The Wrong Debate on Terrorism - Richard A Clarke (NY Times)

[BlueEyedSon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/opinion/25CLAR.html

One lesson is that even though we are the world's only remaining superpower — as we were before Sept. 11, 2001 — we are seriously threatened by an ideological war within Islam. It is a civil war in which a radical Islamist faction is striking out at the West and at moderate Muslims. Once we recognize that the struggle within Islam — not a "clash of civilizations" between East and West — is the phenomenon with which we must grapple, we can begin to develop a strategy and tactics for doing so. It is a battle not only of bombs and bullets, but chiefly of ideas. It is a war that we are losing, as more and more of the Islamic world develops antipathy toward the United States and some even develop a respect for the jihadist movement.

I do not pretend to know the formula for winning that ideological war. But I do know that we cannot win it without significant help from our Muslim friends, and that many of our recent actions (chiefly the invasion of Iraq) have made it far more difficult to obtain that cooperation and to achieve credibility.

What we have tried in the war of ideas has also fallen short. It is clear that United States government versions of MTV or CNN in Arabic will not put a dent in the popularity of the anti-American jihad. Nor will calls from Washington for democratization in the Arab world help if such calls originate from a leader who is trying to impose democracy on an Arab country at the point of an American bayonet. The Bush administration's much-vaunted Middle East democracy initiative, therefore, was dead on arrival.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. kick

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Clarke is only partly right

The problem for America in the Islamic world is one of America's own making. This is a problem that Clarke does not address.

Throughout this piece, Clarke is assuming that American interests are those of "moderate" Muslims. Who are these moderates? Surely he is not talking about the House of Saud, the Jordanian Hashemites, the Assads or Mubarak. Like the Shah before them, those are autocratic dictators that make demagogues like Osama or Imam Khomeini attractive on the street.

Nor will calls from Washington for democratization in the Arab world help if such calls originate from a leader who is trying to impose democracy on an Arab country at the point of an American bayonet. The Bush administration's much-vaunted Middle East democracy initiative, therefore, was dead on arrival.

Democracy is not on the table. It is an ugly choice among US-sponsored dictators like those mentioned, direct colonial occupation like the one presently imposing its will on Iraq, and demagogues who think that hating and killing American and Jews will solve all problems.

The reasons given by Clarke are not the only ones that explain the failure of Bush's "democracy initiative." The more important reasons have to do with the fact Bush and his friends don't want democracy in Iraq; they want to impose a neo-liberal dictatorship on Iraq that will force Iraq to sell its resources and assets to transnational corporations. That's failed everywhere it's been tried and colonial occupation is as good a way of imposing it as any.

Unfortunately, while the people know that it is not in their interests that this regime has been imposed them, they have no opportunity to choose a real democratic future at this time. With Saddam gone and Bremer issuing proclamations imbued with Orwellian phrases, the only other choice is some sort of Islamic Republicanism that will also result in a rule by elite autocrats over those deemed not be in with the powerful.

The immediate future is not a pretty one for anybody.

[NMDemDist2]

3. kick

:kick:

snip>

We all want to defeat the jihadists. To do that, we need to encourage an active, critical and analytical debate in America about how that will best be done. And if there is another major terrorist attack in this country, we must not panic or stifle debate as we did for too long after 9/11.
my emphasis

[Demeter]

4. If We Want to Win Hearts and Minds

We have to be the country that Jefferson, Adams and Franklin wanted us to be--not some neocon Hitler Lite ripoff. They got the real thing over there. We have to show a better way, where all men and women are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It brought my family out of feudalism and poverty and ignorance, and it can bring other families out, too. But we have to uphold and honor the original plan, not the new, improved, neocon "bleed them till they're dead and broke" return to feudalism.

That's what the Red and the Blue is all about.