Just finished reading "Imperial Hubris"

[Churchill]

This book was on the reading list given to Guiliani after he got wooshed at a debate, and I've seen the author on Bill Maher and other shows a few times so I grabbed it. Here are a few thoughts:

Imperial Hubris delves into why the United States is losing the war against Bin Laden, and discusses the world as Bin Laden sees it.

“The fundamental flaws in our thinking about Bin Laden are that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do. Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It’s American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not America culture and society.”

- Osama Bin Laden’s war against the US is a form of defensive Jihad against an enemy occupier rather than an apocalyptical attack on freedom

- War in Iraq was a gift to Bin Laden, allowing him to motivate Muslims who were previously moderate in regards to the US by giving more credence to Bin Laden’s claims that this is a defensive Jihad

- Most Muslims do not separate religion and politics, therefore fanatical anti-Islamic statements from US evangelists are taken as government policies

- The US and UN’s policy of arming countries that would see Muslims die but not allowing Muslims countries to equally arm themselves

US Foreign Policy

- Occupation of Muslim Holy Lands

- Support of Apostate Muslim regimes

- Support of regimes throughout the world and middle east who oppress Muslims

- Anti-Muslim political and economic sanctions

- Attempts to change curriculum at Muslim Universities and Madrassas

- Supports Israel and its assertion of power over Palestine

- The US is seen as a restorer of imperialism, handed off by the British

The book brings up many points and suggestions on how to correct the way the fight against “terrorism” is going. Scheuer also does a good job portraying the world from what he sees as Bin Laden’s point of view, however he does glorify Bin Laden too much with the characterization that Bin Laden is extremely devout; this may be true but killing Muslims and Christians is against the Quran. Scheuer suggests that in order to stop terrorism, the US would have to rethink its foreign policy and essentially take talking points from Bin Laden as our new course of action. Scheuer recognizes that this would never happen so instead suggests that in order to defeat terrorism, the US would have to acknowledge it is fighting a war against Islam itself, stop relying on others (namely Pakistan) and fight a war of attrition where the enemy is killed in large numbers.

The book doesn’t address what would happen if we did abide by Bin Laden’s foreign policy changes. Ceasing the support of Israel and the withdrawal of troops and sanctions from Islam leaves a great deal of warriors with nothing to fight. Jihad would likely be turned on the “near enemy” or Saudi Arabia and Israel. I don’t think the American citizens have bled enough or paid enough at the pump to not get spun up and feel the ignorant moralistic need to intervene, placing the US back in the middle of a war the majority of its people doesn’t understand.

tl;dr AMERICA FUCK YEAH

[test123]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o
here is your war

[Churchill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1MOh...eature=related

This covers a lot of what I didn't know if I could discuss, also not mention in OP: blowback.

[Kuya]

I remember reading about this; he seemed like a level headed man, not partisan at all. I should buy it too.

[Elvis]

There are plenty of books that talk about blowback.

Annnnnnd here's why it won't matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dn...eature=related

Granted I don't think the audience is indicative of America on a whole - it's still depressing.

RP is talking about blowback obviously. The moderator interpets it as saying the people who died on 9/11 deserved to die, etc. How someone could get that impression is beyond me. You have to try to be that fucking stupid.

It's a much deeper problem though. It's thinking that we can go around the world spreading 'democracy' without any consequences and that, that very act of interferance/interventionism/imperialism is acceptable (on any level).

I'm surprised Ron Paul didn't give specific examples because there are plenty. And Guilianni knows exactly what he meant. He replied the way he did because he most likely knew that the idiot audience would clap at some emotional language.

What's worse is that after the debate I think douchebag Hannity kept asking Paul loaded questions in an overtly aggressive tone. Just so fucking stupid.

[Kuya]

It is the old "America can do no wrong" cultural thing, it usually elicits knee jerk and largely irrelevant reactions. I've become well acquainted with this factor of American culture whilst studying PR-American history.

[Churchill]

I remember reading about this; he seemed like a level headed man, not partisan at all. I should buy it too.

He was the head of the CIA Bin Laden unit.

[Beckwin]

omg how dare u say we deserved 9/11. y u hate amurikka?

But yeah, notice how Rev. Jeremiah Wright was saying the same shit and the media and right-wing threw a piss-fit over it, and if there's one thing I can say I like about Paul it's that his foreign policy isn't too terrible (I'd still say that some international organizations/alliances are beneficial and worthwhile, but yeah). I think, though to a much lesser degree, Obama acknowledges the general concept as well.

How does the author propose a war against Islam be conducted? That's what I'm kinda not following... you're essentially warring against 1 billion people if you generalize like that. Frankly I'd agree that knocking out all the sharia governments and making clean transitions to more secular administrations would probably do a lot of good on the global scale, but that just sounds like a fantasy- not to mention that if people aren't gonna fuck with other countries, they ought to be able to be self-determining whether we like that determination or not.

[Churchill]

He suggests that the US accept that it is hated for what it does not what it is, and that you fight a bloody war of attrition against all of Islam instead of being euphemistic and calling it terrorism. Also, accepting Bin Laden as a warrior and not a delusional psycho.

And like one of the other points I mentioned, relying on ourselves and not puppet governments in the middle east like Pakistan and Saudi. If we want to win, we need to bomb Islam into submission without regard for the target. That, or check ourselves before we wreck ourselves.

The link I posted discusses a bit about what an attack on Iran would incur, mainly, that the Shia population in southeastern Iraq would go full metal jacket with the help of Iran on US Forces in Iraq.

EDIT: Also, Paul's foreign policy is better because he wants out of everywhere and to stop propping Israel, your democrat that comes after him can fuck it up with NGO's. I'd rather have a military force that had 50% more naval equipment/personnel and better weapons/training that policed Hawaii/Alaska and defended merchant routes than one sitting in the middle east waiting to blow up muslims.

[Beckwin]

But if our actions are the problem, how does more bombing change anything? does going from imperialist to just butchers accomplish much?

I think worrying about alaska/hawaii and shipping routes is kinda silly, btw. I do agree with pulling out of the middle east, and you have to admit Obama is further in that line of thought than any of the primary candidates with a chance. I'm not sure what you mean about NGOs (non-governmental organizations?...).

[Churchill]

It's not really that silly if they are the only targets for foreign military personnel not located CONUS. Is it a big issue? No, because you'd only need to add a carrier group or two to support the Pacific like that full time as well as have enough downtime for repairs on current vessels.

Bombing changes everything because you cease to pretend you're winning hearts and minds and actually start winning territory. If everyone is dead and they have no will to fight and there is nothing for them to attack and your borders are protected then where is the threat - type mentality.

[Beckwin]

"winning territory"... so uh, imperialism again? I mean I get the logistics of decimating a population making it tougher to get supplies/support for waging violence on the West, but at the same time it's going back to the root of the problem: giving them reason to fight us. You're (or the author is) basically advocating Cortez-style imperialism as opposed to the Truman brand, and I just have to wonder why. It sounds like the author intelligently recognizes the causes of the problems but then ignores that knowledge entirely when it comes to "winning."

I'm thinking "the only way to win is not to play," personally.

[Churchill]

You're right, but the near term win of the situation, militarily, is to decimate Islam.

Obviously the problem perpetuates itself in the future.

[Beckwin]

or we could just stop fighting Islam?

[Churchill]

You and I understand that, yes.

The book doesn’t address what would happen if we did abide by Bin Laden’s foreign policy changes. Ceasing the support of Israel and the withdrawal of troops and sanctions from Islam leaves a great deal of warriors with nothing to fight. Jihad would likely be turned on the “near enemy” or Saudi Arabia and Israel. I don’t think the American citizens have bled enough or paid enough at the pump to not get spun up and feel the ignorant moralistic need to intervene, placing the US back in the middle of a war the majority of its people doesn’t understand.

America never will.

[Kuya]

When you stop fighting Islam, Israel is toast. There's a catch 22 here and the US has driven itself into a hole.

[Beckwin]

I still think there's hope for a (somewhat) peaceful Israel, but it'd require a bit of an about-face on our attitude toward it and a sterner voice when it comes to the Israelis to go with it. There's an embarrassing history of US+Israel saying fuck you to international conventions that would've lead to some compromise, and a lot of flat out rejectionism by the Israelis when dealing with the Palestinians. Now Hamas is in charge on the other side, and they'll be a tougher nut to crack than previous regimes.

We have to get away from "Israel gets what Israel wants, absolutely." Soften that stance and build mutually positive trade relations in the region and I think extremism will slowly subside, and we might get something closer to the more secular cultures that used to dominate the region (btw I believe history very much supports that economic and social prosperity are the best weapons against religious fundamentalism/totalitarianism).

[Kuya]

I still think there's hope for a (somewhat) peaceful Israel, but it'd require a bit of an about-face on our attitude toward it and a sterner voice when it comes to the Israelis to go with it. There's an embarrassing history of US+Israel saying fuck you to international conventions that would've lead to some compromise, and a lot of flat out rejectionism by the Israelis when dealing with the Palestinians. Now Hamas is in charge on the other side, and they'll be a tougher nut to crack than previous regimes.

You're saying things that will never happen.

[Beckwin]

you're probably right.

but maybe Obama really is a secret muslim and it could happen!

[Kuya]

So essentially, it's either push harder against the Middle East, or abandon the Middle East and Israel to its fate. The second i consider unfair to Israel, since the US did help put it there, but, more people will die with the first option. And if nothing changes, people will continue to die.