Bulgaroctonus,
Quote:
|
A biological attack could cause damage beyond the economic pale.
|
i doubt it. generally, the more lethal a disease is, the faster it burns out. therein lies the weakness of biologicals as a weapon.
Quote:
I think that is a pompous attitude that is ripe for dissapointment. I believe Islam is the most dangerous ideology America has faced. Nazism as Communism had more powerful nation-states than Islam has. Indeed, both seemed poised to take over the world. However, Islam has greater numerical strength, a longer historical presence (therefore legitimacy), and has a stronger base among its population than Communism or Nazism ever did.
I agree with Huntington. 9/11 was not an isolated incident of Muslim terrorism, but is a continuation of the same clash of civilizations that has been occuring since 632 AD. Since America doesn't realize this, it is prone to being lulled into a false sense of security by quick victories. Jihadists see the struggle against America as long-term, and that is one of their strengths.
If Islam does triumph over the United States, it may be a gradual victory. That is exactly the kind we are ill-prepared to defend against.
|
and i think- as do the vast majority of academics- that huntington's theory is full of crap. it's full of generalities and contradictions. he views very distinct states as monolithic blocs, something which one would have thought that the experience of the cold war should have taught otherwise.
for example, both "islamic civilizations" of saudi arabia and iran hate each others' guts, and would not take much for them to start up a fight as they did back in the 1980s. "confucian civilizations" of south korea and china have argued countlessly in the past, with fellow "confucian civilization" of vietnam actually waging war with china twice in the last thirty years. we needn't go into the differences that france has with the US, or how in the early-mid 1990s "japan threat" was in the vogue here in the US- despite all of them being "western civilizations" according to huntington.
and your statement about the millennial clash actually contradicts what huntington says- his belief is that the clash of civilizations is only a recent phenomenon, with "civilizational" aspects only beginning to supercede clashes based around ideology/nationalism/resources in the last three decades or so.
as for jihadists thinking in the "long-term", that is precisely what they do NOT do. they're not thinking, they're fantasizing. osama bin ladin called for a worldwide caliphate. seeing how that was not garnering him much support, notice how he's suddenly changed his tune to supporting the "islamic brothers in palestine". the terrorists don't have enough competence to even overthrow one of their immensely corrupt and unpopular tyrant-rulers. they have no economic game-plan, and furthermore, little structure, given their isolated cell-based organization. their ideologies and beliefs differ. in short, the only thing the terrorists have got going for them is the siren-call of "desperate times call for desperate measures," and feeding off feelings of inferiority, poverty, and lack of respect.
that's enough to keep terrorism alive, yes, but that is nowhere close to enough to upset the current world order of nation-states. if the terrorists want to win, they need to make their own state (if not a nation). and if they do, they just put themselves out in the open for annihilation by the vastly wealthier, vastly more united, and vastly more capable non-terrorist states.