excpetions) did not print the cartoons. And US politicians criticized the cartoons.
On the cartoon issue: The US was the appeaser, while Europeans defended our liberties. Fine, but some papers were overly insensitive to Muslim feelings.
Please excuse the generalization based on time constraints: Many Arabs have an inferiority complex. And we in the West are to blame, because we often rub into their face: Undemocratic, few liberties, bad economy, bad science, bad technology, hardly any internationally well-known authors/musicians/sports stars etc. They only thing they have left to feel proud of is religion. And then our papers need to make a statement about press freedom and not being cowards and appeasers and they reprint the cartoons.
So, to answer my own question about what needs to be done: Forget about democracy promotion. We don't have much credibility or expertise to do so. Let's find a way to boos self-respect in the Arab world. Avoid humiliating the Arabs.
Of course, this is very difficult. And it should not mean appeasement or ignoring human rights violations etc. I have no clue how to make Arabs more proud and self respecting and feel less humiliated and have less of an inferiority complex etc.
You oversimplified it in your first comment, and so did I in my reply. The cartoons are tangential to the present discussion and I am not really interested in repeating all I said in the ET debates on the topic. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
I brought up the cartoons, because the suspects in the failed train bombing plots in Germany mentioned them as their motivation.
That's why I think it is worth looking at the long-term consequences of the cartoon uproar.
Well, not known to you. This is something like Robbie Williams or Kylie Minoque being megastars in Europe, but virtually unknown in the US, and US writers concluding the UK has no internationally well-known pop musicians. Your line made me recall a scene on my Franz Ferdinand DVD, in a documentary of their concert world tour: an interview towards the end of the US leg of the tour with MTV in New York. Almost all questions were silly ones like "did you came here because a you'll be famous if you are famous in the US" [the already famous boys stopped for the second to find a polite answer], "so now you'll go to Buffalo then Chicago, and what comes after your world tour is over - recording a new LP?" [it was the middle of a world tour, not a US tour].
Also, regarding books, declarations of the lack of this or that based on ignorance and not speaking Arabic is something Angry Arab regularly fumes about, for example here.
Overall, I mostly agree with your above post. In particular that Europe is part to the problem, not just a sufferer of collateral damage. On the other hand, one can't talk about these problems without talking about the US, that would be the other extreme. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
I have no clue how to make Arabs more proud and self respecting and feel less humiliated and have less of an inferiority complex etc.
Stop supporting political systems that inevitably leave them poor and less developed? Just a thought.
Let's stop driving our cars today.
Colman, don't get me wrong. I am not saying this to criticize you, but just try to think it through.
I look forward to Energize Europe.
You wrote: We should stop supporting the undemocratic regimes.
I responded that we should not drive our cars then. Then we would withdraw our support of these regimes.
What do you suggest? How do you want to stop supporting those regimes?
Stop development aid for Egypt and others? Sure. What else?
Because of what you put in focus from Fischer. Your question is directly answered by the first paragraph of the first part of my reply.
Yet they attacked the United States.
Namely support for the US's Iraq War.
Regarding 1): I did discuss that, and implicitely so did others. When ThatBritGuy says terrorism is nothing new in Europe, looking back just a few decades, think of the IRA, the ETA, Munich, Red Brigades and the P2 in Italy, the RAF and its "Deutscher Herbst", plane hijackings, the Paris bombings in the nineties.
Regarding 2): correct. Opposing the spread of xenophobia and Islamophobia here in Europe is also an indirect means to battle terrorism. I'm not sure this is because the US does a better job, the US does a lot of filtering after all.
What is and what should Europe doing at home and in the Middle East to decrease terrrorism?
At home: stop intimidation, stop politicians who speak of integration as (only, mostly) the immigrants' job, dialogue, promotion of cutting loose of the US in foreign policy, Orientalism-free education about the complexity of all that is bundled together under "Middle East". In the Middle East: I think nothing much of practical positive effect can be done, beyond maintaining relations and (in the worst-hit crise regions) humanitarian aid. Foreign policy should be uncoupled from the US (including a stronger line on Israel), but this won't get even close to balancing bad US influence.
Now, what about some more serious problems -- say, how do we stop small-arms trade to conflict regions? *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
It appears that Europe's who resonse to this is either 1) getting on the GWOT train like Blair, pointing the finger at evil terrorists or 2)to do nothing, pointing the finger at evil America. Well, I don't see either of those things as positive or proactive when it comes to Europe's position. It creates this messed up dynamic of picking sides between the bullies and the victimized (and both sides: Bush/Blairland and Islamic/Arab terroristland think they are the victimized).
Eventually, Europe has to deal with these things on its own terms. They may be bound in some ways by the UN or NATO, but that should not become a handicap. Eventually Europe has to illustrate some independence and hold its own against the corrupt members of the Un, like the US. It's like they have this complex like a shy kid in school, filled with a sense of dread when they called on for an answer.
Also, aside from the overwhelmingly outrageous behavior of America in the Middle East in recent years, which is probably foremost in the minds of Islamic fundamentalists, Europe actually got the ball rolling to create the current mentality of victimization in the Middle East. Before the US was strip mining it, Europe was, and with the very best of intentions too.
The whole idea that neither Islam, the fucked up regimes in the Middle East, or the long history of European meddling there have anything to do with the current situation, that it rests in hands of one man alone, Geroge Bush, is pretty fairy tale to tell yourself so you can sleep at night (means no scary religious terrorists, no guilt, no responsibility on your part), but it's not going to solve any problems. You need reality for that. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
True, but that is also a strawman. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
US meddling came into the discussion for two reasons: (a) current, active meddling: you can't make any policy ignoring it; (b) historical meddling in the context of Joschka Fischer's claims about 9/11 and al-Qaida. The long history of European meddling is not directly relevant in these contexts. On the other hand, I could add that French and British (and also Italian and Spanish) colonialism wasn't the best advertisement for Western modernism in the Middle East, nor was Soviet Cold War clientism serving the promotion of democracy. Then again, the West European colonial influence was over before all the Arab modernists among both the political leaders and the opinion leaders were out. What followed was some meddling as US vassals (arming Iraq) and reckless and/or corrupt business deals (German chemical weapons factory for Lybia), which at least developed into sizeable scandals at home. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
you are the media you consume.
True. As you said so well the other day, Europe is like the Democratic Party when it fails to form a separate position from the Repubs. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
I assume France stopped this "wave of terror" by using also some dirty policies in Algeria...
Something we like to forget now.
I would not be surprised about torture etc.
Anybody remember that story about a notorious prison ("dungeon") in France? That was compared to Gitmo a couple of years ago? The EU or the UN complained about holding prisoners without trial or human rights violations, if I remember. I can't find the article on google, thus I might be wrong, but perhaps others remember the story.
France still has some of the most wide-ranging surveillance laws if I remember correctly.
Anyway, my question about defeating the beast/hive/whatever, were more about long-term measures, i.e. reducing the motivations of terrorism etc.
One of the reasons for the "hive" and "whatever" alternatives is that I and others here don't think all groups that have empleyed or employ terrorist tactics need to be "defeated." (See the IRA example Colman brought.)
were more about long-term measures, i.e. reducing the motivations of terrorism etc.
I responded to that, too. But this brings us on one hand chiefly to current US and Israeli policies (and EU relationship to the latter) which you didn't want to hear about, on the other hand to allowing Islamic parties to be elected democratically, which you don't seem to be in favour of. (A lesser part of the first is also European immigration/integration policy which I mentioned earlier.) *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Whatever. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
Neither he nor I used it do describe what it really is.
Neither Fischer nor I are some stupid, evil Neocons, who are unaware of....and want to advocate...
I personally reject the metaphor used by Fisher and the way it influences the direction of the debate.
There isn't a Fafnir for Siegfried to slay. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
You reap what you sow. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
You're several steps ahead of us though. Hopefully that bodes well for America. If France can pull it off, maybe we can too. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
I thought the original topic was what Europe did wrong and could do better. This led to a discussion about US and Israeli wrong-doings who hamper all European efforts etc.
I don't think the constant focus on the US and Israel is interesting/fair/justified. That's why I wanted to bring the discussion back to European issues.
Jerome, what's your opinion of France's counter-terrorism policies and on Algeria/FIS/GIS in particular?
There is also a lot of intelligence gathering.
I won't comment on France's Algerian policies because it's damn hard to know what's going on and I don't care enough and thus I really don't know enough.
My general position on the region is that we need to let all these countries get their Islamist governments in order to be vaccinated against them. They are seen as the only legitimate political opposition, so any election will brign them in, and the parallel experiences of Iran and Algeria show that preventing the rise of an Islamic government is ultimately more deadly to the local population (cf cival war in Algeria)and more dangerous to us (cf Algerian terrorism in France) - and that at least Iranians, if given a choice, would ditch fundamentalists now.
Further, we have to wean ourselves of oil - that will downgrade the importance of the region.
In the meantime, as stated by others, getting to a formal Israeli-Palestinian peace would solve a lot of things.
So there you go:
I've created a monster! Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
Jörg. your diary is all about US policy and how European criticism of it is misplaced, not about European policy. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
Because the majority of the Europeans on this site urge Europe to break with the Atlanticist tradition in favour of a European foreign policy that seeks to contain the US. You do so on moral grounds. Among the EU states that seem sympathetic to this approach the most important is France. Yet on purely moral grounds France is just as bad as the US, albeit with less power - for both better and worse. So us Atlanticists, on both sides of the ocean, call bullshit. Your position may be justified on realpolitik grounds, though I'd disagree, but at least there's a decent argument there. So we'll stop bringing up France when you stop saying that the alliance with the US is bad because the US policies are immoral. Deal?
Why are the enligtenend brainiacs running the European countries and the EU not setting the international agenda?
Why haven't they settled the Iranian dispute in the last three years, if they are so much smarter and more moral and productive than those stupid, counterproductve, immoral Americans?
Is that all you have to say to these questions?
If the US is soooo stupid -- no matter which party is in power -- why is the US still the most powerful country that sets the international agenda? Why are the enligtenend brainiacs running the European countries and the EU not setting the international agenda? Why haven't they settled the Iranian dispute in the last three years, if they are so much smarter and more moral and productive than those stupid, counterproductve, immoral Americans?
Or what about the decade old conflict in the Western Sahara?
Or Northern Cyprus?
Or Bosnia? Or Kosovo?
An independent European Foreign Policy would be great. It would be great to discuss it rather than blame the US for EU failures. The EU had all the time in the world to solve the Western Sahara or Algeria conflict, if the EU would be a good negotiator/mediator. You can't blame the US for interfering here, can you?
Responsibility for Western Sahara lies originally with Spain.
Northern Cyprus is a conflict in which Greece, a EU member state, is an interested party, and so it is hard for the EU to be a mediator.
As for Bosnia, Europe's failure there is responsible for the decision to create a European Common Foreign and Security Policy, which did not exist before. So, again, you can't fault Europe for not using a tool that did not exist before 1995.
Regarding Kosovo, UpstateNY has provided interesting insights into the less-than-helpful diplomacy conducted by the US. I shall dig up the links. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
2.) "Responsibility for Western Sahara lies originally with Spain."
What are you saying? I think it has been a humanitarian crises for decades. It is close to Europe, the EU should try to broker a solution, if Spain can't do so or is considered biased (?) for historical reasons (?) I don't know.
3.) Re Cyprus: Still, it is a conflict in our backyard. And then you got the issue of Turkish EU membership and those silly Turkish-Greek quarrels that resulted in that fighter plane crash recently. These conflicts don't appear to be sooooo difficult as Darfur/Iran/Iraq, but the EU hasn't solved them. Why?
4.) Re Bosnia: I criticize that there are still thousands of our troops in Bosnia. The EU should bring peace to Bosnia and withdraw its troops rather than babysit for decades. European papers criticize the political failures in Iraq. The political issues in Bosnia and Kosovo don't appear to be as complicated, but the EU does not make any progress.
5.) Conclusion: Colman criticizes US failures and blames it on their stupidity; not just on Bush, another party in power would not make a difference, hes wrote.
Perhaps I exaggerate, but for me this suggests that Colman assumes that the European governments are smarter and more successful in solving conflicts, if those stupid Americans don't interfere as they do Iran. Thus I pointed to some other ongoing conflicts, which the EU should have solved. Instead of discussing those conflicts and EU shortcominings, most European newspapers and citizens discuss US failurs.
2.) "Responsibility for Western Sahara lies originally with Spain." What are you saying? I think it has been a humanitarian crises for decades. It is close to Europe, the EU should try to broker a solution, if Spain can't do so or is considered biased (?) for historical reasons (?) I don't know.
These conflicts don't appear to be sooooo difficult as Darfur/Iran/Iraq, but the EU hasn't solved them. Why?
We don't expect to fix things quickly. The trick is trying not to make them worse while you try to find a solution.
The EU should bring peace to Bosnia and withdraw its troops rather than babysit for decades.
Colman criticizes US failures and blames it on their stupidity; not just on Bush, another party in power would not make a difference, hes wrote.
