GWOT is back and back in a big way

[MarkWill]

All the cable companies are terrible at, well everything!

[PaleRider]

First, there has been constant 'attack,' so to say, against the Western world by radical Islamist ideology from the 2000s to now. Particularly starting with 2003: the murder of Theo van Gogh, the Madrid train bombings, and multiple suicide bombings in Chechnya. And from 2003, there have been numerous incidents every year involving the expression of violent Islamist ideology and sympathies. France and Russia have seen the most with these expressions of radical Islamist thought.

I was aiming at more the mentality of being under attack. By 2007, right when the world economy began tanking, we saw the world move away from its fixation on terrorism. Does this mean acts of terrorism have stopped? No. But the societal mentality was different. We were busy focusing on other, arguably more pressing matters. That sense of terror and dread that only terrorism can bring ended as we rushed to protect our nest eggs. Now we are seeing that mentality come back. Get what i am trying to say?

However, you are very naive to think resolving this problem is as simple as defeating ISIS. Clearly this predates ISIS; we've been fighting it since 2001.[/q uote]
ISIS is but the most pressing and direct threat we face from Islamic extremism. Of course Al Qaeda is still a threat (esp AQAP and AQIM) along with the hotbed of terrorism Syria has become and with growing Islamist rumblings in Central Asia and Western China.

Yet even with the toppling of two regimes and the subsequent installation of "democracies," there remain incidents in Europe. Of course, since about 2008 we've also had all our additional wars via drones in Yemen and Pakistan, in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan. If anything, Western war in the Middle East is what opened the power vacuum that ISIS emerged to fill. Iraq is and has been fractured since Saddam Hussein was removed; the Iraqi state is simply not sustainable without a dictator to force "unity" among Kurds, Shia, and Sunni. And Syria was hardly posing any major threats to the world; only now with Bashar al-Assad caught in a prolonged civil war are radical Islamists able to gain a foothold in Syria. The same is true of Libya, too.

I will admit I am disappointed by the west in this regard. Since the 2001-2002 invasion of Afghanistan we really haven't got it right when it comes to dealing with the Islamic terror threat. I've been opposed to the drone wars from the start (they're no more effective than Clinton's cruise missile strikes in the 1990's) and the US and our Western allies have had little luck or vision in our other endeavors. Iraq did not need an invasion, more limited military options like airstrikes on suspected WMD facilities, or paying his generals to launch a coup against him would have worked just fine.
Lack of a strategy for Libya and Syria has allowed problems there to fester as well. A better vision is needed. That being said, the basis of the modern Middle East nation state system has been arguably crumbling since the 1990's when the Cold War ended. The micro-gulf states tend to do alright, but Saudi Arabia is being held together by a 90+ year old monarch on his death bed and copious amounts of money essentially bribing the population to stay docile. Jordan is having difficulty navigating the current trends and Yemen is quietly becoming the Libya of the Arabian Peninsula. There are deep rooted issues at play here including an oppressive political system, an ineffective economic order, changing social dynamics and a bulging youth population which can easily access outside world information. The Arab states are their own worst enemy and we are now seeing their demise. Iraq had a shot in the 1950's but some 50 years of instability, genocide, war, political violence and cruel dictators has completely traumatized the nation and prevented any meaningful Iraqi state from emerging. After the First Gulf War, Iraq really ceased to be a nation. The 2003 US invasion only hastened the decline of a decrepit system.

Continued involvement in the Middle East clearly doesn't work at all; it just provides extended reasoning for radical Islamists to carry out their assaults. ISIS is something that should be defeated, just as organizations like Boko Haram, al-Shabab, and al-Qaeda should be. But it's an ideology and no wars will destroy it. If any military conflicts exist involving these groups, it should be to protect secular regimes or to protect groups from genocide. Though even then, war with these groups is not some simple task and history show far has shown that the wars are endless, baring minimal results.

Part of that is right. And the reason this ideology is able to succeed so much is again the impotence of the current Arab leaders to deliver anything beyond violence and oppression to maintain control. Radical Islam is the only true alternative in the region for now after the total failure of half a centuries worth of dictators and secular national socialism which has produced rampant corruption, cronyism and the like. Right now what we ultimately should be concerned with is managing the chaotic reordering of the ME to prevent it from spilling elsewhere. I wish I could believe otherwise, but its time to let the Arabs reorder themselves, and almost all the successful nations are born in fire and shared sacrifice.

The so-called Global War on Terror is a failure. It has continued to be one since 2001. All the hundreds of incidents in Europe, big and small, that have occurred steadily since 2003 are evidence of that. So what is the best solution? I don't know. But it's clear war isn't working and radical Islamists continue to present a threat to people of all backgrounds, be you secular, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever.

We need to refocus our strategy. After wasting the 2004-2014 years on Iraq, economic chaos and Afghanistan we need to adapt to the new strategic reality. The Arab states, on their own, are failing and need to be discarded into the bin of history. Stop propping up what are deeply dysfunctional states. Syria is beyond hope for reconstruction and Iraq stopped even remotely being a country back in the 1990's. Its time to the let the powers that be decide how the region needs to be reordered. The West needs to play defense for the moment. Keep the terrorists out, limited strikes against their bases of operations in ME and selectively back more stable and friendly nations like the UAE, Oman and I say a Kurdish Republic. Lebanon has surprisingly proven resilient to the Arab Spring and is arguably doing better politically speaking with the war in Syria letting it grow out of its neighbors shadow. Keep the pressure on ISIS and Al Qaeda but refrain from any big adventures.

I mean, you totally could, if you address the concerns these groups (and, perhaps more importantly for those of you with the "WE NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!!1!!!" mindset in spite of the position of the US as the world's largest resource for terror organizations since, idk, the 50s-60s, even moderate groups in the region) have been raising for ages - namely US support for the apartheid state in Israel/Palestine. But hey, whatever.

Al Qaeda, ISIS and Boko Haram are not groups which can be easily negotiated with. I'll get back to Israel/Palestine in a moment.

Especially when you fuel that ideology directly through blind, unquestioning support for Israel.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE CAN STILL MAINTAIN THAT THIS ISN'T ABOUT ISRAEL. But, perhaps more on topic, I really think it's pretty bullshit how simplistic we imagine the worldviews of people like the gunmen in Paris to be. Why do their actions have to be reducible to some phantom monolithic "Islamic hatred?" Perhaps these gunmen, Algerian nationals, might be a bit upset still about the ~1.5m Algerians killed or the thousands brutally tortured in Algeria in the 50s-60s? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 69184.html

So we have two options: either acknowledge that maybe these attacks have some basis in legitimate grievances (keeping in mind that, despite the fact that violence is of course despicable, the US has set the global standard in claiming the existence of such a thing as "legitimate violence" in geopolitics) and historical inequality and oppression tied to France's colonial past, OR just chalk it up to some imagined Islamic hatred of all things good (freedom, Capitalism with a capital C, boobies, Jack Daniels and modern medicine) ala Bernard Lewis and call it a day. I can't believe how ignorant some people can be on issues like this despite otherwise very demonstrably high intellectual faculties.

Going off your last little bit, I am afraid you are not being hyperbolic in your statement that radical Islamists seek to ban all things "fun." The Taliban banned music in Afghanistan and the traditional sport of kite running, ISIS is notorious now for the excessive punishments it imposes on the people in the regions it controls. Books are burned (look at how the Islamists sacked parts of Timbuctu in 2013), and fun is literally banned.
Anyways....
In the 1950's and 1960's the culprits were the Gulf Monarchies. The stooges of the west. We need to topple them so the people can be free. Since the 1970's when the Arab world suffered stinging defeats in the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, the former of which led to the famous Three No's of Khartoum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution ). Then the Arab World muddled along till the Cold War ended in the 1990's and since then it has come up short. There were 1.5 million dead because of the war with France? Alright, fine that's tragic but that was now 50 years ago. You can't keep blaming the west for your own failings. Right after the War ended, Algeria became a one party dictatorship until a violent civil war burst out in the 1990's.
Sure you can keep blaming Israel for causing the destruction of Arab states and being the source of legitimacy for these radical Muslims, but the fact is they will latch onto any excuse they want or need to. It doesn't matter if its the monarchies of the 1950's or the failure of the Arabs in their wars against Israel in the 1960's and 1970's or GWOT today and US "meddling." The source of troubles in the Middle East is the leaders themselves. The secular nationalist ideologies of Nasser and the Syrian and Iraqi Baathists brought only repression, unresponsive political system, an economic system rigged against the people, and a hollowed out nation. Syria is fracturing so bad and Iraq fractured so bad because once the dictators were removed or denied their once all encompassing ability to force their power on their subjects, the people simply abandoned them. Assad control Damascus and a few regions solidly in the western part of Syria but that nation as we know it is gone. And what led to a collapse of his authority? No economic progress. An oppressive political system which denied participation to his people and no compelling national ideology to unite his people leaving them yearning for something else and that something else is radical Islam.
Palestine, Western meddling, they're all excuses to cover up for the failure of the Arab states.

[CanadianEh]

Pale I have to strongly disagree with you on your views with regards to interventionism in the middle east. If western nations worry about their own problems and militarily back out of these nations there would really be no problems. Centuries ago the Islamic world was the most cultured area in the world with the values of literacy and culture higher than everything except religion and in some cases higher. While Europe was struggling to even keep governments and monarchs in place since the church was intervening in everything. Don't get me wrong I am a Christian and I believe in God but I believe that time was a very rough time for Europe and it was really hard for them to get out of. Finally Secular politicians came around and called for immediate reform. What I'm trying to say is, Secularism will eventually hit the Islamic world and we should let the young thinkers of tomorrow be the ones to change their own society. I'm all for developing a nation through foreign aid but I believe that western nations should stay out of the region, If America was not selling weapons to local governments militant groups would not nearly be as powerful as they are today. The anti-American thinking would not be there either and Americans would not have to fear for their lives.

I strongly condem all of the killings these groups have made and all of the things they have done wrong, local governments need to learn to fend for themselves and make a solution instead of letting America solve it for them.

[MarkWill]

I strongly condem all of the killings these groups have made and all of the things they have done wrong, local governments need to learn to fend for themselves and make a solution instead of letting America solve it for them.

That's what we just did. Isn't it clear that obviously, they are inept and incompetent? I remain doubtful that the Middle East would be peaceful even if America did not enter, considering ISIS is not just anti-American, but is also killing other Muslims that do not agree with their views. That's pretty radical, isn't it? Are we just going to let them continue?

[CanadianEh]

I strongly condem all of the killings these groups have made and all of the things they have done wrong, local governments need to learn to fend for themselves and make a solution instead of letting America solve it for them.

That's what we just did. Isn't it clear that obviously, they are inept and incompetent? I remain doubtful that the Middle East would be peaceful even if America did not enter, considering ISIS is not just anti-American, but is also killing other Muslims that do not agree with their views. That's pretty radical, isn't it? Are we just going to let them continue?

No absolutely not, all I'm saying is that the Middle East would be better off if we were to leave the issues alone and let the local governments of the region try to conquer the groups. I did not say we could not intervene politically through the United Nations and other international unions. I believe what these groups are doing is despicable but should America and other western nations really be taking part and overstepping their boundaries, sometimes without national permission?

[MarkWill]

I strongly condem all of the killings these groups have made and all of the things they have done wrong, local governments need to learn to fend for themselves and make a solution instead of letting America solve it for them.

That's what we just did. Isn't it clear that obviously, they are inept and incompetent? I remain doubtful that the Middle East would be peaceful even if America did not enter, considering ISIS is not just anti-American, but is also killing other Muslims that do not agree with their views. That's pretty radical, isn't it? Are we just going to let them continue?

No absolutely not, all I'm saying is that the Middle East would be better off if we were to leave the issues alone and let the local governments of the region try to conquer the groups. I did not say we could not intervene politically through the United Nations and other international unions. I believe what these groups are doing is despicable but should America and other western nations really be taking part and overstepping their boundaries, sometimes without national permission?

If there is proper justification to do so. Also, in hindsight, we all see things we could've done better. It's over now, and the fact is, the US is involved in the Middle East and will be tied to it for years to come. Islamic radicals such as ISIS despise the US, but also terrorize most western nations, with the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris as the latest example.

You know, if some of those "liberal activist" groups turned as much efforts to fighting Republicans "trying to take away your birth control" to Islamic radicals that suppress women, there could be a great deal of progress.

[CanadianEh]

I agree I would be the first person to say that the Islamic world is stuck in a form of Conservatism that is not morally right. Women are suppressed and not given the equal rights in which they deserve. The general belief in equality is something Islamic states need to learn and when I referred to the "rise of the future generations" I was implying a secular state as opposed to a fascist one. I believe that if America had not entered this war so many more soldiers would be alive and so many children would get their mothers and fathers back. I believe that if this war had not started radical groups would not have launched these attacks.

The only real reason why America intervened in the first place is because of the horrid events of 9/11 and America has oil interests in the gulf sea. If they had gone in to "Liberate the people" they would also be interveneing in North Korea & other Communist nations.

[MarkWill]

I agree I would be the first person to say that the Islamic world is stuck in a form of Conservatism that is not morally right. Women are suppressed and not given the equal rights in which they deserve. The general belief in equality is something Islamic states need to learn and when I referred to the "rise of the future generations" I was implying a secular state as opposed to a fascist one. I believe that if America had not entered this war so many more soldiers would be alive and so many children would get their mothers and fathers back. I believe that if this war had not started radical groups would not have launched these attacks.

The only real reason why America intervened in the first place is because of the horrid events of 9/11 and America has oil interests in the gulf sea. If they had gone in to "Liberate the people" they would also be interveneing in North Korea & other Communist nations.

We were involved in the Middle East long before that.

[PaleRider]

Pale I have to strongly disagree with you on your views with regards to interventionism in the middle east.

Of course you do...

If western nations worry about their own problems and militarily back out of these nations there would really be no problems. Centuries ago the Islamic world was the most cultured area in the world with the values of literacy and culture higher than everything except religion and in some cases higher. While Europe was struggling to even keep governments and monarchs in place since the church was intervening in everything.

Indeed the Arab/Islamic world was one full of advancement in math, science, art, literature, history etc. However it was not Western interventionism which caused the decline of the Islamic world. From the 1600's forward the Islamic world began stagnating in all realms. They rejected the Scientific Revolution as it transformed Europe, they rejected new ideas of warfare and modern technology and perhaps most importantly (and most absurdly) they rejected printed books. None of this was because of Western actions (save perhaps that they were invented or originated in the West) but because Islamic leaders refused to endorse modernity. Even as close as the 1950's cities like Alexandria, Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran were multi-ethnic cosmopolitan centres. Not so much now. For how long have we heard the refrain that the troubles of the Arab world lie with the West? That evil West which brought modern technology, modern forms of sociopolitical organization, that brought modern medicine (the West did have its sins, but the Arab world was spared much of the ravages Western colonialism brought to places like southern Africa and the Americas). Arab leaders have been the ones who set their nations back. We can't change everything to our liking and in international relations sometimes you have to work with people you don't want to or that you have no control that they're leaders over a piece of land that you have an interest in. Sure we sold them arms and bought their oil, with that money they got from oil they could have invested in their people, provided new paths for them. But they didn't. Nasser, Assad, Mubarak (to a lesser extent), Saddam and his Baathists in Iraq. Each and everyone of those dictators was far more concerned with remaining in power, and using their oil wealth to secure their near absolute rule.
On a side note....my views on Church and civil authority clashes in the time frame of Medieval Europe probably clash with yours since I take the view that the Church was never fully in control of all its organs until modern times and that it was the civil authorities who caused much of the chaos using their local bishop as a figure head to legitimize their power plays.

Don't get me wrong I am a Christian and I believe in God but I believe that time was a very rough time for Europe and it was really hard for them to get out of. Finally Secular politicians came around and called for immediate reform. What I'm trying to say is, Secularism will eventually hit the Islamic world and we should let the young thinkers of tomorrow be the ones to change their own society. I'm all for developing a nation through foreign aid but I believe that western nations should stay out of the region, If America was not selling weapons to local governments militant groups would not nearly be as powerful as they are today. The anti-American thinking would not be there either and Americans would not have to fear for their lives.

Secularism will hit the Islamic world when these so called moderate Muslim's rise up and take power away from these radical clerics and their minions who for the better part of 70 years (since the founding of Saudi Arabia in 1932) have been allowed increasingly free reign on the system. Part of the problem is inherent in Islam itself. In Christianity, specifically in the Bible we can quote Christ himself laying the ground work for what became separation of church and state. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render unto God that which is God's." is probably one of the most powerful reasoning for this separation. Thus, using passages like this, Christian Europe was able to make the transition easier to a more secular civil authority.
By contrast Islam is a total system of control. Sharia is far more comprehensive than anything the Catholic Church could rival with its Cannon Law. Using Sharia, and passages in the Koran itself, it is far easier to construct a world of fused civil and religious power where religious leaders actively constrain and check civil authority. It is much harder to separate mosque and state simply because Islam is far more of a comprehensive system. Further, because of the lack of a higher religious authority (a caliph or body of respected Muslim scholars) to steady the ship and make a more forceful case for rejection of radical Islam we are seeing imams, trained in shoddy madrassa's, most of them run by radical Islamic groups or supported as such.
Ultimately it will take the fall of Saudi Arabia (fount of radical Islam and its most potent strain Wahhabism) along with major adjustments to how Islamic law should be interpreted and implemented.

I strongly condem all of the killings these groups have made and all of the things they have done wrong, local governments need to learn to fend for themselves and make a solution instead of letting America solve it for them.

I should surely hope you condemn this! If not.....why I'd have to report you to the FBI or something haha. Anyways, we are witnessing the collapse of the modern ME political system and the best we can do is try and ameliorate the conditions and let them sort themselves out. The Arabs are their own worst enemies.

[soysauce]

If I didn't know better Pale I'd say that you regard Arabs to be entirely backwards as an ethnic group,