Who or what are we at war with?

[Sabre]

Very interesting article regarding the "war on terror" and who/what we're really at war with.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200405130837.asp

While not all terrorists are militant islamics, from the US point of view, that's who is attacking us.  Yet, are we hamstringing our efforst by not acknowledging this fundamental truth and dealing with the realities associated with it?  The article stresses the need to empower the moderate muslims; however, it also describes the daunting task of first defining what a "moderate" is, and how to actually identify them.  Very thought provoking.

[Sandman]

Well, we are now well into the third year of what is called the "War on Terror." That is the language we all use, and it is ubiquitous.

No kidding. Some of us knew this three years ago.

[Toad]

Cursed by Oil

The Arab world, alas, has been cursed with oil. For decades, too many Arab countries have opted to drill a sand dune for economic growth rather than drilling their own people — men and women — in order to tap their energy, creativity, intellect and entrepreneurship. Arab countries barely trade with one another, and unlike Korea and Japan, rarely invent or patent anything. But rather than looking inward, assessing their development deficits, absorbing the best in modern knowledge that their money can buy and then trying to beat the West at its own game, the Arab world in too many cases has cut itself off, blamed the enduring Palestine conflict or colonialism for delaying reform, or found dignity in Pyrrhic victories like Falluja.

There's a pretty good analysis, I think.

[Lizking]

It is a  good article, true and very disturbing.  What he demands of the Muslim community must also be faced by the non-muslim community:

Do you condone or condemn those who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians?

Will you condemn the likes of al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah by name as terrorist groups?

Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today's world?

Do you accept the validity of other religions?

Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims?
Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam?

Who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

Do you accept that institutions that fund terrorism should be shut down?

[Sabre]

Good point, Toad, but I think it goes beyond the oil issues, though that is certainly a huge contributing factor.  The other historical factor that has hamstrung many of these countries is the fact that many were created and protected by international decree, rather than through an actual struggle to survive.  They simply haven't earned the right to nationhood, in the historical sense.  For example, the Palistinians want a homeland.  Fine. Why should they have one?  What would they do with one if they had it?  Isreal, while essential created by international decree, struggled from the moment of its declaration of statehood.  Vitually without any natural resources, with limited international support during many periods of its existance, they nonetheless created a prosperous and thriving economy.  And all the while surrounded and often attacked by enemies sworn to destroy her.

At the risk of hi-jacking this thread, is there any chance, given the cultural indoctrination of the Palistinians from the moment they're old enough to speak, that that people could pull off a similar miracle?  Like Isreal, the Gaza and West bank have no natural resouces to speak of.  Without that oil crutch, that so many other Middle Eastern rely on to hold their countries (ever so shakily) together against interal and external pressures, a Palistinian state is doomed to failure.  Oil may have enabled many Middle Eastern nations to retain a semblance of statehood, but it is their un-natural formation, i.e. by decree rather than through struggle, that makes them unsuited to succeed.  Remember, there are a lot of nations in Africa, for example, that were former colonial possessions; they are nearly all failed states, exactly because they lack even the oil crutch to maintain a veneir of civilization.

[ravells]

Good points, Sabre.

But you did not mention that when many of these places were colonised, colonial powers used a 'divide and conquor' method of enforcing their rule. Many of those countries, Rawanda being a case in point, still suffer from that legacy today.

Ravs

[Sabre]

Ravells, I don't disagree.  Colonialism had it's negative side affects, without a doubt.  Kashmir is a case in point; its population was primarily Muslim, yet it was left in Hindu India's possession because the mulah was friendlier to Britain.

[ravells]

Yes, Kashmir would a good case in point.

Ravs

[Furious]

...also, I wouldn't down play the "tribe" mentality.

[Dune]

In some cases, it was colonial rule that kept tribes from waring with each other.  After the colonial power left, one tribe started taking whacks at the other.

And Ravels, with whom do you place the blame of Rwanda?  With one tribe, that was always the enemy of another, using political power to dominate its neighbor or the the colonial nation that was there before?

And what is your feeling about nations such as Zimbabwe?  Do you feel that its troubles are to be blamed on the UK and Ian Smith or on those who took power after Rhodesia was defeated?

Just curious.

Personally I wonder how much of this is just those nations returning to the state they were in before colonazation.  They were fighting and killing each other before.  They are doing it now.  And not all the blame can be laid at the nations that forced them to live together or placed two different tribes into one country when they drew up the borders.  It's not like these groups stayed apart before the "borders" were drawn.

[Sabre]

Also a good point, Dune.  That's why blaming all the problems of these failed third-world countries on colonialism is an over-simplification.

[ravells]

All good points.  Particularly Furious'

My apologies if it came across that I was saying that colonialism is the source of all ills in Africa. I was just saying that colonialism was one of the factors which helped to make Africa the basket case it is today, (with a few exceptions).

It is difficult at best (more likely impossible) for us 'englightened' as we are to put ourselves into the mentality of a 1800s European. In many ways the colonisation of Africa was an extension of European politics and everybody wanted a share of the wealth.

Part of that process was to turn reasonably self sufficient societies which had their own way of doing things into societies which existed to grow 'cash crops' for the west. To an extent, that is still happening today, which is why we have third world debt.

From the Rwandan refugees that I have spoken to, (taxi drivers and the like), they say that it was the Belgians who initially instilled the Tutsi - Hutu hatred by pitting them against each other.

To an extent I think Dune is right, and to an extent wrong about people 'reverting to type' after the colonialists have left. Once a society is disrupted and they have had other ways of living imposed on them (not gathered by the slow process of natural absorbtion), what you end up with is a bastardisation of two cultures which may not necessarily mix well.

In some cases (India and Malaysia being good examples) the splice worked out reasonably well. The Brits built a civil service, communications and an educational structure which still survive today and have allowed those countries to thrive - in the case of India, after a fashion.

In other cases, the process has not worked out so well.

In the case of Zimbabwe, I think what we are looking at is a parody of a democracy. You cannot have a proper working democracy in the way that we understand it in a country with no significant middle class. The white farmers in a sense performed a role of stability there - they were able to be part of the process of the absortion of how a democracy worked, but since Mugabe (may his soul rot in hell) began his pogrom, they have now largely left, and that has left the country bereft.

You are right. They were fighting and killing each other in Africa long before it was colonised, but with weapons which could not kill at a distance (you also have to understand that urbanisation did not exist then to the extent it does now). Yes people were killed. But invariably, after the butchery they reasonably quickly came to terms as to how to live with each other afterwards. And there were codes of conduct. Maybe not codes we might agree with, but which helped to minimise the deaths.

I'm not laying blame at any particular culture's door here. I'm just saying that colonialism made parts of Africa grow up too quickly and all they have inherited from us are the worst parts our culture has to offer.

Ravs

[Dune]

And I agree.  It gave them tools and ideas, but did not (as opposed to the examples Ravels gives) show them really how to use them.  Instead, strongmen were allowed to use democracy for their own ends.  No middle class was developed and an educational system was not set in place.  So, instead of small battles with asagi's and shields, they now have rifles and artilery.  

What might have actually benefited them in the long run didn't.  And those nations did not take advantage of what was availible.  Opportunities on both sides have been missed and the common man suffers for it.

[ravells]

How do you think we repair it, Dune?

Ravs

[Dune]

I wish I had an easy answer.  Education is the best way to start.  These people need a basis.  Many of these African countries are rich in natural resources.  Be it minerals or agriculture.  An open, democratic society with a just system of law.  

An end to rule by the gun.  An end to rule by people like Idi Amin or Bob Mugabe.  

But, even then, there is a problem with democracy.  Until we put an end to the racial/tribal hatred we'll have the same problems.  The tribe with the greatest numbers will vote itself control of the government and dominate the lessors.  Or the tribe with the smaller population will a: try to control the government through arms, terror and fixed elections so they aren't dominated or b: start a revolution and try to kill enough of the more numerous tribe until they can win a honest election.

Like I said, I don't have an easy answer.  And it's been said that it takes 7 generations to change the way a culture thinks.

"Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights -- the "right" to education, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery -- hay and a barn for human cattle. There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -- P.J. O'Rourke