4 ms·

Replace 'Western' and 'Arabs' with Superpower X and Subjugated peoples Y and it's immediately clear how defective your root cause analysis is. It's an intentio

by justsee 14y ago

Replace 'Western' and 'Arabs' with Superpower X and Subjugated peoples Y and it's immediately clear how defective your root cause analysis is. It's an intentionally defective 'root cause analysis' from the perspective of Superpower X, where all wars waged by X on Y have no part in discussion of cause and effect. The rules seem to be: 1. Y is always irrational, savage, subhuman. 2. X is always civilised, noble, well-meaning. 3. Aggression by X is always unfortunately necessary for some greater geopolitical good. 4. Aggression by Y must always be explained in terms of 1., and never as a result of 3.

w1ntermute 14y ago
I'm not looking at this from an impartial point of view, I'm looking at this as an American citizen who greatly enjoys the benefits of having been born in a developed nation with global hegemony. I have no illusions about the various immoral and unethical acts committed by the US government over the last 50-75 (and probably more) years in various 3rd world countries in the name of American interests, nor do I think they are defensible from a moral/ethical perspective. I'm merely stating the simplest and most effective method of ensuring that the US's global hegemony remains as it is now.
- olalonde 14y ago
  I would use some more empathy and adopt a bit more diplomatic attitude if I were you. There will be suicide bombers well after Arabs go back to being desert nomads. It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    > It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up. 9/11 was estimated to have required ~$400-500k. And I'd say it'd be quite a bit more expensive to repeat that feat these days.
    - natep 14y ago
      More than a few people have blown themselves up since 9/11.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - _delirium 14y ago
    Heck, militia groups in the U.S. manage to mount occasional terrorist attacks, and they're generally quite poor. I don't think Timothy McVeigh raised too much funding.
- justsee 14y ago
  But failing to undertake a proper root cause analysis is harmful to your stated aims. You appear to believe that a resurgent radical Islam is primarily due to the rise of wealthy Arab states, and yet these states are aligned to the West, armed by the West, and also suppress the same radical elements you wish to neutralize domestically. A proper root cause analysis would reveal that violent military intervention coupled with Western political soundbites (which have a modern crusades theme to them) are the real factors responsible for radicalizing elements of Middle Eastern society. Western and Middle Eastern political organizations with a religious base, radical pastors and imams, and military contractors seem to be the main beneficiaries in this culture war, and domestic citizens in the Middle East and the West seem to be the main losers. Civil liberties are eroded domestically, a constant state of fear is generated domestically, and travel options internationally are limited. This applies to both Middle Eastern and Western domestic populations. The simplest and most effective solution is, you say, to limit immigration and assimilate existing immigrants? Historically maybe it's been the 'simplest' approach, in terms of isolating and subjugating 'foreigners' (apart from slavery), but I wouldn't agree that it's been effective in neutralizing resistance to whatever was the hegemony of the age. Instead I would look at the success of Western countries in cultivating an apathetic population as the counter-intuitive solution for a continued hegemony. Rising living standards, opportunity, and entertainment as distraction. Look at how China invests in significant infrastructure in Africa to buy stability and access to natural resources. The idea of foreign aid is certainly not new, and the world is littered with US-funded roads and hospitals, but the ratio of destructive / constructive actions is completely the wrong way around. Why not wage peace, allocate more of the loot to local populations so they see a significant rise in living standards, and cultivate a widening middle class that has less reasons to be sympathetic to radicals? That seems to me a far more sophisticated approach to exerting and maintaining influence than the traditional "wage war" approach. Your position seems to be a result of artful misdirection which paints militant Islam as the cause when in fact it is simply the effect of the militant West. It's the bitterest of ironies that the global Defence industry is in fact one of the greatest enemies of continued goodwill and peace for Western populations.
  - iSnow 14y ago
    >A proper root cause analysis would reveal that violent military intervention coupled with Western political soundbites (which have a modern crusades theme to them) are the real factors responsible for radicalizing elements of Middle Eastern society. Oh please. A proper root cause analysis is different from blaming everything on the West. It would have to include the idea that the current cultural clash is with an extremely violent religion as can be shown by its teachings. It would further investigate the influence of the division of church and state on the moderation of Christian beliefs and (in most countries) lack thereof in the Muslim world. >Why not wage peace, allocate more of the loot to local populations so they see a significant rise in living standards, and cultivate a widening middle class that has less reasons to be sympathetic to radicals? 9/11 as the showcase of the clash between the West and radical Muslims was planned by a descendant of a rich Saudi family. There were not many poor and underprivileged amongst those plane hijackers.
smutticus 14y ago
I don't know why you were downvoted. I found your explanation very rational.

by justsee 14y ago

w1ntermute 14y ago

I'm not looking at this from an impartial point of view, I'm looking at this as an American citizen who greatly enjoys the benefits of having been born in a developed nation with global hegemony. I have no illusions about the various immoral and unethical acts committed by the US government over the last 50-75 (and probably more) years in various 3rd world countries in the name of American interests, nor do I think they are defensible from a moral/ethical perspective. I'm merely stating the simplest and most effective method of ensuring that the US's global hegemony remains as it is now.

olalonde 14y ago
I would use some more empathy and adopt a bit more diplomatic attitude if I were you. There will be suicide bombers well after Arabs go back to being desert nomads. It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up. 9/11 was estimated to have required ~$400-500k. And I'd say it'd be quite a bit more expensive to repeat that feat these days.
  - natep 14y ago
    More than a few people have blown themselves up since 9/11.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- _delirium 14y ago
  Heck, militia groups in the U.S. manage to mount occasional terrorist attacks, and they're generally quite poor. I don't think Timothy McVeigh raised too much funding.
justsee 14y ago
But failing to undertake a proper root cause analysis is harmful to your stated aims. You appear to believe that a resurgent radical Islam is primarily due to the rise of wealthy Arab states, and yet these states are aligned to the West, armed by the West, and also suppress the same radical elements you wish to neutralize domestically. A proper root cause analysis would reveal that violent military intervention coupled with Western political soundbites (which have a modern crusades theme to them) are the real factors responsible for radicalizing elements of Middle Eastern society. Western and Middle Eastern political organizations with a religious base, radical pastors and imams, and military contractors seem to be the main beneficiaries in this culture war, and domestic citizens in the Middle East and the West seem to be the main losers. Civil liberties are eroded domestically, a constant state of fear is generated domestically, and travel options internationally are limited. This applies to both Middle Eastern and Western domestic populations. The simplest and most effective solution is, you say, to limit immigration and assimilate existing immigrants? Historically maybe it's been the 'simplest' approach, in terms of isolating and subjugating 'foreigners' (apart from slavery), but I wouldn't agree that it's been effective in neutralizing resistance to whatever was the hegemony of the age. Instead I would look at the success of Western countries in cultivating an apathetic population as the counter-intuitive solution for a continued hegemony. Rising living standards, opportunity, and entertainment as distraction. Look at how China invests in significant infrastructure in Africa to buy stability and access to natural resources. The idea of foreign aid is certainly not new, and the world is littered with US-funded roads and hospitals, but the ratio of destructive / constructive actions is completely the wrong way around. Why not wage peace, allocate more of the loot to local populations so they see a significant rise in living standards, and cultivate a widening middle class that has less reasons to be sympathetic to radicals? That seems to me a far more sophisticated approach to exerting and maintaining influence than the traditional "wage war" approach. Your position seems to be a result of artful misdirection which paints militant Islam as the cause when in fact it is simply the effect of the militant West. It's the bitterest of ironies that the global Defence industry is in fact one of the greatest enemies of continued goodwill and peace for Western populations.
- iSnow 14y ago
  >A proper root cause analysis would reveal that violent military intervention coupled with Western political soundbites (which have a modern crusades theme to them) are the real factors responsible for radicalizing elements of Middle Eastern society. Oh please. A proper root cause analysis is different from blaming everything on the West. It would have to include the idea that the current cultural clash is with an extremely violent religion as can be shown by its teachings. It would further investigate the influence of the division of church and state on the moderation of Christian beliefs and (in most countries) lack thereof in the Muslim world. >Why not wage peace, allocate more of the loot to local populations so they see a significant rise in living standards, and cultivate a widening middle class that has less reasons to be sympathetic to radicals? 9/11 as the showcase of the clash between the West and radical Muslims was planned by a descendant of a rich Saudi family. There were not many poor and underprivileged amongst those plane hijackers.

smutticus 14y ago

I don't know why you were downvoted. I found your explanation very rational.