A humble proposal...
There are some people who aren’t a bit surprised by the strength in force and ferocity of the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No, I’m not referring to those who have been accusing the White House of lying about WMDs or Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda. Politicians in the US and UN knew fully well that the invasion of Iraq was predicated less upon a measurable threat and more upon the logic that overthrowing an anti-American regime and replacing it with a pro-American one would mean fewer violent attacks against Americans. US legislators and UN representatives who supported the invasion knew that deposing Saddam Hussein might well be all that the US would accomplish. The politicians who now claim they’d never have supported the war if they’d “had all the facts” are merely invoking a classic (and in some cases calculated) exercise in political expediency, propping President Bush up as a scapegoat while they oppose the war only on grounds of politics and personality, not principle.
Nor was I referring to those who supported the war in Afghanistan but opposed the war in Iraq. Those people claim that we had more justification to invade Afghanistan because, by way of aiding and abetting, its leadership was complicit in attacks on US soil. But it’s obvious that the true aim of the political dismantling of Afghanistan was to transform that nation into one more sympathetic to US interests, one less likely to ally with US enemies. Given this motivation, the invasion of Iraq not only made sense, but it was practically compulsory given Saddam Hussein’s flagrant disrespect for UN resolutions. So one cannot logically support one war and oppose the other.
No, the people to whom I was referring, the ones who knew that attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would spell disaster, are the ones who “got it” when the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed. The ones who understood that the Muslim world has reason to be angry. The ones who knew that, while the madmen who attacked the US represented a fringe minority in the world of Islam, their political views are pervasive in Arab culture. The ones who could see that open war would only push more people into the hateful margins. These are the people who knew that if President Bush declared war on so-called “terrorists”, the “terrorists” would show up.
And so they have, from nearly every Arab state, making Afghanistan and Iraq nearly impossible to secure.
So this is what must be done.
President Bush must send an address to the entire world. In this address, he must admit that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were hypocritical acts of rash judgment. He must insist that such imperialist methods are not truly the American way. He must apologize to the global Muslim community and vow to do whatever is necessary to clean up the US messes in Afghanistan and Iraq and then immediately pull out. He must have his words backed up by the UN, demonstrating that he really means what he’s saying. He must ardently praise the US military, who with very few exceptions have found creative and compassionate ways to make peace rather than war. He must humbly request that the militias that currently harass allied forces assist in rebuilding so that American soldiers can go home. And finally, he must assure those who have yet to be captured for their part in the September 11th attacks that, while the US has repented of it’s decisions to wage war, it will still hunt down the spineless criminals who have attacked it and, with renewed world cooperation, it will find and try those who have committed these awful crimes.
If the Muslim world believes him, the fighters will relent. Progress will be made in Iraq and Afghanistan and, with Arab cooperation, all of those culpable for the events of September 11th will finally face justice.
delicious
diggRejecting the idea of more troops on the ground
This editorial suggests that both Obama and McCain are mistaken in thinking that the answer in Afghanistan is to increase the military presence. And that looking at the Taliban as the same as Al Qaeda ignores the fluidity of tribal identities in the region. I thought the suggestion of what to do about the poppy trade was an especially good one: stop the spray and burn campaign--just buy up the crop, turn some into morphine and destroy the rest.
Interesting View
Well, Bro, I am a little perplexed by this post. I think the proposal part is ok, but you know we cannot end this deal to status quo ante bellum. We weren't attacked by the so called "terrorist" and then the Muslim community became angry at us for our retaliation from the attacks on our soil. I won't say that it hasn't turned in to fuel for the fire, but the history reaches beyond. I would guess the root cause to be our support of Israel, but it probably goes deeper than that.
Name me one time before the 9/11 attacks where anyone in the Muslim community denounced what the fringe element was doing. Did the Muslim community denounce the fringe on the embassy bombings during the 90's or the attack on the USS Cole? With the exception of 9/11, we treated all other attacks like friendly fire.
Turning the other cheek is a nice principle to follow as an individual. It's not wise council for a nation to not defend itself when attacked. Do you really think they will stop attacking us if we just don't do anything to defend ourselves? We have "been there, done that". We turned the other cheek a lot during the Clinton years. I'm not saying that to bad mouth him or the administration during that time. It is a fact. We were still attacked. By turning the other cheek, we allowed them to keep throwing bigger rocks at the hive. During the beginning years of WWII, we signed a Neutrality Act. We tried to stay out of the mess, but we were still attacked and then we got involved. I wish it would be as simple as your proposal and I would be willing to givie it a chance. However, the ball has been rolling for a long time and the so called "terroists" will not relent.
Someone shine some light my way, because I just can't see it the way you do.
#3 Son
Well...
... I did say that the President should promise to do everything to clean up the mess and THEN pull out. Even back when I wrote this article (which I think is even earlier than the date showing on it since I think we brought it over from a previous version of the site) I knew that would not be an immediate thing.
As for turning the other cheek... I guess I don't think we've ever really tried that. What I mean is, has a public official at any level ever responded to an attack by offering condolences to the families of attackers who lost their lives or extending forgiveness to the perpetrators while affirming nothing but good will toward the country from whence the conspirators hailed and toward the religion the murderers maligned by their "pious" claims? I've never heard of such a thing. THAT would be turning the other cheek. Posturing, posing threats, or even doing nothing isn't the same thing.
I'm fairly certain that in modern diplomacy forgiveness has never even been tried.Never tried?
Every peace treaty ever signed is a great big "I forgive you". But that comes after the surrender. The problem I see with your proposal is the view of the global arena. Kindness is mistaken for weakness. If we continually don't fight back and always forgive those against us, then we will be seen as weak. We were seen as weak when we did nothing. Imagine the laughter from those who hate us when we tell them that we forgive them and love them anyway. I can forgive them and love them anyway, but I don't want them to harm me or my homeland again. Eventually, you have to fight or simply die.
In our society, we understand the concept of turning the other cheek. We are basically a Christian nation and have been schooled in the matter. The nation of Islam does not have the teachings of Jesus. They don't have the New Testment. Forgiveness and love have different meanings to them. Your proposal would probably work fine if we were all on the same page. Then again, if we were all on the same page, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. We could forgive right to the point where they would wipe us out completely.
I have looked in to the eyes of our enemies. There is no love and forgiveness there. There is only hate. I have kept watch over Iraqi POWs in Kuwait. They had no sense of conviction that perhaps they were in the wrong. My forgiveness to them would have been my death sentence. They are not able/willing to receive forgiveness as it is meant to be received. How can we go forward with your proposal with people like that?
#3 Son
Nope... never tried...
Peace treaties aren't, actually, great big "I forgive you's", but I think I can address all of your objections by responding to your question... how can we go forward with my proposal?
To begin with, Muslim's DO understand the principle of forgiveness, just like Jews and Buddhists and Pagans and believers of lots of other religions do. Now, I'll grant you that the enemies who hate us aren't interested in forgiveness and I'll even grant that our kindness to them would be seen as weakness. But their hate has nothing to do with their religion, even though they use the religion they've been taught to justify their actions. Christianity, I'll remind you, has a long history of being exploited by evil people for evil ends, but I think all of us here can agree it doesn't deserve to be rejected as a legitimate spiritual discipline. The truth is that the "War on Terror" isn't really a "Holy War" except in the sense that the radicals on both sides of it claim it is, and I think that on some level even THEY know they're full of it.
Secondly, the offer of forgiveness isn't really for the benefit of our enemies. It's a way for us to let go of our own hatred and anger so we can make sound policy decisions rather than executing rash measures. Like, for example, treating the attacks on September 11 as crimes rather than acts of war.
Thirdly, there's the diplomatic angle of this that I don't think you're considering. Because the truth is that the vast majority of people in the Muslim world are not like the 9/11 criminals or suicide bombers or insurgents or what have you. The vast majority of them are spiritual people, like you and me. But a significant number of them have been told that the US is greedy and imperialistic, and these ideas were sold to them with some compelling evidence. What we needed after 9/11 was for these people to be our allies. We needed them to help us find Osama Bin Laden and anyone else responsible for these crimes. And to earn their trust, we needed to show them something that they'd been told the US would never do... and that is show a little humility. But instead the US did just what they'd been taught the US would do. It invaded a Muslim country. Did the majority of Afghans hate the Taliban? Probably. But that doesn't mean they wanted their country invaded by an arrogant superpower. And our obsessive interest in "stabilizing" the Muslim world caused us, actually, to fail to apprehend the criminals we'd claimed to be after. How have we not acted precisely the way our enemies expected us to? But to forgive would have been a surprise. Yes, perhaps one mocked by our enemies, but embraced by EVERYONE else, including the vast majority of Muslims.
And I assert again... nothing like what I'm suggesting has ever been tried. Our civilian leaders lack the courage to try it. They'd much rather cash in the courage of our brave men and women in uniform, for whom you know I have the utmost respect and admiration, present company VERY much included.
In the end, it just doesn't seem to me that an act of forgiveness is too much to expect from a nation that is, as you pointed out, populated mostly by followers of Christ. Unless, of course, we American Christians just don't believe forgiveness has the transformative power our Lord taught us it has.
Sorry to interject, but...
... this has got me wondering how effective your proposal would be within a Christian nation. Because truth is, many American Christians are not on the same page. When Christian forgiveness is discussed, it is generally about God forgiving man. With 9/11, and note - within conflicted and torn hearts, instead of forwarding Christian thinking and forgiving one another, Christian Americans often hold the view that God should be doing the forgiving and it is our duty to "arrange that meeting". Furthermore, Biblical writers have no problem expressing hatred toward the enemy. That's not to say religion needs to be the "guiding light" for forgiveness on this grand of a scale, but my point is many Christians hold their own interpretation of forgiveness in the context of the Bible and within the context of the enemy.
On another note, I really do admire your proposal. (Though I can hear the old woman in my head muttering "Damed hippies!!" ; ) Anyway, I admire those who try honestly and solemnly to find out what is the right way of looking at things and of dealing with them.
Thank you both
I appreciate the responses to this. I realize that my views on this are more emotional to the military side of me. Perhaps my experiences have made me more cynical than I need to be on this, but there is always more to the story than what we know. I think it would take a lot of trust on both sides to pull something like this off.
The river is deep and difficult to cross. Even still, it needs to be crossed. We've built many bridges in our history with the pillars of war. It would be interesting to see if we could build one with the pillars of peace. Call me a doubting Tom, but I just can't see it from here.
#3 Son
Well, to be honest...
Pakistan/Afghanistan
A review of Ahmed Rashid's Descent into Chaos detailing the mess that's been made in this area with the US primarily responsible for relying on throwing money at Musharref or warlords in Afghanistan--the "path of least reconstruction."
A scathing critique of US dealings abroad
And the day after reading this was the suicide blast at the Marriott in Islamabad.
Balance of Power in Asia
Democracy and Choosing Words/Categories Carefully
I was reading excerpts of Barak Obama's recent speech detailing his plans to deal with terrorism if he becomes president. Some of Obama's ideas were I thought a welcome change to current policy, but in some ways I see him falling into similar us/them oversimplifications which are only adding to the problem. First I'd have to say that I liked Obama's response about speaking to leaders of countries like Iran and Syria better than Hilary Clinton's (he just said he would meet with them, she said they would have to meet certain preconditions). Many of his proposals echo that more open approach--he talks about attending a major Islamic forum and generally directing much more money into diplomatic iniatives in the Islamic world.
Where he starts following in everyone else's footsteps, imo, is when he starts to talk tough--specifically talking about expanding military efforts in the mountainous regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan and to do so unilaterally: "there are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans."
Well, yes, that's true, but such a description glosses over the fact that there are also large numbers of civilians, specifically people belonging to the Pashtun tribal groups, and that the main victims of US bombing in the area have been from these groups (an estimated 5,000 civilian deaths). These deaths are naturally fueling anti-American sentiment, and then add in the fact that these groups feel unrepresented in both the Afghanistan and Pakistan goverments and that this lack of representation is aided and abetted by US policy. Especially in Afghanistan--this nonrepresentation is directly related to US presence in that we have collaborated with the Tajik (a more minority tribal group) in our efforts against the Taliban. And the result of all of this is increased identification of the Pashtun with Taliban interests.
So I think some of those increased diplomatic iniatives (that sound so nice and simple) should actually involve putting pressure on Karzai for more Pashtun representation in his government, and (an even trickier thing to pull off) push for the 1973 constitution in Pakistan which includes giving provincial autonomy to minority tribal groups like the Pashtun.
Jesus: the Guantanamo Years
Re: Grandpappy's Guantanamo Years
Yeah, I'd pass on the humiliation angle, too... but Bowman's idea is provocative nonetheless...
Heh, well...
I agree with you guys...
I'm wondering though... how many people realize that you really are humiliating yourself (not the person you're showing "humorous agression" towards) in the act of mooning someone? 
JFK speech on Western attitudes toward Africa/Asia/Middle-East
My Sunday paper had an article about a speech made by then Senator John F. Kennedy opposing U.S. support for the French in Algeria in 1957. He accused the US and France of practicing Western Imperialism which was fueling anger in the Islamic world. Sounds pretty familiar, eh? I suppose that shows that Kennedy was very prescient, or that we haven't come very far in 50 years, or both (sigh). Here are some excerpts from the speech:
"[The war in Algeria] has affected our standing in the eyes of the free world, our leadership in the fight to keep that world free, our prestige, and our security; as well as our moral leadership...
Terrorism must be combated, not condoned, it is said; it is not right to 'negotiate with murderers'...The fever chart of every successful revolution...reveals a rising temperature of terrorism and counterterrorism; but this does not of itself invalidate the legitimate goals that fired the original revolution. Most political revolutions--including our own--have been buoyed by outside aid in men, weapons, and ideas.
If we are to secure the friendship of the Arab, the African, and the Asian...we cannot hope to accomplish it solely by means of billion-dollar foreign aid programs. We cannot win their hearts by making them dependent upon our handouts. Nor can we keep them free by selling free enterprise...or limiting our dealings to military pacts. No the strength of our appeal to these key populations...lies in our traditional and deeply felt philosophy of freedeom and independence for all peoples everywhere.
Perhaps it is already too late to abandon our negative policies on these issues, to repudiate the decades of anti-Western suspicion, to press firmly but boldly for a new generation of friendship among equal and independent states. But we dare not fail to make the effort."
Re: JFK
An editorial in the paper today talks about the role Ted Sorenson played in JFK's foreign policy. Here's an excerpt from a speech that Sorenson wrote for JFK's address at commencement for American University: "no government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered lacking in virtue...For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."
Wow
I know. I had never heard of it either. As you can imagine it was an incredibly controversial speech. I can't in fact imagine anyone today giving a similar one, especially somone who was considering a Presidential run. In fact the general consensus was at first that Kennedy was weakening the NATO powers. But I liked this follow-up description of its effect: "after the foreign policy establishment had passed around the smelling salts, a second reaction became evident...Africans and Middle Easterners were ebullient that someone had finally listened to their side of the story, and an American journalist working in remote Algeria began hearing insurgents ask him about Kennedy's chances for nomination."
Oh here's the link to the full article: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/07/15/the_challenge_of_imperialism/
a humble proposal
I agree with everything you said about the Muslim world having reason to be angry and with your humble proposal. President Bush won't of course do anything like this. I do hope that whoever the next president is will address one of the main sources of that anger--our Israeli/Palestinian policy. In my opinion, that should have been our main focus post 9/11.
I think the attack on the WTC should never have been handled through war but through police action as the prosecution of criminal acts that violated international law. I'm not sure if this would have been possible in Afghanistan without attacking the Taliban--but that's the way the attack needed to be framed. But I do see a difference between war in Afghanistan and Iraq and why the war in Iraq was a much bigger mistake. I do think that dismantling of the government in Afghanistan in order to establish a more pro-American government makes sense given the Taliban safe havens for Al Qaeda. I don't think it was necessary to do the same thing in Iraq. Yes Hussein was disregarding UN resolutions but he was contained much more effectively than the government in Afghanistan, and certainly more contained than the region has become since. If the purpose of war was to make us more safe by attacking a country which might aid and abet attacks on US soil it would probably have made more sense to attack Syria or even Iran. No, I think the reason for attacking Iraq was that the Bush administration believed it would be easy, not because Iraq was especially a threat, easy both to topple Hussein and establish a pro-Western democracy. It would not, of course, have been at all easy to attack Syria and Iran--they are much more capable of fighting back, showing how they are in fact more of a threat. Of course I'm not saying we should have done that. I also think that if we had kept more forces in Afghanistan it's possible we might have been able to accomplish what we needed to do there. I don't know--and this doesn't even begin to touch on the way things are mucked-up in Pakistan.
Re: a humble proposal
Points well made and well taken, Jaz.
My name is Angela Marie ST.Clair-Peace to u ALL- AMEN
Angela Marie ST.Clair-Peace to u ALL- AMEN
Amen Angela. It's about agape love - the Greek word for unconditional love which is what the world needs. Jesus Christ spoke of it many times and He also said that one of the signs of His coming would be that the love of the world (filio-conditional love) would wax cold.
The entitlement of the victory here in this warfare the world has engaged in is not about anything but power and control over a throne for power which really doesn't exist.
I believe Jesus infected this world with agape love which brings peace and it hasn't taken hold upon those who are fighting for power but only those who would receive His love and peace in their hearts in the first place.
Re: My name is...
If the Muslim world believes
If the Muslim world believes him, the fighters will relent. They have reason to be angry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For 60 years the word terrorist brings to mind MUSLIMS At least 96% of all terrorist acts in the last 60 years have been by Muslims. They hate us for our support of Israel and will never stop hating. We are just the ones they can rally the Shia Sunni and Kurds up against us to give themselves a break from killing one another as they have for over a thousand years. And still they manage a civil war against one another at the same time. You better hope democracy of some sort springs up because the Muslims only chance are their children that they now teach to hate us but still the young ones want some sayso about their lives that isn't governed by religious fundamentalist mentality. Why do you think we try to separate politics from religion in this country for the last 200 years. Christians can be just as bad if they were allowed to make all decisions based on different peoples interpretation of the bible. Tolerance is the one thing that the bible teaches that is overlooked almost completely and the Koran teaches it not at all. " CONVERT BY THE SWORD "" And what kind of religion teached that there will be 72 virgins waiting for each of Gods chosen children. Sounds a little more like a human desire than something a true God would be promising.
And I love your use of the term ARAB COOPERATION Oxymoron that it is. We wouldn't be in this mess at all if the UN AKA League of Nations would grow some nuts and actually try to make the world a better and more peaceful place. The League of Nations dispersed because they were not effective EVER. Can't we learn something from history Bullies don't go away they need to be disciplined and convinced their actions won't be put up with. Most of the nations of the world take the easy way because we have always been there to do the right thing for them. But these same nations always vote against most everything we try to get accomplished in the UN, but we give them billions in support one way or another every year.
Re:If the Muslim world believes
Before I respond, allow me to point out that your comment has been edited to remove vulgar and derogatory content. Please refrain from using such language in the future. I value your opinion, so please don't put me in the agonizing position of having to block it entirely from this venue.
As for my response...
It's quite obvious that your opinion springs from a very particular cultural context. "For 60 years the word terrorist brings to mind Muslims," you say. For whom is this statement true? Every human being on the planet? Surely you don't mean that. The majority of human beings on the planet? I'm willing to wager that you think so, but I find even that proposition doubtful. Even if I could believe that the majority of people on the planet equate terrorism with Muslims, that wouldn't give credence to the idea. For example, one could pose a very persuasive argument suggesting that the majority of humans on the planet think the United States is an imperialist bully, but I'm reasonably certain you'd dismiss such a notion out of hand even if you believed the majority of the people in the world did think it.
Also, you seem to subscribe to the idea that the hate that has been directed toward the US comes purely from religious sentiment, and more specifically from a religion that is faulty. Have you even read the Koran? For that matter, have you even read the Bible? So many texts in the Bible have been taken out of context in order to justify anger and hatred and violence that I hardly need to list examples here. What makes you think the Koran isn't being abused in the same manner by people not truly worthy of calling themselves "Muslims"?
And I've already alluded to your ironic use of the term "bully". Is it your opinion that the US was just sitting there minding its own business before the 9/11 attacks? Now, please understand that I do not think there is any justification for the cowardly acts perpetrated that day. But to think that the US has never done anything to provoke anger in the citizens of other countries is terribly naive.
With all due respect, I think if you did a little more research on the history of US foreign policy and the religion of Islam, you'd find that the issues we're dealing with here aren't nearly as simplistic as you suggest.
awesome
you nailed it man, mail this letter to the president...
there is one problem; there are no money making schemes that can come out of this plan that would line the pockets of the filthy rich. therefore, it will never happen, sucks.
Re: response to "A humble proposal..."
Perhaps the filthy rich just lack imagination. I mean, war is big business, this is true. But I'll bet a clever person could find a way to make even more via the mechanisms of peace. You know, something like what Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus did. He created a fortune by making tons of small investments (some as little as $9) in poor folks who used the cash to start successful businesses. Hope can be as lucrative as despair.
FBI report: Hussein used "WMD" so as not to appear weak to Iran
An FBI interviewer reports that Saddam Hussein said before his execution that he allowed the world to believe he had WMD in order not to appear weak to Iran.
"Hussein, in fact, said he felt so vulnerable to the perceived threat from “fanatic’’ leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a “security agreement with the United States to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region...Hussein, who during the interviews was often defiant and boastful, at one point wistfully acknowledged that he should have permitted the United Nations to witness the destruction of Iraq’s weapons stockpile after the 1991 Persian Gulf War ."
OK--Saddam Hussein, not the most trustworthy of speakers, but those last words really gave me pause...a very long pause...thinking about how things might have been handled differently.
Hussein told US of worries over Iran