You're too pessimistic, Libertine.  We can still hope to instigate an all out Shi'i-Sunni war, can't we?

Because the threat is not that great. A concerted effort to track the flow of jihadists and money, combined with cooperation with various goverments in the Middle East, as unpalatable as many of those goverments may be to (pre-Bush anyway) standards of human rights, is the way this war should have been handled post-Afghanistan.

Anyone who views this as a "War" or a "Clash of Civilizations" is an idiot or a demagogue.

I think the truest reflection of failure is that in 2006, a NIE contains in the same conclusion that:

a) "the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror." [emphasis mine]

whilst

b) there is "pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims".

FUBAR, much?

Ivo,

Of course you are right but you're also stating the obvious. Steve Bell in the Guardian had a cartoon that appeared well before the Iraq invasion - but after Afghanistan - in which Biush sat atop an elephant with the word Iraq on its butt. It was heading away from Afghanistan and was simultaneoulsy shitting on Tony Blair's head as I recall. Wish I could find it. But it was that obvious then.

The only reaction is despair, no?

I have to say I don't understand this at all.  If you take as a given that the toppling of the Taliban was a correct strategic move, then it seems to me illogical that the "post-Afghanistan" war could be conducted only by tracking jihadists and money.  The point Ivo is making is that Afghanistan is reverting back to being a jihadist haven due to lack of military resources on the ground there to fight them. 

Furthermore, it seems illogical that you can say the threat is not all that great.  True, it is not a threat on a par with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.  But to say that the threat is not great seem to me to be the worst kind of denial.

Furthermore, as many have noted, the threat to Western civilization is not only from violent terrorism.  Just look at how artistic freedom has been curtailed from self-imposed censorship.  There is a story today about a German opera company that has canceled its production of an opera that depicts Mohammed.  The fear of a violent reaction by Muslims is enough to prevent the free expression of art.

In short, the idea that there is a clash of civilizations is anything but idiotic.  That's not to say that a lot of what's been done hasn't made the situation worse.  But it is also the case that given the pathology and dysfunction in the Muslim world these days - which predates Bush - things were bound to get worse regardless of our actions.  It's hard to see what action we could have taken - short of begging the Muslim world to forgive our sins over the last few hundred years - in response to 9/11 that would NOT have caused an inflamed reaction among Muslims.

The problem with making a statement like this is that you come across as either defending or exonerating the Bush Administration.  Nothing could be further from my mind.  I agree with those who say that the Iraq War will prove to be the greatest strategic disaster in US history.  But it's important to note that even absent the Iraq War, relations with Muslims would have gone south anyway in the aftermath of 9/11.  The choices were not between those policies that would make the clash of civilizations better or worse.  It was between those policies that would make it bad vs. those that would make it worse.

You keep setting up this strawman, that to deny we are in a war is to deny that jihadism represents a threat. I am simply arguing that to treat this as a problem with a traditional military solution is counterproductive.

In my post I laid out, in admittedly broad terms, what our approach should be. I defy you to point out specifically where I said jihadism is not a threat.

In my opinion, those who exaggerate the danger to life and limb from terrorism enable Bush in his mad quest to dominate the Middle East militarily, and to create a police state domestically. That is a far, far greater threat to world stability and to my freedom than the jihadists represent at this time.

--->But it's important to note that even absent the Iraq War, relations with Muslims would have gone south anyway in the aftermath of 9/11.

You're wrong. "Muslims" didn't carry out the 9/11 attacks, and more than "right-wing libertarians" carried out the Oklahoma City bombings. In each case it was a tiny subset of these groups, criminal gangs numbering a few hundred men, who were responsible. Relations with Muslims needn't "go south" if the whole 1billion-strong Islamic commununity weren't endlessly demonized as crypto-terrorist nutcases.

I'm really sick of this "clash of civilizations" crap. Yeah Muslims protest if someone portrays Muhammed. Deal with it. Christians Sikhs and Jews do the same if a book/play presses their particular buttons.

"If you take as a given that the toppling of the Taliban was a correct strategic move, then it seems to me illogical that the "post-Afghanistan" war could be conducted only by tracking jihadists and money."

It's not illogical if you feel, as I do, that the jihadists were so integrated into the government (such as it was) in Afghanistan that no separation could be made between the terrorists and the state itself. A "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan would have shown our good intentions to the world post-invasion, as well as rescued the only jihadist-run failed state in the world from its terrorist rule.

But now, instead saving one Afghanistan, we are in the process of creating another.

Gotta watch those Christian Sikhs.

How many people have to die before you see it as serious?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Before the current Republican failure in Afghanistan, there was the Reagan disaster in Afghanistan in the 1980s--the disaster that eventually led to 9/11. Reagan ordered the CIA to train jihadists to fight the Russian infidels in Afghanistan after the Soviets invaded. The CIA helped the "Islamo-fascists" (actually, we referred to them as "freedom fighters" then) recruit from all over the Muslim world. One who answered the call was Osama bin Laden. He cut his terrorist teeth--and did some big-time networking--in Afghanistan. In short, we have that short-sighted policy of ousting the Russians to blame for 9/11.

But no one talks about that today.

Now that Iraq has turned into a training ground for terrorists, who knows what horror will be unleashed on us by some Osama-to-be currently "training" in Iraq. Let us never forget that it was Bush and the Republicans that made it happen.

My fervent hope is that some day the majority of Americans will understand that wars must only be fought between nations, not one nation against a small, ill defined group we think is being helped by other nations.  If only we had approached the problem of 9/11 by treating it as a massive crime against WTC and Pentagon workers.   That would have led to a massive international police effort to find, infiltrate and bring to justice the support groups for the 9/11 bombers.  That effort would have succeeded.

As a result around 100,000 more Iraqis would still be alive, almost 3000 Americans would still be alive, and 20,000 or so Americans would not be permanently and terribly crippled.  And, the world would still respect our country.

Of course Bush would probably have been a one term president, the benefits of which are incalculable. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

There is one hell of a mess to clean up, but it's probably beyond our capability.

I am willing to stipulate that Islam has issues, and that there will be rocky times ahead. I am not convined we can do anything to significantly alter events, beyond making things worse.

I say the best course of action is to be self-reliant, well-defended, and respectful of the ambitions of other nations. Self-reliant to avoid having our state interests require interventions, well-defended in the ways that matter, and showing respect so as to avoid providing a target for demagogues to exploit as the foreign devil.

I think Cheney was on the heart-lung machine one time too many, and a mini-stroke fried his feeble analytical area.

If only the Ottoman Empire hadn't decided to join the Germans' Triple Alliance during the First World War.

That decision made this clash of civilizations unavoidable.

If only the Roman centurion Trajan hadn't urinated on Queen Zenobia's camel back in 303 BCE, we could have avoided this whole clash of civilization thing.

But you know what? I blame the f*ck*ng Sumerians.

Might as well add Pakistan to the list. Musharraf just made a deal with the tribal leaders that he wouldn't try too hard to find bin Laden and the other jihadists that now make Pakistan their base. He takes our money and pretends to look for them but he knows who keeps him in power.

So add it to the list of the Little Prince's foreign policy failures.

Bill O'Reilly went all hysterical about the so called 'War on Christmas.'

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Why aren't Democrats and the Left making the argument that Bush is right about the threat but totally inept and incompetent in the response?

Your question puzzles me placed in the context of this thread. It is the point of this thread to do this, is it not? Ivo Daalder is a Democrat, yes? It is the reason that the Congressional Democrats are pushing for the release of the full NIE, yes? It's also probably part of the reason for Bill Clinton's very public pushback at an opportune moment in the election cycle?

Previously, possibly might have been afraid to attack the whole raison d'etre for the Iraq War so strongly as part and parcel of a failure in approach making the terrorism fight worse, they felt they had to keep Iraq separate from that (partly because of the problem of Cheneyites pushing the bogus al Qaeda/Saddam link as the reason for going in.) Now they have Bush's own intel government saying Iraq is part and parcel of one big failure against terrorism, that the administration's execution of it has made things much worse, that it is aiding recruitment of jihadis, that they are getting training there like Osama once gave to others, and then they are being dispersed across the world. And Aghanistan is still there, a failed state.

But now it seems Democrats are very much making the point. That is the centerpiece of their national approach to the coming election, seems to me. Possibly, it's also the reason for some with certain constituencies not to stress or fight the habeas corpus thing about the detainees at this point in time....stressing civil rights issues that are related is a much more complex argument that would put them, for some uninformed voters, back on the "side of the terrorists."

But the Muslims have a proven track record of holding serious grudges.

The World War I 'travesty' is right up there with the Holy Land B.S.

the "talking point":

....DEMOCRATS APPLY PRESSURE

Democrats tried to raise doubts about Bush's handling of the war on terrorism.

"The president likes to say 'we're winning the war on terror' but now the American people can read for themselves that the intelligence community believes something different: The war in Iraq is increasing the threat of terrorism at home and around the world," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.....

from
Bush on defensive over intelligence report
27 Sep 2006 20:21:02 GMT

The threat posed by Al Qaeda is more akin to the threat that the Red Army Faction, the Red Brigade and other Marxist terrorists posed in the 1970's and early 1980's. They were defeated not by bombing their safe havens in the GDR and other Warsaw Pact nations, but by careful police work and by making them irrelevant. The Palestinian terorists of that age were also neutralised by removing their backers or through crack police teams.

You've fallen into the "this is war!" trap, sir. If anything, it is a war against a criminal organisation that craves the legitimacy that a war gives it. Thay aren't interested in killing but in feeling powerful, and this whole "war on terror" stokes their egos, and stirs up resentment that makes their pied piper promise of vengeance attractive.

Oh, and if you're wondering why they haven't attacked the USA proper since 2001 (not including the anthrax mailer, as that seems to be not related to Al Qaeda), just remember that they don't have to any more. Bush is doing all their work for them, and a more competent president would have been a true threat to them.

But 45 years is far different from 750 years.

Fair is fair, you haven't been around for 750 years. But I'm still confident of your ability to hold a grudge for that long.

Muslims, unlike any other group of people, are despised worldwide by just about everyone, including other sects of Muslims.

You could say the same for Americans, or French, or the old South African white supremacists/apartheid regime.

Which means that your 'unlike any other group' argument artfully falls apart.

Indeed, Muslims exist in many western countries and the majority of them get along quite well with everyone. I know a few Iranians who are quite decent chaps, though one is actually a Bahai.

They are intolerant by nature to anyone who is not Muslim. For many of them it goes beyond a question of conformity. If you are not Muslim, they view you as their enemey.

Did I ever tell you about my uncle, a noted scientist, who in midlife switched from the study of sea invertebrates to tropical botany. I still remember what he said to me:

"With fronds like that, who needs anenomes."

Seriously, are you going to put fundamentalist Christian intolerance up against Muslim intolerance? Tell you what, go stand beside an abortion or family planning clinic with a 'pro-choice' sign. I'll have bandages ready.

The reality is that most moslems get along with their neighbors in Christian countries, and most moslems get along with their non-moslem neighbors in moslem countries. Many moslem states had long histories of significant populations of Christians and Jews. Hell, there are millions of Coptic Christians in Egypt and Syria and Iraq.

This is not a broad stereotype. Since the fall of the Roman Empire there has been no other group of people with which the world community has had more problems.

I'm glad we're avoiding broad stereotypes.

You're just funning me, aren't you. ;) Okay, I'll admit, you had me going there. But that just gives you away. Good one.

Y'know what? You're all right.

As for Civil War re-enactments, that is more for entertainment purposes. I, for one, am a huge Civil War buff and am fascinated because it is the first war in human history where technology surpassed tactics; creating a brutality never before seen in warfare. Also, the incredible group of characters ranging from Lincoln to Lee to Grant to Stuart provides a great historical area of study.

Sure thing. Amply conceded. But at the same time, a hundred and fifty years later, there's still a ferocious revisionist movement which is out to claim that the war wasn't about slavery, and it was all Lincoln's fault, and that it really was "The War of Northern Aggression."

My point there was that 150 years later, there's still people who hold a grudge and refuse to let it go. The unlamented Mr. Allen for one.

And unfortunately, the reality is that Muslims are making converts in Africa, where their religion is spreading and supplanting Christianity and local religions. And they are making converts in American prisons.

There is plenty of anti-American/French sentiment in the world. But only Muslims tend to resort to violence in retaliation.

In England there is plenty of disconent with "home grown" Muslims. The London train bombings last year, as well as the foiled ailine plot this summer, were both products of domestic Muslims attempting to attack their own country.

In France earlier this year we had the mass protests among "home grown" Muslims.

In Thailand there has been a running war in the south of the country between Thai authorities and a group of seperatist Muslims.

In Russia there is the Chechnya situation among Russians and seperatist Muslims.

In Darfur there is a planned genocide in mid-career by which all non-Muslims are being categorically eliminated by government-backed, Muslim militias.

Even in China there is a large Muslim population which is at regular odds with Beijing.

Ironically, it is in North America where Muslims tend to assimilate best with the rest of the population.

The problem, of course, is that for Muslims the issues are not merely political. The Bush administration plays politics and only has 8 years to accomplish its narrow agenda.

For Muslims, however, the issues are religious and very personal. Many Muslims despise Jews for actions taken in Biblical times.

This is exhibit A why standard negotiations and diplomacy have a tendency to not work in the Middle East.

It's easy to blame Bush's stubborness for this problem, but even Clinton, the ultimate diplomat, had little success in the region.

It is no coincidence.

And for the record, I am not a Christian, but agnostic.

I heard it put thus: The winners write the history, but the losers never forget.

Various torture victims will never forget, many families in Iraq will never forget, and many families in New York will never forget either the crime or the lame administration that neglected justice for the victims.

As a result around 100,000 more Iraqis would still be alive, almost 3000 Americans would still be alive, and 20,000 or so Americans would not be permanently and terribly crippled.

No-one I know believes the figure of Iraqi deaths to be as low as 100,000. But the security situation doesn't allow any people counting.

I don't really agree with Daniel, but I can't see any reason whatsoever to rate this post a "1". C'mon, everybody. Play fair.

Daniel, I agree that there is a crisis, I don't care much for the sort of talk around here comparing deaths from terrorism to car accidents. Mass murder is not comparable to accidental death. And radical Islam is a threat that is growing with no obvious end in sight.

But I really fail to understand who you think is "denying" this threat. What we're dealing with right now is an overreaction (or more accurately, a disastrously wrong reaction) to a very real threat. What, exactly, do Democratic Congresspersons and TPM Cafe members need to do to satisfy you that we're serious? This site is filled with writers who have written very serious pieces aimed at fighting terrorist groups more effectively.

Panic is not the right way to confront this threat. Panic leads to invading the wrong country. Panic leads oh-so-clever folks to conclude that our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms are dangerous and only secret, authoritarian government programs can protect us. Panic leads people to vote for corrupt blowhards who smear the patriotism and courage of candidates who actually care about fighting terrorist organizations effectively.

At this point, fear itself seems to be doing more harm to us than our enemies. I seem to recall an old Democratic one-liner on that subject that might be appropriate.