This is absolutely breathtaking, reading as this guy circles back to make the point that Muslims want to conquer the entire world. What’s amazing is that he does this in the context of telling an interviewer that the UK’s policies aimed at curbing radicalism in and fostering better integration of the “Muslim” population there are so appalling. I quote:
‘We should be clear, "Prevent" is not a policy that will detect and deter future bombers. It is an ideological agenda built on the false premise that the more Islamic a person is, and the more politicized, the more chance they have of becoming a security threat. This may sound utterly ridiculous, but that is actually the strategy.
Earlier this year, a leak to the Guardian newspaper exposed that the government's definition of "extremism" which should raise suspicions includes belief in the implementation of sharia or Khilafah/Caliphate - anywhere in the world; belief that it is legitimate for the Muslims of Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan to resist occupation; and belief that homosexuality is a sin. So you can see its real aim is to start a coercive assimilation of Muslims - "converting" them to Western values, and subduing them to the will of the state.’
Well yes, I rather think that IS the aim of the policy! Read the first highlighted section and consider the “falseness” of that premise. I’d say he’s pretty much defined the prime candidates for jihad, but I’m profiling, aren’t I? Interesting how it looks from the other side, and if anyone thinks that there aren’t people who think like this (Islam will cover the world, universal Caliphate, etc.) I hold Dr. Abdul Wahid up as an example.
There’s another bit further on:
MA: Even mainstream British politicians have declared "multiculturalism" to be as good as dead; how will this impact British Muslims at local and national levels?
AW: I think the demise of the policy of "multiculturalism" has made it easier to vilify Islam. Things can be written and said about Islam and Muslims that could never be said of other races or religions. The net result is that more of the wider society, who are fed this diet of lies and misinformation, view Muslims as a suspect community or with hostility.
I would have to ask why anyone would go out of their way to be concerned about Muslims, as opposed to any other particular religious group; that is, if I didn’t already know. The Hindus don’t have plans to take over the world, ditto the Buddhists, Sikhs, Taoists, Zoroastrians, etc. The Christians are largely past that, at least as a group, and the last I checked none of these groups riot and run amok en masse every time someone says something they don’t like.
Multiculturalism as official policy is an absolute disaster, as it says that everything is as good as everything else. The moral-relativists out there might not see the problem with this but I do. There has to be a hard centre that people can look to for continuity, a base for civil society. The constitution of that centre can vary by time and place (culture, etc.), but people have to know there are standards, and what they are.
Assimilation is best for domestic stability, but integration works quite adequately too. I like the food options, etc. that a diverse population brings, and I don’t care if there’s a temple or a mosque down the road any more than a church, as long as it’s there for the same purposes. I will not stand for our Common Law being changed by people from vastly different legal traditions, and Rule of Law (another cornerstone of civil society) can have only one set of rules for EVERYONE. Sure sharia has that too, but I don’t want to live under it, so it can stay where it is; anyone who wants so badly to live under it can live in those places.
The death of Multiculturalism is the only chance that the UK has to survive in any recognizable form, and at some point a decision will have to be made in a lot of other places too. There are rumblings in much of Europe that people are fed up with being forced to kowtow to the Islamists, but I’m not sure they’ll manage to stabilize things.
Time will tell, as always, but the above interview gives the informed a good idea of what the stakes are. For reference, consider living under witch-burning Puritan fundamentalists in the 16th Century. That would be a progressive regime by comparison with the Abdul Wahids of the world taking over.
Saturday 24 October 2009
Sunday 18 October 2009
It's inconvenient when the enemy makes a good point...
I am of course passingly familiar with the form and function of propaganda, and this Taliban press release is certainly a bit of it. That said, I have to say that it is quite free of the usual jihadi crap, and whoever is doing this for them is doing a good job. This part in particular I cannot disagree with:
“At the beginning, they were promising they would withdraw within three months, in their words, after eliminating the so-called terrorism. Contrarily, today eight years from that time have passed, but they have built up hundreds of military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq. They say that they will raise the level of their troops to almost 110,000 troops. It is clear from this, that they have occupied Afghanistan for the execution of their expansionist plans in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Southeast Asia.”
CENTCOM and the US State Department can say what they want, but this is the truth. The US is WAY out of their sphere of influence in Central Asia, and one has to ask why they would plunge these sorts of resources into that part of the world. Containment of Russia and China could be reasons, but if so it's a stupid idea. Pipelines? It would be a hell of a lot easier to run one through once the dust settles and Afghanistan is running it's own show (for good or ill) and that will happen a lot faster if they pull out than if they fight an endless guerrilla war.
Please note that this doesn't represent a change in my position on Afghanistan. I have said from the get-go that we should have smashed the real problem children, established some bases in the Northern Alliance territory to guarantee no recurrence and to keep the Taliban away from the people who really didn't want them there.
I have to say that I believe them when they say that they have no designs on terrorizing the West. They figure that they can run Afghanistan better (read: less rampantly corruptly) than anyone else, and as long as you don't account for the enforced backwardness and misery, they probably can. The reason is that they keep things VERY simple, and punish transgressions mercilessly.
An earlier post of mine mused about just taking over the government. I'll showcase my incredible arrogance by saying that if you put me in charge I would do a better job than Karzai and his cronies. This assumes a mere Division of first-rate troops (10-15,000 depending on organization) with attendant air power and tactical transport. I'd be making deals left right and centre, and cracking heads in a big way when the deals were not held up. Walk softly and carry the biggest stick around. In other words, to run Afghanistan you have to be the biggest, baddest Warlord of the bunch.
I rather like not living in constant fear for my life, so this is completely academic, not a job application. One thing remains salient to this whole debacle: you can't make Afgthanistan into a stable democracy by any means that I see available to us. Exterminating the entire population and colonizing the place with less intransigent groups might be a start but isn't an option. People talk about an "exit strategy", but this is only important in terms of logistics. We have to bring our stuff home when we leave (tanks, guns, planes, etc.) but I guarantee if we told the Taliban tomorrow that we were leaving, there would be no attacks or bombs on our route.
The recent election showed the population what they can expect from Democracy, and they don't see a lot of difference from the old way of doing things. Karzai has the biggest stick (NATO) so he wins. That stick is not fully his to control so he can't hold the country. It would be interesting to see what Karzai would do if he had full tactical control of the NATO forces, but for now he plays us against the populace, reaming us every time we inevitably kill some "civilians".
A lot of people think Gen McChrystal is out-to-lunch with his COIN strategy, and a lot of others think this is the way forward. I think that if you need to double the number of troops in-country to even try this you should be thinking very clearly about the stakes involved. Again this is a time to "man up" and admit that we bit off more than we could swallow. We've lost the south, and we're losing parts that were initially friendly to us. We can recover the non-Pashtun parts, support them militarily to keep the Taliban from taking them over, maintain a presence to keep the pulse of the region, and it's but a matter of drawing some lines.
Pakistan you say? I don't have any answers there, but I will postulate that if they can't manage their internal security, nothing we do is going to help them. Get involved directly and we make more "Taliban", but a solid and dynamic military force to the north of "Talibanistan" would be a sword of Damocles over the Talibs in government to keep them (mostly) out of it. We can knock over their government any time we want to, the one lesson both sides should have learned from the "three month raid" we started out with eight years ago.
“At the beginning, they were promising they would withdraw within three months, in their words, after eliminating the so-called terrorism. Contrarily, today eight years from that time have passed, but they have built up hundreds of military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq. They say that they will raise the level of their troops to almost 110,000 troops. It is clear from this, that they have occupied Afghanistan for the execution of their expansionist plans in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Southeast Asia.”
CENTCOM and the US State Department can say what they want, but this is the truth. The US is WAY out of their sphere of influence in Central Asia, and one has to ask why they would plunge these sorts of resources into that part of the world. Containment of Russia and China could be reasons, but if so it's a stupid idea. Pipelines? It would be a hell of a lot easier to run one through once the dust settles and Afghanistan is running it's own show (for good or ill) and that will happen a lot faster if they pull out than if they fight an endless guerrilla war.
Please note that this doesn't represent a change in my position on Afghanistan. I have said from the get-go that we should have smashed the real problem children, established some bases in the Northern Alliance territory to guarantee no recurrence and to keep the Taliban away from the people who really didn't want them there.
I have to say that I believe them when they say that they have no designs on terrorizing the West. They figure that they can run Afghanistan better (read: less rampantly corruptly) than anyone else, and as long as you don't account for the enforced backwardness and misery, they probably can. The reason is that they keep things VERY simple, and punish transgressions mercilessly.
An earlier post of mine mused about just taking over the government. I'll showcase my incredible arrogance by saying that if you put me in charge I would do a better job than Karzai and his cronies. This assumes a mere Division of first-rate troops (10-15,000 depending on organization) with attendant air power and tactical transport. I'd be making deals left right and centre, and cracking heads in a big way when the deals were not held up. Walk softly and carry the biggest stick around. In other words, to run Afghanistan you have to be the biggest, baddest Warlord of the bunch.
I rather like not living in constant fear for my life, so this is completely academic, not a job application. One thing remains salient to this whole debacle: you can't make Afgthanistan into a stable democracy by any means that I see available to us. Exterminating the entire population and colonizing the place with less intransigent groups might be a start but isn't an option. People talk about an "exit strategy", but this is only important in terms of logistics. We have to bring our stuff home when we leave (tanks, guns, planes, etc.) but I guarantee if we told the Taliban tomorrow that we were leaving, there would be no attacks or bombs on our route.
The recent election showed the population what they can expect from Democracy, and they don't see a lot of difference from the old way of doing things. Karzai has the biggest stick (NATO) so he wins. That stick is not fully his to control so he can't hold the country. It would be interesting to see what Karzai would do if he had full tactical control of the NATO forces, but for now he plays us against the populace, reaming us every time we inevitably kill some "civilians".
A lot of people think Gen McChrystal is out-to-lunch with his COIN strategy, and a lot of others think this is the way forward. I think that if you need to double the number of troops in-country to even try this you should be thinking very clearly about the stakes involved. Again this is a time to "man up" and admit that we bit off more than we could swallow. We've lost the south, and we're losing parts that were initially friendly to us. We can recover the non-Pashtun parts, support them militarily to keep the Taliban from taking them over, maintain a presence to keep the pulse of the region, and it's but a matter of drawing some lines.
Pakistan you say? I don't have any answers there, but I will postulate that if they can't manage their internal security, nothing we do is going to help them. Get involved directly and we make more "Taliban", but a solid and dynamic military force to the north of "Talibanistan" would be a sword of Damocles over the Talibs in government to keep them (mostly) out of it. We can knock over their government any time we want to, the one lesson both sides should have learned from the "three month raid" we started out with eight years ago.
Thursday 1 October 2009
Logic and realism
If everybody subscribed to this philosophy the Dalai Lama would be right, but shit ain’t like that:
"Peace is not just the mere absence of violence. . . . Genuine peace is genuine restraint," he said.
The Dalai Lama pointed to former United States president George W. Bush, a man he called a "straightforward" and "nice" person.
But he said the "violent methods" used in Iraq and Afghanistan only give way to "violent consequences."
Only compassion and dialogue can solve differences, the Tibetan leader urged.
"Peace through compassion is logical," he said. "External, long-lasting general peace must come through inner peace."
In the absence of jerkwads wielding sticks, the carrot is indeed all you need. For the longest time I always wondered why the “good guys” are so frequently getting their butts kicked. We don’t always lose, but if good intentions are enough we should be doing better.
We’ll start with Israel. Which side of the good guy/bad guy fence they’re on is a matter of opinion, but on balance I’d say they’re “us” as opposed to “them”. When they show “compassion” (weakness) by pulling out of some contested area (South Lebanon, Gaza) this is not responded to with dialogue and understanding, but with rockets, mortars and attacks on outposts.
“Peace through compassion” is internally logical, but it is patently obvious to any rational person that if Israel ever totally drops its guard, it’s boned. The actual as opposed to theoretical logic of the situation is closer to “kill or be killed”. Restraint just encourages the terrorists and gives them time and opportunity to re-arm and reorganize. In fact, the restraint that they do show (not bulldozing Gaza and everyone in it into the Mediterranean) very palpably imperils Israel’s security.
“They make a desert and call it peace”. That, my dear exiled holy man, is as logical as it gets. If there are no people, there will be no conflict. Even if there are relatively homogenous groups there is relatively little conflict. People are NOT logical; logic is an overlay on our thought processes, and is a cultural artefact. If the Dalai Lama was correct, he wouldn’t be exiled, for example…
Bad guys will always have the advantage of having no interest in restraint. This can burn them in a couple of ways; people will turn against them and/or the other side will drop the gloves. The logic of these situations is also simple, and based on self-interest. Ideology starts wars and keeps them going, but people end them when they’ve had more than they can take. Most people like stability, which is a close analogue of peace, and will back whatever gives them the best prospect to achieve that. If the Taliban for example provide services where the government doesn’t, people will tend to back them even if they don’t like them.
As long as there are guys that are willing to commit atrocities to get what they want there is a completely different logic that applies. The Dalai Lama’s version is utopian, and the word “utopia” is Greek, from ou “no” and topos “place”. As long as we’re here and not there, war most certainly can be logical. Some people just need to die; it’s the only way to stop them since they don’t care about compassion or restraint.
How much restraint we should show in doing that is debatable, but I’ll put it out there that the last war our side won unequivocally was WW2, and then we used literally all the force that we could bring to bear. In modern conflicts you certainly have to at least be prepared to use more than the other side; if you kill them all, they can’t stop your development programs, again logical. Somehow I don’t think this is the logic the DL had in mind, but it’s simpler and makes no assumptions. Simple can be ugly, but it’s generally effective.
"Peace is not just the mere absence of violence. . . . Genuine peace is genuine restraint," he said.
The Dalai Lama pointed to former United States president George W. Bush, a man he called a "straightforward" and "nice" person.
But he said the "violent methods" used in Iraq and Afghanistan only give way to "violent consequences."
Only compassion and dialogue can solve differences, the Tibetan leader urged.
"Peace through compassion is logical," he said. "External, long-lasting general peace must come through inner peace."
In the absence of jerkwads wielding sticks, the carrot is indeed all you need. For the longest time I always wondered why the “good guys” are so frequently getting their butts kicked. We don’t always lose, but if good intentions are enough we should be doing better.
We’ll start with Israel. Which side of the good guy/bad guy fence they’re on is a matter of opinion, but on balance I’d say they’re “us” as opposed to “them”. When they show “compassion” (weakness) by pulling out of some contested area (South Lebanon, Gaza) this is not responded to with dialogue and understanding, but with rockets, mortars and attacks on outposts.
“Peace through compassion” is internally logical, but it is patently obvious to any rational person that if Israel ever totally drops its guard, it’s boned. The actual as opposed to theoretical logic of the situation is closer to “kill or be killed”. Restraint just encourages the terrorists and gives them time and opportunity to re-arm and reorganize. In fact, the restraint that they do show (not bulldozing Gaza and everyone in it into the Mediterranean) very palpably imperils Israel’s security.
“They make a desert and call it peace”. That, my dear exiled holy man, is as logical as it gets. If there are no people, there will be no conflict. Even if there are relatively homogenous groups there is relatively little conflict. People are NOT logical; logic is an overlay on our thought processes, and is a cultural artefact. If the Dalai Lama was correct, he wouldn’t be exiled, for example…
Bad guys will always have the advantage of having no interest in restraint. This can burn them in a couple of ways; people will turn against them and/or the other side will drop the gloves. The logic of these situations is also simple, and based on self-interest. Ideology starts wars and keeps them going, but people end them when they’ve had more than they can take. Most people like stability, which is a close analogue of peace, and will back whatever gives them the best prospect to achieve that. If the Taliban for example provide services where the government doesn’t, people will tend to back them even if they don’t like them.
As long as there are guys that are willing to commit atrocities to get what they want there is a completely different logic that applies. The Dalai Lama’s version is utopian, and the word “utopia” is Greek, from ou “no” and topos “place”. As long as we’re here and not there, war most certainly can be logical. Some people just need to die; it’s the only way to stop them since they don’t care about compassion or restraint.
How much restraint we should show in doing that is debatable, but I’ll put it out there that the last war our side won unequivocally was WW2, and then we used literally all the force that we could bring to bear. In modern conflicts you certainly have to at least be prepared to use more than the other side; if you kill them all, they can’t stop your development programs, again logical. Somehow I don’t think this is the logic the DL had in mind, but it’s simpler and makes no assumptions. Simple can be ugly, but it’s generally effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)