Fareed Zakaria's excellent cover story in the current Newsweek makes a useful distinction between "Islamists" and "terrorists" without failing to highlight the horror of Sharia law. This type of oppression- especially for women under Islamist rule- is almost equitable to slavery in my view. But as always with Zakaria, it's a convincing case:
"Beyond Afghanistan, too, it is crucial that we adopt a more sophisticated strategy toward radical Islam. This should come naturally to President Obama, who spoke often on the campaign trail of the need for just such a differentiated approach toward Muslim countries. Even the Washington Institute, a think tank often associated with conservatives, appears onboard. It is issuing a report this week that recommends, among other points, that the United States use more "nuanced, noncombative rhetoric" that avoids sweeping declarations like "war on terror," "global insurgency," even "the Muslim world." Anything that emphasizes the variety of groups, movements and motives within that world strengthens the case that this is not a battle between Islam and the West. Bin Laden constantly argues that all these different groups are part of the same global movement. We should not play into his hands, and emphasize instead that many of these forces are local, have specific grievances and don't have much in common.
That does not mean we should accept the burning of girls' schools, or the stoning of criminals. Recognizing the reality of radical Islam is entirely different from accepting its ideas. We should mount a spirited defense of our views and values. We should pursue aggressively policies that will make these values succeed. Such efforts are often difficult and take time—rebuilding state structures, providing secular education, reducing corruption—but we should help societies making these efforts. The mere fact that we are working in these countries on these issues—and not simply bombing, killing and capturing—might change the atmosphere surrounding the U.S. involvement in this struggle."
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Don't worry, Hillary is heading over there and i'm sure she has the federal checkbook in hand. You know the democrat forigen policy has always been to just pay off our enemys until the grown-up's return to power and have to clean up the mess left in their wake. And hillary should know, while her husband (Bubba) was skull fucking fat interns and shoving cigars up their pussies, he was allowing 9-11 to be planed. And let bin ladden escape. The best allie the extrimist muslim can is the democrates in control. Because both groups have the same goal, the complete distruction of the United States and our way of life.
Aaron, may i suggest that 'your way of life', ie America's insatiable appetite for consumption accompanied by a feeling that you are the gods of the universe is fed by the oil stolen; yes, stolen!, from Iraq; by the exploitation of the wealth of the countries whose corrupt(ed)regimes are supported by the US in return for their lull of such robbery. 'Your way of life' is unfortunately, my friend, is destined to end with the death, which might come at any moment. So, please learn the reality of this life. This beautiful life might not possibly be meant to end with death. Learn the truth of Islam, learn about your Creator, learn the purpose of your existence and thereby come into peace with the existence of yourself and the universe at large. And pity the people around the world who are in need and work for social justice.
"Aaron, may i suggest that 'your way of life', ie America's insatiable appetite for consumption accompanied by a feeling that you are the gods of the universe is fed by the oil stolen; yes, stolen!, from Iraq; by the exploitation of the wealth of the countries whose corrupt(ed)regimes are supported by the US in return for their lull of such robbery."
Run on sentence -5 points.
"'Your way of life' is unfortunately, my friend, is destined to end with the death, which might come at any moment."
Nonsensical sentence re-word -20 points.
Here is some truth of Islam, they stone woman to death with just an accusation of adultery. Woman are not allowed to be educated. People are beheaded for the mere mention of Mohammad. Woman are executed for being raped because they committed adultery. Is this the peace you speak of shaky? Islam should be wiped off the face of the earth along with all other religions.
Aaron, Check http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/2/7/4/0/p127403_index.html.
Islamic countries have the lowest murder rates inthe world. Have a clue?
That's because religious executions are not considered murder. They are just doing Allah's will. Yeah I can do a Google search too.
http://www.integralworld.net/harris20.html
This site tells the truth about you silly little religion.
Here is an even better take on FZ and his view.
http://www.dailygut.com/index.php?i=4140
"In most sci fi movies involving alien invasion, the visitors fall into two groups: ruthless creatures bent on our destruction, or highly evolved sentient beings here to save us from our own ruin.
Fareed Zakaria is both. In the most recent Newsweek, the CNN talking head/madcap theorist has come down from planet Patchouli to inform humanity that radical Islam is here to stay. More important – E.T. Fareed claims that we need to divorce extremist religion nutbags from the violence we see them cause.
Okay Fareed: so instead of radical Islam divorcing itself from its own extreme acts of violence, we have to divorce the link in our minds – a psychological exercise that asks us to forget about 9/11 and the idea that the Taliban had any role in it – an exercise, mind you that defies logic while offering no help to the world whatsoever.
But it is an interesting strategy that Zakara is pushing: it`s called "Screw you." And it`s directed at those who have to live with these fundamentalist bastards - something Fareed can suggest because the odd of his own kids getting acid thrown in their faces by the Taliban is nil –he lives here, after all. But the poor unfortunate girls who want an education in Afghanistan don`t have that luxury.
But at least Fareed is being honest. Basically, he`s saying you can continue killing innocent Christians in Somalia, mutilate the faces of your girls in Afghanistan, hang homosexuals in Iran – just don`t bother me while I`m texting on 6th avenue. Now that`s a compassionate liberal at his best."
This is not a fair reading of Zakaria's piece in Newsweek- or of his work in general. Gutfeld's reference to Zakaria as a "compassionate liberal" (whatever that means) is especially misplaced. Zakaria is much more of an old school realist. He is also an academic. His writing should not be viewed strictly with the mindset of America's party politics.
What Zakaria seems to be saying in the piece is that it is in our strategic interest in quelling terrorsim in the long term by using more soft power- winning hearts and minds as they say. We should also acknowledge that all Islamist groups, however abhorrent they may be to our western sensibilites, are not terrorists plotting global attacks. Most have local gripes and interests. Using hard power in these regions doesn't go along way in winning over the general population. As Zakaria points out:
"To be clear, where there are Qaeda cells and fighters, force is the only answer. But most estimates of the number of Qaeda fighters in Pakistan range well under a few thousand. Are those the only people we are bombing? Is bombing—by Americans—the best solution? The Predator strikes have convinced much of the local population that it's under attack from America and produced a nationalist backlash. A few Qaeda operatives die, but public support for the battle against extremism drops in the vital Pashtun areas of Pakistan. Is this a good exchange?"
It does not seem like a good exchange to me. Unfortunately, the draconian social and domestic structures, alond with the Sharia courts, and the general rejection of modernity, will still permiate throughout many of these regions as long as radical Islam is the cornerstone of these societies. Soft power is certainly a longer term proposition. It's a slow crawl.
But it shouldn't be missed that the recent success in reducing violence in Iraq revolved around this very type of thinking. The Bush Adminstration (who partnered several times with opposing Islamist groups in the war for stategic and tactitcal reasons)essentially seperated the local militants from the global jihadists in the Sunni belt- thus giving way to the much celebrated "Awakening". This is the essence of what Zakaria is saying. Distinguish between the Isamists (bad guys) and terrorist (really bad guys)to better fight the broader battle.
Aaron,
You can't possibly be so naive as to believe that the US has been in Iraq to fight against radicalism.
It's exactly for 'your way of life' the US is in Iraq. The thirst for wealth, luxury, power and comfort needs the resources of countries such as Iraq, which are also used as markets to american products. The essential old story going on with different cover-ups.
However, that same greed backfired with the recent credit crunch turning potentially into the greatest economic crisis in history. You might recall the crisis is dubbed 'the moral crisis' as it was triggered by the bankers' greed for more bonuses let them play with unreasonable risks.
It's a square game. If you cause pain, you'll get pain in the end.
For the 9/11, just one question, how come three blocks of the WTC melted down but still the passport of the terrorist Arab guy could be found intact in the roubles? Just think.
Yea yea I know 9/11 was a cover up, just like Islam is just a front for pedaphillia and homosexuality. We know.
Post a Comment