Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

[48Highlander]

Americans: The Jews of the World
By Daniel G. Jennings
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 23, 2003

The popular 20th Century Jewish American novelist Edna Ferber once wrote "the United States seems to be the Jews among nations. It is resourceful adaptable, maligned, envied and feared... its peoples are travelers and wanderers by nature, moving shifting, restless."

Sadly enough, recent events have proven that Ferber was right. The Jewish people and the United States have a lot in common, both are successful, resourceful, adaptable, highly creative, inventive and hated. Like the Jews, Americans are increasingly the objects of hatred, fear, jealousy, bigotry, prejudice, violence and terror from all corners of the globe and the political spectrum.

In particular, America and Americans are now the target of a vicious, irrational, destructive, well-organized, well-defined, popular and widespread campaign of hatred, prejudice and hysteria similar to that directed against the Jews before World War II. Anti-Americanism has become as popular and as widespread as anti-Semitism was in the 1920s and 30s and its effects could be just as destructive and as tragic as the wave of anti-Semitism that gave rise to Adolph Hitler and the Final Solution.

The historical analogies between anti-Semitism in the first half of the 20th Century and anti-Americanism today are absolutely bone chilling. In the early 1920s, all of the world's problems were blamed on the Jews. The Jews had somehow started World War I, Jewish bankers had financed the Russian Revolution,  Communism was a Jewish conspiracy to enslave the world, the Jews had somehow engineered Germany's defeat in 1918, Jewish artists and intellectuals were responsible for the decline of culture and morality, Jewish businessmen were responsible for all the problems of capitalism and the troubles of the poor. This was nonsense but it was widely believed even by the most educated and respected of people.

Today, the problems of nations and peoples all over the world are blamed upon America. The collapse of the Argentine economy, human rights violations committed by Latin American dictators in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, vicious and oppressive governments in the Arab nations, starvation and poverty in Africa, are all blamed on America. The crack cocaine epidemic and the AIDS virus are both blamed upon the CIA. Some anti-American bigots even had the audacity to blame the Sept. 11, atrocity on the United States.

This nonsense is spread all over the world by the entertainment and news media. Many of these myths have become tenets of faith among the world's intellectuals. Hollywood movies, Arab newspapers, American network television and scholarly books are full of absurd anti-American conspiracy theories which are treated as historical facts. On a more basic level Americans and America are always portrayed as shallow, arrogant, imperialistic, violent and evil.

Americans should be afraid of this anti-Americanism because the tolerance of anti-Semitism among respectable European society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries led to Nazism and the Holocaust. In the 1890s, educated and respectable Germans including the personal chaplain to Kaiser Wilhelm II, Germany's Emperor, promoted anti-Semitism. A decade later Austrian politicians were winning elections by blaming their nation's problems on the Jews. By the 1930s Nazi storm troopers were terrorizing Jews in the streets and Anti-Semitic laws were being passed. By the 1940s, Germans were herding hundreds of thousands of Jews into gas chambers and machine gunning hundreds of Jews outside Russian cities.

Anti-Americanism, like anti-Semitism, has already led to irrational violence. On Sept. 11, 2001, Arab fanatics showed that they were willing to die for a chance to kill Americans.

And the Arab fanatics are far from alone. The American flag is burned regularly in the streets around the world and not just in Third World countries. In March 2003, the Stars and Stripes was publicly burned in the center of Paris. In other words thousands of people around the world are publically demonstrating their desire to destroy America and Americans. The Islamist idiots burning the American flag today would jump at the chance to burn Americans and American cities tomorrow.

Like the Jews in the 1920s, Americans today should be afraid, very afraid. Just as the anti-Semites believed they could solve the world's problems by killing Jews, the Anti-Americans believe they can solve the world's problems by killing Americans. And they're willing to go to great lengths to do it. They will even sacrifice their own lives for a chance to kill us.

It's time we Americans learned what the Jews learned during World War II: vicious and irrational prejudice can lead to genocide and that depending on the good faith of others is a sure way to end up at Auschwitz.

We Americans must take action now to stop anti-Americanism. For if we don't, our descendants may end up sharing something else with the Jews, mourning the deaths of millions of our people in a 21st Century Holocaust.

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

There has got to be a host of better examples you could have used; imbalance of power, uneven distribution of wealth, exploitation of developing nations' resources, etc.  

1980s: US intervention in Nicaragua, South America. In 1986, the United States was condemned by the World Court for "unlawful use of force." To present date, the United States is the only nation that has been condemned for international terrorism by the World Court.

1990s: The United States supports Turkey in the crushing of its own Kurdish population. The Clinton administration gave decisive support and supplied the Turkish army with 80 percent of its arms. This event represents the worst campaign of ethnic cleansing and destruction to occur in the 1990s.

President Bush really says it best: "In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors outlaws and killers of innocent, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves."

Hey, if the shoe fits, America.

[This isn't specific to America, other states fit the protocol, as well. I pinpoint the United States because the topic of debate surrounds it.]

 

[McG]

Did the World Court say "unlawful use of force"  or "international terrorism"?

When do we see your report?

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

Did the World Court say "unlawful use of force"   or "international terrorism"?

When do we see your report?

Both, actually.

Haha, when it's done. I have no incentive to get this report in, and you'll later understand why [that was by no means a reflection of the quality of work].
I think I'm onto my third week now...

 

[McG]

I hope our 15 pages (so far) have been giving you lots to think about.

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

Have they ever. My mind is constantly running laps, which is why I'm usually up until the wee hours of the morning. I've actually really enjoyed reading through this thread, it's unnecessary to point out that there are some very intelligent individuals who contribute to these forums.

 

[48Highlander]

1980s: US intervention in Nicaragua, South America. In 1986, the United States was condemned by the World Court for "unlawful use of force." To present date, the United States is the only nation that has been condemned for international terrorism by the World Court.
1990s: The United States supports Turkey in the crushing of its own Kurdish population. The Clinton administration gave decisive support and supplied the Turkish army with 80 percent of its arms. This event represents the worst campaign of ethnic cleansing and destruction to occur in the 1990s.

Right.  In case you're not aware, let me remind you that Nicaraguans aren't generaly muslim or arab.  The Kurds are muslim but not arab, so I guess that example works....except that using Kurds as an example is kinda strange seing as how the US came to their aid in 91, and Kurds were fighting quite hapily alongside US soldiers during the recent war.  Not to mention the fact that Turks also happen to be muslim, so if the US really did aid them in slaughtering Kurds then there's a much larger group of Muslims who appreciated the assistance.  And the fact that Kurds weren't part of the 9/11 attack, the Taliban resistance in afghanistan, or the current insurgent attacks in Iraq.  In any event, if you're trying to provide examples of things that the US has done which would justify the hostility of people in that region towards the US, you're falling way short of your target.  Add 500, fire when ready.

 

[Infanteer]

1980s: US intervention in Nicaragua, South America. In 1986, the United States was condemned by the World Court for "unlawful use of force." To present date, the United States is the only nation that has been condemned for international terrorism by the World Court.

If you think the US is the only state that has done that in the last 20 years, you're out to lunch.

1990s: The United States supports Turkey in the crushing of its own Kurdish population. The Clinton administration gave decisive support and supplied the Turkish army with 80 percent of its arms. This event represents the worst campaign of ethnic cleansing and destruction to occur in the 1990s.

Obviously, you've never been to the Balkans.

Besides, I think Rwanda holds that prize.

Wherever you're getting your information from stinks.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Well, now I'm glad I went to bed early last night. :

Quote from: jmackenzie_15 on Yesterday at 22:22:02
I would sooner quit the CF than join in on an american crusade through the middle east for no particular reason ,

I want a front row seat at the hearing when you claim political asylum in the good old US of A.

 

[a_majoor]

Hatred for the West is mostly a jealous rage against "who we are", and calling on the glories of the Andalusian state pre 1490, or blaming the United States for the Crusades is just window dressing.

The Jihadis can clearly see the West is internally peaceful and prosperous (no secret police dragging university students to the Abu Gharab prison for example), and cannot accept that perhaps the reason the Arab world is not equally peaceful and prosperous is their own beliefs and culture. More damning to them is the fact that the Arab people are clearly interested in adopting elements of Western culture, wearing western clothes, watching western movies and TV, getting on the Internet etc. They have two choices; adapt or attempt to destroy the source of the "contagion". Osama Bin Laden issued a Fatwa in the mid 1990s, long before most people had heard of him or George W Bush, calling on the Arab world to sever all ties to the West, all radio, television and printed matter from the West was to be prohibited, all manifestations of western culture was to be stamped out. Even today, the "internal" publications, audio cassettes and so on still preach the virtues of shunning the West and rooting out Western influence wherever it is found.

For those who feel a PC moment coming on, the reason I am characterizing this as a Arab movement is because it clearly is. Jihadi's are overwhelmingly from Arab nations. Followers of Islam from non Arab nations are in a distinct minority among the Jihadis, John Walker Lind and the Khaders being famous because of their "novelty" value. Jihadis have no restraints against attacking fellow Islamic nations like Indonesia or Turkey.

The root cause of Terrorism is a lust for power, and by stoking and fanning these flames of resentment, the Jihadi leaders gain power and prestige which is otherwise lacking. Their lieutenants gain power and a sense of self worth by wielding guns and knives against captive populations (such as the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, or areas of Fallujia prior to it being liberated by the Marines), and from there it is seemingly a small step to encourage people to take up arms to rid themselves of the "shame" caused by falling so far behind the rest of the world.

 

[Infanteer]

The Jihadis can clearly see the West is internally peaceful and prosperous (no secret police dragging university students to the Abu Gharab prison for example), and cannot accept that perhaps the reason the Arab world is not equally peaceful and prosperous is their own beliefs and culture. More damning to them is the fact that the Arab people are clearly interested in adopting elements of Western culture, wearing western clothes, watching western movies and TV, getting on the Internet etc.

I can sense I PC moment coming on as well, but I will step in to support this observation before it does.

When it comes down to it, humans have a primary urge to serve their own needs and the needs of their immediate family first; loyalty and attention will diffuse as it expands to higher levels (community, tribe, nation, state, species).

Quite frankly, Western civil society (the conglomeration of many cultural inputs) is simply better at providing the basic needs that humans want - security, clothing, food, shelter, education, and access to communal institutions.   This is not a theory, this is a demonstarable fact.   Take any aspect of these basic needs and compare access and supply in a Western liberal democracy to any other system and for the most part, you'll see that it's true.   Of course, people who abhor "materialism" and "capitalism" may take offence to this notion, but looking at people worldwide, you'll see that most are driven more by basic needs (which have a biological root) then by ideology.

Does this mean that cultures are "inferior" or "superior" or "civilized" or "barbaric" in a qualitative sense?   No.   Things like "Right" and "Wrong" for the most part are only applicable in the context in which groups of people accept them as normative values.

However, there is a bit of "Social Darwinism" at play here.   Different structures of civil society (the horizontal and vertical links between people within a group) compete when they come into contact with eachother.   Quite frankly, many aspects of the "West" are simply outdoing competitors in the game of evolution.   This is why you see Western clothes, Western music, Western democracy, and Western ideas slowly creeping around the globe.

The root cause of Terrorism is a lust for power

Yup - anyway you want to cut it, power - that unmeasurable degree of influence over the will of others - is the basis of any conflict.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
The root cause of Terrorism is a lust for power

You  stole my next post I was going to make with that line, however, me, not being a very good wordsmith, was going to say its basically the pout that happens when the little boys realize they can't compete with the big boys.
[hence why the USA is a popular target for those with genital envy]

 

[1feral1]

Hatred for the West is mostly a jealous rage against "who we are", and calling on the glories of the Andalusian state pre 1490, or blaming the United States for the Crusades is just window dressing.

The root cause of Terrorism is a lust for power

Right on the mark!


Cold beers (from a humid sunny morning),

Wes

 

[CivU]

"however, what we do (or change) right now can have an immediate affect on behaviours and outlooks"

Infanteer, I'm interested in how this perspective, one I whole heartedly support, plays into the present involvements in Iraq and whatever pending intervetions loom...how does this fit into the varying opinions on why we have gone into particular countries and how are impact is going to positively and negatively affect the people there and their opinion of us...

48 Highlander, As far as the obscure reference to skirts provoking rape, I'm not sure that's even worth responding to...I don't know how my comments of admitting both parties have contributed to the present "West" vs. "Extremist Islam" conflict could be connected to a justification for a woman's dress instigating sexual assault.  Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum fell insultingly short...

And to clarify KevinB, I despise Michael Moore...his manipulative editing, distorted presentation of information, interviews with ignorant uninformed persons represented as authorities, use of shock and awe (for lack of a better term) and distractions with causally disconected relationships is about as useful as Fox News...The only benefit he offers is that on a very simplistic level he provides some initiation of discussion on important issues, Roger and Me - outsourcing of jobs/globalization, Bowling for Columbine - pervasiveness of violence, Fahrenheit 9/11 - US Foreign Policy.  He doesn't provide answers, but whether you agree with him or not, you cannot deny he certainly facilitates discussion...look at this forum.

If this is the case, "The root cause of Terrorism is a lust for power"

The is the root cause of US foreign policy and attempt to maintain their hegemonic power over everyone else...?

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

Hatred for the West is mostly a jealous rage against "who we are", and calling on the glories of the Andalusian state pre 1490, or blaming the United States for the Crusades is just window dressing.

Hatred for the West has very little do to do, if anything with "who we are," it has everything to do with what we do.

The September 11 attacks were not targeting "free and prosperous" America, they were attacks on the major economic and military institutions within the United States, which dictate foreign policy to some extent. Had they been attacks on our values and freedom as individuals living within a democracy, they would have easily driven a plane through the Statue of Liberty.

Look further into the political violence that characterizes much of Latin America in this day and age. In 2000, Colombia generated 106 acts of political violence against the United States, Argentina generated 4, and Ecuador generated 4. Of those 114, 105 of them were directed at U.S. businesses, 1 was directed at the U.S. government, 3 were religiously provoked, and 5 were directed at private institutions.

I don't understand how you could possibly conclude that anti-American incidents are directed at the freedom and prosperity that individuals enjoy in the West, if anything those generating the terrorist activity are struggling to obtain the very freedoms that characterize the West, and are reacting violently to years of foreign policy that has exacerbated the conditions of their lives (in political, social and economic terms). Delve a little deeper into foreign policy, specifically in Latin American, and you'll gain a better understanding of why these attacks occur so frequently. I use Latin America, because in 2000, the United States Department of State reports that 114 of the 177 anti-U.S. incidents occurred within the Western Hemisphere.

Political violence and terrorist activity targeting American symbols and institutions follow U.S. interference and foreign policy like a puppy dog. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a large proportion of anti-U.S. incidents now occur in the new target at hand, the Middle East.

 

[M16]

Of those 114, 105 of them were directed at U.S. businesses, 1 was directed at the U.S. government, 3 were religiously provoked, and 5 were directed at private institutions.

That's not targeting freedom.

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

If you think the US is the only state that has done that in the last 20 years, you're out to lunch.

My comment at the bottom went overlooked. Surprise, surprise.
I noted quite clearly that other states fit the shoe, but chose to focus on the United States, as this was the major country under debate.

Obviously, you've never been to the Balkans.

Besides, I think Rwanda holds that prize.

Wherever you're getting your information from stinks.

Rwanda may have taken its place. Regardless, that in no way undercuts the significance of the event, despite how poor you think my sources of information are. Furthermore, by making comment on my sources, and excluding comment on the issue altogether tells me that you're one of many that refutes to acknowledge, and or does away with information on the basis that "the information source must be poor," because it fails to fit into your line of thinking/argument.

Debate and critique the issue, don't try to to undercut my opinions on the basis of my sources (which are all strictly academic, as a result of research for my report).

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

That's not targeting freedom.

My point exactly.

It's targeting the economic and political institutions that implement and reflect American foreign policy.

 

[Infanteer]

"however, what we do (or change) right now can have an immediate affect on behaviours and outlooks"

Infanteer, I'm interested in how this perspective, one I whole heartedly support, plays into the present involvements in Iraq and whatever pending intervetions loom...how does this fit into the varying opinions on why we have gone into particular countries and how are impact is going to positively and negatively affect the people there and their opinion of us...

I am not to sure exactly what you're asking me here, but I'll try to answer it.

With regards to Iraq, I think going in was a good strategy.  The fundamental problems confronting the US after Sept 11 was a whole gamut of issues arising out of an area that is inherently unstable, unfriendly and occupying a key piece of geopolitical real-estate.  As such, America (and the rest of us, whether we like it or not) could not afford not to engage itself in the Middle East in an assertive manner for two reasons:

1) The preponderant importance of petroleum in sustaining our economic well-being.  If the strength of America (and the West) was to fade in the eyes of Jihadis, fundamentalists, tin-pot dictators, and slippery Saudi princes, then there was a real risk of losing the "cooperative" influence that the West possessed in the region.  Whether we like it or not, going to war for oil is necessary - if someone wishes to leave the well-being of close to a billion people in the hands of dictators and/or mullahs, then they're not thinking with their head.

2)  The nature of the threat demanded it (Props to Kirkhill for elaborating on this one to me one night).  In the last big geopolitical struggle, Containment was a strategy that worked because the ideology of Communism was sustained and propelled by the Red Army and the Red Army was sustained and propelled by a system that contained the seeds of its own demise (which George Kennan very keenly pointed out with the "X" Article).  The threat was very conventional, and as such could be penned in by conventional responses around the periphery of the Soviet Empire (hence "Containment")

We are now faced with a very different situation, as the attacks of September 11 brought to stark clarity.  The forces involved in this geopolitical struggle are "4th Generation" in nature.

http://d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm

How do you "contain" a threat that slips through your defences by using the freedoms that civil society guarantees?  How do you stop a threat that ignores your Carrier Battle Groups and takes down the symbol of your economic well-being with a set of box cutters and a ruthless will?  Obviously, containing the threat posed by terrorist forces cannot be accomplished by building a ring around their center of gravity - as our very way of living leaves the ring porous enough for enemy agents and cells to slip through.  That leaves America (and the West) with two alternatives:

1.  Disengagement (An immediate goal of the Jihadis).  Completely unworkable.  As I said above, the geopolitical nature of the Middle East will not allow us to do so until we can disengage our economy from petroleum dependency.  The world will not ignore the Middle East and the Middle East cannot spurn the world.  As well, like it or not, America has put itself firmly in the camp of Israel.  Considering a good proportion of the Middle East still officially refuses the right of the Jews to exist, we won't be leaving our ally high-and-dry - especially when they are now armed with nuclear weapons and the will to use them if faced with extinction.

2.  Intervention.  This is the policy I see the US currently engaging in, and on a general level, I support it.  This is how I see (and justify) the US invasion and occupation (lets not cloud words and intentions) of Iraq.

- The US invaded Afghanistan, a key center of gravity for the "Jihadis" (although I don't believe this term does complete justice to the enemy forces, I'll use it for simplicity's sake).  The Taliban regime was a key force in legitimizing and supporting AQ.  However, once that was initiated, the stark fact remained that the US was on the periphery of the geopolitical area that was hostile to it.  Staying in Afghanistan would be the equivalent of trying to undermine Communism by beating the Cambodians.

Where is a more focused "center of gravity" for Jihadi operations?  Here is my guesses:

-  Pakistan: Player in the Jihadi game.  However, Pervez Musharraf is generally friendly (in a Realpolitik kind of way) and realizes that the "radicalization" of Pakistani society by Zia in the '80's was a big mistake and a threat to his well being.  Plus, Pakistan has, despite an rocky relationship, traditionally been an ally of the West and the United States, and Musharraf wouldn't want to risk having America turn to India now that Militant Islam is enemy #1.  Best use what influence is still there to let things evolve rather then squandering a good political link through antagonising a General on a precarious throne.

-  Egypt: Very populous country pervaded by Jihadi elements.  However, the Mubarak government is very friendly to Western interests and is a agent for Middle East stability.  Attacking or coercing them would be unwise.

-  Syria: Still a bit player in the Jihadi game, but not so much anymore.  Assad Jr. can be turned if the West plays its cards right, meaning that the Syrian "monolith" of Assad Sr. is no more.  Better not to spoil the water by throwing force on this one - it may only act to alienate Assad and throw him into the corner of his fathers cronies.

-  Saudi Arabia: One of the big players in the Jihadi game - however, attacks on the Holy Land of Islam would be very foolhardy indeed.  Again, leveraging the side of the House of Saud that enjoys sports cars, yachts, and Ivy league universities is the way to go.

- Iran: Although you can't put Iran in the Jihadi camp (Wahabi's view Shi'ites as Jews in disguise) they contribute to a unfriendly geopolitical atmosphere due to their past state-sponsorship of terrorism, their fervent anti-Westernism, and their overt attempt to become the player in the Middle East.  However, Iran would be a really tough nut to crack and would not really do much in stemming the activities of groups like Al Qaeda (Attacking Irish Protestants will not do anything to the IRA).  Better to let the intelligent and energetic generation of young Iranians who are not to pleased with authoritarian Mullahs do the job from within.

This leaves us, with, surprise of surprises, Iraq.

- Iraq:  Although not a big player in the Jihadi game, Saddam certainly didn't mind helping to poke America and the West in the eye.  However, following September 11, Iraq started to look more and more like the perfect target for a strategy of intervention for the following reasons:

1) It was run by a tin-pot dictator who's time was up.  Not only did he succeed in isolating himself from his neighbours by attack east (Iran), west (Kuwait), and south (Saudi Arabia), but his attempt to be the "big-man" on the block had generally turned world opinion against him (unless you were the French or the Russians and you were making a pretty penny off him).  Despite the various prostrations of the anti-war crowd, no one can really offer a good reason for leaving Saddam on his throne.  He was much easier to take down then any other of the regimes of the middle-east

2) It contained a fractured (if any) civil society.  Just like Afghanistan - with its conglomerate populations of Pashtuns, Hazaris, Uzbeck, and Tajiks - Iraq was an artificial nation composed of Shi'ite's and Kurds living under the whip of a regime of Sunnis.  America and the West had little to fear from fracturing the State of Iraq as the complete lack of civil society meant that we would find willing and able friends.  Although they were a little suspicious at first, seeing how they were left high-and-dry in 1992, their opposition to the initial assault on the Ba'ath regime for the purpose of occupation was little to none (of course, the situation has now changed).  I think that attempting to go into a much more homogenized state with a more robust civil society would have proved to be a larger headache to American intervention efforts.

3) Iraq's key geopolitical position.  Look at a map of the Middle East - Iraq is the center peg.  If containing the periphery is not going to work, then you may as well go right to the center if you are going to attempt to intervene.  A strong Western presence in Iraq puts it in the "eye of the hurricane".  I am sure that attitudes of various Jihadi elements have changed now that there are over 100,000 angry American soldiers in Iraq.  Now that America has a credible force that is on the border with Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran and has shares in an key OPEC state, they are in a good position to enforce behaviour change that is geared towards the interests of the West.  It is this behaviour change that I believe is the key to going into Iraq and intervening in the Middle East in general.

However, I am skeptical of mixing the strategy of behaviour modification with some sort of attempt at the short-term spread of democracy - I call it democracy on the end of a bayonet.  I do not believe that a strategy of evangelism (for lack of any better term) is suited to Western interests.  Trying to force some facade of a liberal democratic order is about as useless an expression of Wilsonian idealism as there is.   This is why I am not sure I support active intervention in the civil society of Iraq.  It was fractured from the artifice of the Ba'athist regime, conflict was a foregone conclusion - Iraq would need some time to sort out its new state identity.  With America putting its units in Saddam's palaces and having bureaucrats and tanks moving about during this is the equivalent of sticking your hand in a hornets nest right after you pounded it with a stick.  End result, you get drawn in and two-bit chumps like Moqtada al-Sadr all of the sudden gain real currency as players in the game (which undermines the efforts of guys like Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, who are generally friendly to your cause).  

As well, getting tangled up in the populations of Iraq leads to another issue that I believe affects attitudes - the fact that American soldiers in Iraq do draw Jihadis out like a magnet.  However valid soem may feel the theory of engaging Jihadi forces in Iraq rather then in America is, I am sure that the citizens of Iraq do not appreciate the fact that their houses, markets, and mosques are being used as a battleground by US and Jihadi fighters.  Sticking combat soldiers in cities seems to be burning more bridges then their building.

I often wonder if a strategy of "sitting back" in the ensuing scrum would have been a more effective way to go about things.  Leave the Tigris and Euphrates floodplain and move to the uninhabited desert of the West.  Let Iraq iron out itself - they can come to their own conclusions on how to rule themselves.  Someone was keen to point out that the people of Iraq were an ancient and complex civilization while we Westerners were living in huts and worshipping trees.  Offer help if asked and don't pick sides and don't put your military forces in someone else's fight.  Use Special Operations Forces to make forays into any Jihadi elements that can be identified and wipe them out quietly and effectively.

Make it clear to the people of Iraq that the West is not their on an "evangelist" mission (YOU WILL BE A DEMOCRACY - VOTE!), but are in the Middle East to intervene against a faction that is unfriendly our interests.  As well, make it clear to whoever comes out on top of the scrum that they have to play ball with the international community.  Use diplomacy - the "carrot and the stick" - to show Iraq that the West will not tolerate replacing Saddam with another despot who thrives off of nepotism and acts as a destabilizing force in the region.  The fate of Saddam Hussein should be proof enough that the West means what it says.  There was a good article in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs that pointed out how Pax Romana and Pax Britannica were built and sustained by assetive and yet subtle diplomacy along with the force to back it up.  As Teddy Roosevelt said - "Walk Softly but Carry a Big Stick...."

The occupants of the Middle East are a tough and proud people; they will recognize and respect the strength of Western and American might and resolve to undermine the threat of terrorism at it's center of gravity - the unstable geopolitical region of the Middle East.  However, I do not believe they will respect us if we use the might and resolve to attempt to rebuild Iraq in our image.

Well, I can't believe I nattered on for that long...enough geopolitics from me for now.

"If this is the case, "The root cause of Terrorism is a lust for power"

Then is the root cause of US foreign policy and attempt to maintain their hegemonic power over everyone else...?

Foreign Policy is an expression of interests.  When foreign policies clash (with either state or sub-state actors), then you have a power struggle (politics...or war, which is merely an extention of politics by other means... ).  So sure, US Foreign Policy, like any other interaction between two competing groups, is essentially based upon power.

However, I don't think that US Foreign Policy is rooted in aggressive imperialism, which the tone of your question seems to suggest (if you weren't, then I apologize).  US policies, like the policies of any other state, are geared towards the promotion of self-interest.  As I said in the big spiel above, the US seems to be pursuing the policy of intervention in the Middle East to secure itself from attacks which could reach catastrophic proportions and to force behaviour modification in a region in a geopolitical region that has traditionally been unfriendly to Western interests.

However, they don't appear willing to want to stay in the Middle East any more then they were willing to expand control over previous conquests, almost all of which the pulled away from (Philippines, Cuba, etc, etc).

Assertive?  Yes.  Aggressive, expansionist, and imperialist?  No.

 

[mdh]

Debate and critique the issue, don't try to to undercut my opinions on the basis of my sources (which are all strictly academic, as a result of research for my report).

Actually MissMolsonIndy I would love to hear what these sources are - a few examples please? And I'm especially interested in the "strictly academic" ones.