[extropy-chat] War of Ideology
megaquark at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 28 15:09:59 UTC 2004
I agree that this commission was a political puppet, but not of the
administration. I sat and watched these hearings and they were just full of
bitterness and attacks at the administration. This commission was brought
forth in an election year by the opposing party in order to discredit Bush
and decrease his chances of reelection. This is why the commission wasn;t
put together until years after the event. Some of the questioning was so
rediculous that it started to appear as a replay of the McCarthy hearings.
They could care less about figuring out what went wrong. They just wanted to
attack the Bush administration. If they really were after the truth, as you
said, they would have address US foreign policy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Samantha Atkins" <sjatkins at gmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] War of Ideology
> This is sickening. It was bad enough the so-called 911 Commission
> failed to address many of the most pressing questions of what happened
> and why on 911. That and the very fact it was postponed until years
> after the original event was bad enough and more than sufficient to
> show this was not any sort of honest examination. But to now posit an
> ideological war as being largely the "why" of terrorism and hardly
> bothering to mention US polcies fueling anger throughout the region
> says that this Commission was a political puppet of the current
> adminstration with no credibility whatsoever.
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 18:25:06 +0930, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > An interesting article on the US's troubles with Islam, from NYT.
> > I've included the whole thing, and here's the link (but you'll need to
> > be registered):
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/24/opinion/24brooks.html?th
> > War of Ideology
> > By DAVID BROOKS
> > Published: July 24, 2004
> > When foreign policy wonks go to bed, they dream of being X. They dream
> > of writing the all-encompassing, epoch-defining essay, the way George
> > F. Kennan did during the cold war under the pseudonym X.
> > Careers have been spent racing to be X. But in our own time, the 9/11
> > commission has come closer than anybody else. After spending 360 pages
> > describing a widespread intelligence failure, the commissioners step
> > back in their report and redefine the nature of our predicament.
> > We're not in the middle of a war on terror, they note. We're not
> > facing an axis of evil. Instead, we are in the midst of an ideological
> > conflict.
> > We are facing, the report notes, a loose confederation of people who
> > believe in a perverted stream of Islam that stretches from Ibn Taimaya
> > to Sayyid Qutb. Terrorism is just the means they use to win converts
> > to their cause.
> > It seems like a small distinction - emphasizing ideology instead of
> > terror - but it makes all the difference, because if you don't define
> > your problem correctly, you can't contemplate a strategy for victory.
> > When you see that our enemies are primarily an intellectual movement,
> > not a terrorist army, you see why they are in no hurry. With their
> > extensive indoctrination infrastructure of madrassas and mosques,
> > they're still building strength, laying the groundwork for decades of
> > struggle. Their time horizon can be totally different from our own.
> > As an ideological movement rather than a national or military one,
> > they can play by different rules. There is no territory they must
> > protect. They never have to win a battle but can instead profit in the
> > realm of public opinion from the glorious martyrdom entailed in their
> > defeats. We think the struggle is fought on the ground, but they know
> > the struggle is really fought on satellite TV, and they are far more
> > sophisticated than we are in using it.
> > The 9/11 commission report argues that we have to fight this war on
> > two fronts. We have to use intelligence, military, financial and
> > diplomatic capacities to fight Al Qaeda. That's where most of the
> > media attention is focused. But the bigger fight is with a hostile
> > belief system that can't be reasoned with but can only be "destroyed
> > or utterly isolated."
> > The commissioners don't say it, but the implication is clear. We've
> > had an investigation into our intelligence failures; we now need a
> > commission to analyze our intellectual failures. Simply put, the
> > unapologetic defenders of America often lack the expertise they need.
> > And scholars who really know the Islamic world are often blind to its
> > pathologies. They are so obsessed with the sins of the West, they are
> > incapable of grappling with threats to the West.
> > We also need to mount our own ideological counteroffensive. The
> > commissioners recommend that the U.S. should be much more critical of
> > autocratic regimes, even friendly ones, simply to demonstrate our
> > principles. They suggest we set up a fund to build secondary schools
> > across Muslim states, and admit many more students into our own. If
> > you are a philanthropist, here is how you can contribute: We need to
> > set up the sort of intellectual mobilization we had during the cold
> > war, with modern equivalents of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to
> > give an international platform to modernist Muslims and to introduce
> > them to Western intellectuals.
> > Most of all, we need to see that the landscape of reality is altered.
> > In the past, we've fought ideological movements that took control of
> > states. Our foreign policy apparatus is geared toward relations with
> > states: negotiating with states, confronting states. Now we are faced
> > with a belief system that is inimical to the state system, and aims at
> > theological rule and the restoration of the caliphate. We'll need a
> > new set of institutions to grapple with this reality, and a new
> > training method to understand people who are uninterested in national
> > self-interest, traditionally defined.
> > Last week I met with a leading military officer stationed in
> > Afghanistan and Iraq, whose observations dovetailed remarkably with
> > the 9/11 commissioners. He said the experience of the last few years
> > is misleading; only 10 percent of our efforts from now on will be
> > military. The rest will be ideological. He observed that we are in the
> > fight against Islamic extremism now where we were in the fight against
> > communism in 1880.
> > We've got a long struggle ahead, but at least we're beginning to
> > E-mail: dabrooks at nytimes.com
> > --
> > Emlyn
> > http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software *
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat