The Long War: Rethinking American Options in the War on Terror

hamidm #5 today i went to a bank and there was a very pleasant young lady there who undertook some tedious work of checking figures that I needed her to do with a pleasant smile on her face. She was also wearing a hijab, so she must have been a dreaded (I must say the ``m`` word here)...m-m-m-m-muslim. And...horrors...when I asked her where she was from, she revealed that she was an.an....egyptian. In other words, and Arab!! horror!! And as I was leaving she smiled and said ``Khuda Hafiz`` (which she must have known to be the traditional form of saying goodbye for Pakistanis, even as our nuts are trying to replace it with ``Allah Hafiz``). Any normal person would have been tearing her hair out at the tedious work I had set her to do due to an error on my part, but this hijaabed young lady had nothing but friendly smiles. So, was this an evil muslim plot on her part? Or was this an example of how wrong you are when you act as if muslims have a monopoly on bad people.

So, dont generalize about muslims. I understand your frustrations and so forth at the nuts in the muslim world - but you become like them yourself when you paint people of a given community by the same brush you apply to the rotten eggs in their midst.

I will not deal with specifics here, many of the assertions of the author are flawed, the most prepostrous of which is the suggestion that the US should construct continent wide/ country wide virtual ``concentration camps`` to keep the populations of the Muslim world in check, he calls it the cordon of containment in the ``arc of instability``.

There are too many specifics in this article that show a lack of understanding of US motives and conditions in Muslim lands, too many to list and bust, I will however deal with the main thrust of his argument and that is that the US is fighting a genuine war in which it seeks victory and ultimately peace. This assumption, upon which the rest of his article is based is totally flawed. Victory or no victory, post WW2, the US has never settled for peace, when one conflcit is over it seeks another~ war itself is the enemy rather than an external foe and if the US public wants to achieve peace and victory, it will have to fight war itself, the war that its elite impose upon the world for the sake of averting economic crisis and keep the current setup going, moreso than any Jihadists, war is the way of life of the US elite.

The US is not interested in peace in the ME, if they were, it would have readily been achieved, the institutions, dominated by the US in those countries would have progessed in a fashion that was democratic and that region would now be equalling the US in economic might. That was not done and will never be done because it would spell the end of US domination and hegemony.

The author is suggesting that the rebelling slaves be drugged, using various polite mechanisms, so that they give up their rebellious behavior, or are contained (jailed) in country/continent wide prisons- his corridor of inhumanity- and enjoy their bondage. Well that has happened in the most part, all those countries are in peaceful submission to the US but why have not wars in the region ended inspite of that? Because war is ingrained in the psyche of the US political economy. They will not end, they cannot end unless the `military metaphysic`(the Kalima of these power elite), the military definition of reality, an effect of institutional fusing, the military,political and the economic, is altered. And that is not going to happen any time soon. It is upto the victims of this mentality, our people in the poor countries to challenge this, and alter their courses together, only then, maybe after a massive war there will be peace.

#6 nasah

``Islamic militants in Iraq are proxies for the Sunni elite that lost its power after Saddam was overthrown``

This is not my line. babu wrote that. I hope you are not attributing this to me. But I sure believe that most of the resistance in Iraq is from the Baathist. Though I am not sure they will take control of Iraq after the US leaves.

It will take time and some political/diplomatic efforts for the US to leave. No one should expect a unilateral decision. Lets be realistic. The US would not give up just because its hopes in Iraq are dashed.

`` The US can’t just leave Iraq without having some guarantees that its departure from Iraq would not cause an open war or warlike situation in the Middle East. In such a situation, the only victors would be the Islamic militants, as they are the most armed and dedicated warriors in the Middle East. Islamic militants in Iraq are proxies for the Sunni elite that lost its power after Saddam was overthrown.``(HP)

this is called swallowing Bush`s Goebelsian propaganda lock stock and barrel –

yes the US CAN leave just the same way it left Vietnam -- and no earthquake happened -- Islamist militants are not the proxies for the Sunni elite they are proxies for Osama bin Laden -- and this Sunni elite business is just concoction of the Bush`s colonial Haditha killers -- to create a blood-filled gulf between the Sunni and the Shia Arabs of Iraq --

if anything Saddam cabinet was one of the most pluralistic even if it was one of the most sadistic --

After the USA leaves -- the Baath will take over -- don`t underestimate the Baathists -- it is the only pan Iraqi organization that has its tentacles in every village and at every town and city level including the Kurdiash areas in Iraq -- and they are as ruthless as the Islamists in killing the Islamist militants and innocent people as the Islamists are in killing the Baathists and the innocent people.......

The real insurgency in Iraq is run by the intensely nationalist Baathists -- and it is not entirely the property of `Sunni Elite`....althoug definitely dominated by them …..it also involves the Shia Elite and the Christian Elite......

Zarqawi was eliminated because he crossed the Iraqi boundaries -- went beyond Iraqi borders totally uncalled for.....

this discredited puppet `government` will meet the same fate the discredited puppet South Vietnamese government met.....that`s all

the rumors of Iraq death, demise and disintegration – “after the Americans leave” -- are as triple xxxagerated in 2006 -- as the death, demise and disintegration of Vietnam were -- “if the Americans leave’....in 70`s

feroze,

.... i beg to differ - the Muslims are not `` a rational people and if confronted with this choice, will favor stability and over instability in their lives; prosperity over deprivation and hope over despair`` ...........there is no evidence to support your thesis ...... they are very very different from other people

.......... and there is only one solution to this problem : the muslim world has to move in the same direction as the rest of the world - socially, culturally and economically ............. as things stand today they are ``too different`` ............. there is a sense of ``sameness`` between new york, zurich, paris, tokyo, seoul, singapore and shanghai, but as soon as you land in an islamic country whether it is malaysia, dubai, pakistan or - god forbid- saudi arabia, the difference is apparent ..............

...... why ae muslims different ? ....... is this ``difference`` a threat to the rest of mankind ?

HP #1

`` The US can’t just leave Iraq without having some guarantees that its departure from Iraq would not cause an open war or warlike situation in the Middle East. In such a situation, the only victors would be the Islamic militants, as they are the most armed and dedicated warriors in the Middle East. ``

Islamic militants in Iraq are proxies for the Sunni elite that lost its power after Saddam ws overthrown. Most of them are Baathist diehards who have using Islam. Which idiot is willing to die for Baathist party ? If you invoke religion you have a steady supply of recruits.

USA has beat Japan and Germany in World War II. USA starred down the Soviets during the Cold War.

If USA controlled the oil supplies there is no way anyone can challenge the Americans.

The author tried to include so many things in one article. Good try!

How much ever you try, the basic approach is faulty. Mistake me not. It`s yours. Despite being a researcher you keep bunching the people as Muslim world and non-muslim world etc.,? I dont think you get a PhD with this kind of appraoch. I think Muslim world is different from Muslim-majority country.

The countries who helped the US on Iraq are 1. Qatar 2. Kuwait, 3. KSA 4. Turkey 5. Jordan 6. Egypt and elsewhere they are Afghanistan and Pakistan Turkhmenistan... the list goes on. Do you think that these countries are non-muslim majority countries? OK, Mush is a stooge, what about Turkey & Turkhmenistan?

Willy nilly you`re putting all people of muslim faith of all countries queued-up behind Osama? How? Another faulty approach. It`s saving grace that you said that there was diversity of opinion among Muslims.

Some samples of your mind:

>>>the US did not truly grasp the ideological reasons for the attacks of September 11, 2001<<<

Is 9/11 justified, u mean?

Yes, u mean that. Read this:

>>>>The attacks on the Pentagon in Washington, D. C. and on the World Trade Centers, in New York, were symbolic ...<<<<<


>>>the salient point to this logic was to hold the United States accountable for its lack of political and economic justice in its policies towards the Muslims and Muslim nations. <<<

Pl ask the presidents/Kings of the US allies like KSA, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt... long list...


>>>what the United States needs to understand is that the philosophy of the groups, such as Al-Qaeda and its various splinter groups, which argue for the existence of militancy as a solution to their political problems, is not to defeat the United States in a military sense, but in a political sense by removing its influence from the Arab and Muslim nation<<<<

I think u r assuming this? Would the terrorists be rational? In an inter-dependent world one country infleuning other is so common.

Man..., I give up.

Pl read this:

The first attempt on WTC was made by your countryman Ramzi Yusuf (what`s his problem?). Next one was deadly & that was by Atta gang but the attack was conceived, planned & financed by a group from your country (Khalid Sheikh+OBL).

Conclusion: If the basic perceptions are wrong u end up giving wrong prescriptions. I think u need to unlearn your exisitng knowledge and relearn the subject of international relations all over again.

Two articles on the site, one by Ghori asking Muslims to reform and now this by Feroz asking the US to reform. There is a stark difference in the way they have approached the subject. Ghori wasted 35 years in the Foreign Service and Feroz is showing here that he probably deserves to be in the Pakistani Foreign Service.

However, Feroz’s idealism or should I say failure to account for the US interests and its need to maintain a strong hold on the world economy, makes his suggestions to the US not so pragmatic.

I agree that the military solution that the US sought by attacking Iraq, has failed in the streets of Baghdad and thus has offered an opportunity to the Islamists to claim victory. The US failure in Iraq has created a foreign policy and military fiasco for the US.

The US can’t just leave Iraq without having some guarantees that its departure from Iraq would not cause an open war or warlike situation in the Middle East. In such a situation, the only victors would be the Islamic militants, as they are the most armed and dedicated warriors in the Middle East.

Can this military failure lead the US to rollback its military strength from the area as Feroz is apparently suggesting? Alternatively, would the US attempt to increase its military presence in the Middle East until it finds some viable political/diplomatic methods to dominate the Middle East and its resources?

Looking at the current US policies it is quite clear that the US would not back down from using force in the area thus perpetuating the current imbroglio that is sucking more countries into the conflict.

With the emergence of Iran as a legitimate regional power in the area, which may soon have access to the nukes too, the chances of diplomatic solution that Feroz is suggesting are remote. The US would not agree to them. The Islamist would torpedo any such attempts by the US as a peaceful solution would probably again make the Islamists spectators in the local political battlegrounds in several Middle Eastern countries including Pakistan and perhaps Iran too.