Let's take the argument at face value for just a moment...the argument that fighting "terrorism" (by which today we mainly mean terrorist actions by Islamist extremists) requires taking the offensive against an "ideology of hate." What would be the best way to fight this ideology of hate?
Stuck in the Cold War mentality and still misunderstanding that a state-centric solution stands little chance if the real problem is contained in radical misinterpretations/perversions of a worldwide religion that's spreading all the time, Paul Wolfowitz et al. dreamt up the highly experimental dominoes approach...the idea that injecting "democracy" into the heart of the Middle East will act like a virus of sorts, spreading stabilization and spurring grass roots rebellions. If injecting that democracy requires war (and the deaths of innocent civilians that would mean), so be it. There are moral, as well as practical, objections that must be ignored to endorse this approach, but the idea is that eventually states dedicated to freedom will be less likely to both harbor terrorists or provide a breeding ground for the hatred that fuels them. The Bush Administration has essentially put all its eggs in this basket. Really, they have...if it fails, the global situation will most surely be less stable than it was before we invaded Iraq.
But what else...what other ways would there be to fight an ideology of hate? Less risky ways?
Because I opposed the invasion of Iraq, I get asked that question all the time. My answer remains to focus on the moderate Muslim countries and leaders that exist...elevate them, celebrate them, support and reward them. Make them shining examples of the good that democratic societies provide all people...make Muslims in other parts of the world want to immigrate there...this will have the extra benefit of encouraging these moderate countries to double their democratizing efforts. Follow Margaret Thatcher's famous recipe for success: "Accentuate the Positive."
At least if this fails you're guaranteed that you won't have actually made matters worse. Nor will you have costs thousands of innocent civilians their lives.
But...but...but...we can't wait...we have to go kill them before they kill us...we can't let the evidence that Wolfowitz was right be a mushroom cloud...we...er...flypaper...Niger...9/11...uh...look over there...a funny French person
Does that about cover the uncontrollable urge to reject this without due consideration?
OK, back to my point.
Look at Turkey, which the European Union ruled today "had made enough progress in reforming its economy and judiciary and improving its human rights record to merit negotiations toward membership." I know that there's still a long way to go before the EU will be convinced to admit this Muslim nation into the so-far-all-Christian club, and that strikes me as prudent...truly it does. But look at the effect that offering the chance to join has had. A Muslim nation is systematically changing its laws to conform to Western ideals with regards to economic, social, and political standards. EXACTLY what Wolfowitz's more radical, dangerous gamble is attempting to accomplish, but without all the bloodshed.
Think about the long-term effects this will have. During this period, Turkey will remain under close scrutiny. Any deviations from the standards could lead to the rejection of their application:
Negotiations will take more than a decade, and can be stopped at any time if Turkey falters on its road to democratic reform. Even then, Turkey might never become a full member.
This represents a powerful motivation...a powerful way to influence events there. It rightly puts the burden on Turkey to control its population and government. It is ideal. It both respects the nation and compels it to remain diligent against radical ideologies. And it does it by offering the really attractive rewards of democracy...the economic ones.
FDL and others --
Let's be crystal clear: We do not accept ad hominem attacks on this blog. An ad hominem is an attack with attacks the man, not the argument. It is a logical fallacy, for it fails to address the points being made.
Ad hominem attacks are not appropriate in any case. Ad hominem attacks that are personal, vicious, or allege some sort of defect of conscience or mind are particularly vile. Your attacks on Tacitus fit easily into these categories. And another couple: They're untrue and misleading. I'll not stand for them here.
Moe, I believe, has banned you from this thread. I agree with that decision. The likelihood that we will un-ban you in order to allow you to participate in future threads is, I believe, fairly low. But I am open to persuasion otherwise.
Understand that the rules exist for a purpose: To foster honest debate, on the merits, between opposing political camps. This is not Daily Kos; this is not RedState; this is not Atrios. This is a middle ground, a neutral site. To keep it such, the rules must be enforced.
Posted by: von | October 07, 2004 at 12:50 PM
For the record, I support Moe and von's decision on this. There are lines it's simply in poor taste to cross. There are times when it's better to step away from the keyboard, calm down, and think long and hard about whether or not your point is advanced via an ad hominem comment. It may happen often on other blogs, but we work hard to weed it out here.
Posted by: Edward | October 07, 2004 at 12:55 PM
Moe, I believe, has banned you from this thread. I agree with that decision.
Ahh, I see that Moe has been more charitable than I would have been. Fine.
Posted by: von | October 07, 2004 at 12:56 PM
liberal japonicus: But once we start moving down the slope of 'who's more civilized', it becomes very difficult to separate out what points are merely luck of the draw.
Agreed, and perhaps I should be using Edwards term of "Western Ideals". Regardless, I think we agree that warfare may not be the best way of achieving cultural changes towards said ideals.
Tacitus: I don't see the implicit demonization of the South as much different from these other, more vile errors.
It is not my intent to demonize the south. Certainly, I don't believe that southerns are less capable or more undeserving of civilized norms, to use your term, than other parts of the country. My basic point was that the jury was still out whether or not the civil war was a successful means of achieving such ends as the ends appear not yet to have been achieved. (granted what can be perceived as civilized norms is disputable and over time a moving target)
Posted by: 243 | October 07, 2004 at 01:25 PM
I'm hardly gonna solve this in the context of a blog
Well, I know that Edward, but I am Mr. "Tell me your plan" if nothing else so let's flesh it out a bit.
My understanding of the true value of EU membership is:
1) Ability for one nation's citizens migrate and work in another country without a lot of the annoying hassles that folks from non-EU nations would face.
2) No border stops, thereby easing trade and travel.
3) The use of the Euro as a montary unit, thereby stabilizing that country's currency.
I guess my difficulty is that the EU model seems to be based primarily on proximity. Would EU-like benefits accrue to countries so far from us?
Posted by: crionna | October 07, 2004 at 01:50 PM
I guess my difficulty is that the EU model seems to be based primarily on proximity. Would EU-like benefits accrue to countries so far from us?
Good points, Crionna. We're not going to move the US closer to the ME, so we have to look beyond those particulars.
My understanding is that Turkey was more ambivalent about doing the hard work to join the EU before their earthquake-induced economy collapse. Then it became more important...primarily because they had become accustomed to a better standard of living. It was their refusal to sink into the sort of poverty they see in other Muslim nations that drove the efforts. In a sense, pride.
Respect is what they want most. Membership in an organization that bestows the world's respect...and, perhaps it should be a commercial space program or something like that...is the key, I'm convinced.
Posted by: Edward | October 07, 2004 at 02:22 PM
UPDATE: I understand, through backchannel communications, that FDL regrets the comments that prompted Moe, Ed, and I to (technical blog term) "get pissy." Although we were not the wronged party in the above exchange, we consider the matter closed vis-a-vis the ObWi posting policy. FDL is not banned, although Moe warning to FDL remains in effect.
I understand that folks can, on occasion, allow their emotions to overcome their reason. Should you find yourself out on such a limb (as I, admittedly, have been myself), the best response is usually to take a deep breath.
Posted by: von | October 07, 2004 at 05:28 PM
A shot of tequila can work wonders, too.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 07, 2004 at 05:35 PM
Edward's primary datapoint was about Turkey and EU membership. I'm a bit fuzzy on this, but when exactly did the EU morph from an 'economic union' into being the definition of 'europe' and how? Tac seems to conflate Europe with the EU, which would probably surprise Norway and Switzerland. I'm not saying that this is wrong, but if what was primarily an economic marriage of convenience can have such profound effects over the course of less than 30 years, then it is too big a chance _not_ to take.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 07, 2004 at 05:40 PM
....FDL regrets the comments that prompted Moe, Ed, and I to (technical blog term) "get pissy." Although we were not the wronged party....
The wronged party awaits righting.
Tac seems to conflate Europe with the EU, which would probably surprise Norway and Switzerland.
Good point. I'm accepting the EU's self-conception on this point at face value. And much as I may dislike it (oh, for the halcyon days of EFTA), I think that's the accepted conflation among Europeans -- EU and non-EU -- as well.
Posted by: Tacitus | October 07, 2004 at 06:00 PM
Yow! Y'all gettin' obstreperous!
For the record, can we put the "chicken hawk" meme or the converse "since you didn't serve, you don't know squat" to rest?
The merits of this war are independent of whether a proponent or opponent thereof served in the military or not.
Of course, my Honorable Discharge sits nicely over my desk........:)
Posted by: Navy Davy | October 07, 2004 at 06:24 PM
Tac, if you accept the EU's self conception at this point, then don't you also have to accept that the economic agreements (googling points out that the EU precursor was European Coal and Steel Community(!)) are profound influencers of a nation's self opinion, (which is an idea that free market conservatives could easily get behind)?
I'd also point out that EU expansion has also been discussed for Tunisia, Morocco and Israel. I shudder at the response that will occur if at some point, Turkey is told to hit the road (or perhaps get told to form a Muslim club as we are all Christians here). It will be like printing up recruitment posters for Muslim extremism.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 07, 2004 at 06:37 PM
"The genius of the EU is you get all these great benefits only AFTER you get your act together. It puts the burden and costs for modernizing where they belong...with the nation wanting to join."
That is the genius with respect to some countries. Not so with respect to Turkey. The problem with respect to Turkey is that France has made it clear that they may oppose entry to the EU even if Turkey does all that is asked of it. It isn't: do A, B, C, and D and then we let you in. It is: do A, B, C, and D and we'll talk about it then.
Notice the difference in approach with Romania and Bulgaria:
Turkey is at least as togther as Romania, and it has a much better functioning market system (one of the key components for EU membership) than Bulgaria.
But Bulgaria and Romania both have a "yes with reservations" by 2007 while Turkey gets a "if you work really hard we'll think about considering a maybe" in 15 years from now. So as far as incentivizing change in Muslim countries, I'm not sure the EU is such a great model. It seems quite possible that Turkey won't be willing to kiss the EU's feet for 15 years on the hope to possibly be considered for the theoretical chance of getting in.
It is like all those movies where the mean girls put some poor fool through the a multitude of tasks while knowing all along that she is never going to be good enough to get into the clique.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | October 07, 2004 at 06:50 PM
It will be like printing up recruitment posters for Muslim extremism.
I doubt that. Being the contrarian here, I think transnational institutions rank rather low on the list of motivators for personal belief and behavior.
Posted by: Tacitus | October 07, 2004 at 06:59 PM
"I think that's the accepted conflation among Europeans -- EU and non-EU -- as well."
but
"I think transnational institutions rank rather low on the list of motivators for personal belief and behavior."
What other events can you claim gave rise to the conflation?
I wonder if anyone has any stats on the number of EU Passport holders (excluding pets(:^))
Sebastian, I wonder if you've considered how the poor fools who get strung along feel toward the girl in question when they realize they have been strung along. And I would point out that the current situation we find ourselves in encourages those who are willing to ride the kind of racial appeals like the one in
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 07, 2004 at 07:42 PM
Arrgh, that's what I get for treating preview like Turkey. Finish is:
And I would point out that the current situation we find ourselves in encourages those who are willing to ride the kind of racial appeals like the one in this story (Yes, I know Switzerland is not in the EU) Your argument seems to support rather than refute Edward. Too bad that Bush doesn't have any respect among EU leaders...
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 07, 2004 at 07:45 PM
The wronged party awaits righting.
Can you get any more right? ;PPP
The problem with respect to Turkey is that France has made it clear that they may oppose entry to the EU even if Turkey does all that is asked of it. It isn't: do A, B, C, and D and then we let you in. It is: do A, B, C, and D and we'll talk about it then.
I'm not sure how this is any less genius? If Turkey is still going to work on their systems in hopes of getting accepted...AND...if there's any validity at all to the idea that once people taste freedom they'll fight to protect it...how could any of this be bad? I can imagine a momentary backlash within Turkey, but clearly we believe the changes they will have made will be improvments, no?
Posted by: Edward | October 07, 2004 at 09:59 PM
Edward, it depends how far they go before they decide it is likely that they are being strung along. I suspect that the Bulgaria/Romania situation will clue Turkey in pretty fast.
Liberal Japonicus, I'm not sure what you are saying about my metaphor. I admit it is a bit crude, but I suspect you might be misinterpreting it. EU=Clique, France=extra-mean clique leader, Turkey=patsy forced to play along with no real hope. So when you say: "I wonder if you've considered how the poor fools who get strung along feel toward the girl in question when they realize they have been strung along." So I'm sure Turkey would be rather resentful.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | October 07, 2004 at 10:11 PM
Sebastian, what I am saying is that if what you say is true (and it very well may be), the EU is playing with fire, which then supports Edward's point. Perhaps it is just living in Japan that makes me think this way, but making someone lose face is a really dangerous game to play.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, but I was assuming that you think Turkey's EU entrance is a bad idea. Do you agree with Edward, but just are pessimistic about their chances? If so, what do you think should be done to encourage Turkey's entry?
There's also a slight difference with Romania and Bulgaria, I think, in that there is a notion that the Iron Curtain prevented them from being a part. One could consider this a kind of affirmative action on the part of the EU (:^)
This also has me wondering about Turkey's refusal to let the 4th ID (I think) attack from Turkey. IIRC, the discussion was that Turkey did not to upset its Muslim populace, but isn't it also likely that they were also thinking about their EU chances as well?
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 08, 2004 at 04:38 AM
IIRC, the discussion was that Turkey did not to upset its Muslim populace, but isn't it also likely that they were also thinking about their EU chances as well?
I seem to recall comment in European media at the time that Turkey's refusal to support the Iraq war indicated that they were thinking like Europeans.
Turkey's entrance into the EU is unlikely to happen under President Kerry's term of office, and might not even happen in President Edwards' term. The EU can afford to think in terms of decades, not 4 or 8-year cycles.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | October 08, 2004 at 07:27 AM