Assessing the Decision to Intervene in Iraq

**Tetracide** · 27 Feb 09,, 02:15

Herodotus, a well crafted post. I followed you perfectly. However, where you and I fundamentally disagree is with your conclusion.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

All right, so now when it comes to the Middle East what are America's interests there? Cheap oil, okay sure. Keeping China from cheap oil, all right. Supporting Israel...meh, maybe. Spreading democracy...nice thought but not really necessary. Killing terrorists...well then we get into the causes of terrorism etc.

Now be honest, you knew you were opening up a can of worms with this particular paragraph. Not many could let this one slide without rebuttal.

You covered the main interests America has in the Middle East; the free flow of oil, promotion and protection of Israel, as well as spreading and defending democracy. All of these interests stem from one central theme: the desire for stability in the Middle East. Stability in that region, as anyone could tell you, is important to the global community as a whole. It supports stable production, prices, and flow of energy.

Moreover, don't assume our military presence in the Middle East is strictly there as a conflictive force. As Ambassador Chas. W. Freeman made mention in a speech of his, “We need access to the region for our military because we can't travel between Europe and Asia or vice versa without going through it or over it. The Arabian Peninsula is the size of Western Europe. Tens of thousands of aircraft cross it each year. [….] In terms of its location astride strategic lines of communication, the Middle East is an area that is vitally important to our ability to act as a world power. No wonder Al-Qai'da focuses on breaking the Saudi-American relationship and making cooperation between us infeasible!”

Thus, I would argue that the United States would be set at a strategic disadvantage as a super power if it were to attempt to achieve its interests through a proxy, as you suggested. You must certainly recognize that.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

I would contend that the US can remove its troops from Muslim lands, throw Israel under the bus, find a regional proxy (Turkey?) and still protect its interests in the Middle East, such as they are. At some point though, given this lens of realism, of an anarchic system, etc. the US will eventually no longer be on top and all this will be moot. Using another theoretical framework it may happen quicker.

As I argued in my post before this, your assumption that the threat America posses to radical Islamists will fall in priority with the retreat of American influence in the Middle East holds no water. I would ask you to further explain your reasons for believing this specific contention. Refer to my prior post for my thoughts on this.

Hope you slept well.

**astralis** · 03 Mar 09,, 15:45

tetracide,

Assuming radical Islamists would revert to a less international approach if the United States changed its strategy to one of a more hands-off approach, is a dangerous suggestion; one which does not take into account the actual nature of the radical Islamists' nor their over-arching objective.

As we should all know, radical Islamists seek the reestablishment of the ummah, the Muslim state spanning from North Africa all the way to Pakistan and then eventually spread Islam world-wide. The concept of the "near" and "far" enemy thus metastasized as the "near" being the moderate Muslims within the boundaries of the ummah, and the "far" enemy being everyone and everything else.

beware the generalization. SOME radical islamists seek the worldwide ummah. many, many more radical islamists seek change at the local level. note bin ladin's shifting propaganda. he began with talk of the worldwide ummah. when everyone ignored him, he suddenly became the champion of the palestinians, of the egyptians, etc...

US policy should be coordinated to fight radical islamists, or rather radical islamist terrorists, on a local basis, and on local issues of concern. partial withdrawal may be a good idea in some places, more boots on the ground may be a good idea in others.

**Tetracide** · 06 Mar 09,, 00:34

Originally Posted by astralis

beware the generalization. SOME radical islamists seek the worldwide ummah. many, many more radical islamists seek change at the local level. note bin ladin's shifting propaganda. he began with talk of the worldwide ummah. when everyone ignored him, he suddenly became the champion of the palestinians, of the egyptians, etc...

US policy should be coordinated to fight radical islamists, or rather radical islamist terrorists, on a local basis, and on local issues of concern. partial withdrawal may be a good idea in some places, more boots on the ground may be a good idea in others.

I would disagree with your statement that "many, many" terrorists seek local change, only because "radical Islamic terrorists" aren't local entities. Local individuals who perpetrate violence are just criminals. But radical Islamists are different. They aren't criminals, they don't seek revenge for the bombing of the local water tower. Let me elaborate, if you will.

There are two forms of aggression: 1) emotional aggression that is bred from anger and is more aimed towards short-term goals, and 2) instrumental aggression which is more calculated and more often associated with long-term goals. Now I would argue that terrorists are often victims of instrumental aggression. This would be clearly seen if you looked exclusively at recruited terrorists; young people in universities who are convinced (brainwashed, really) into believing a myriad things that al Qaeda wants them to believe. Thus, recruited terrorists act on instrumental aggression, not emotional aggression.

Professor of Psychology, Clark McCauley talked about this. He described terrorist groups like a pyramid.

“A terrorist group is the apex of a pyramid of supporters and sympathizers. The base of the pyramid is composed of all those who sympathize with the terrorist cause even though they may disagree with the violent means that the terrorist use. [….] In the Islamic world, the base of the pyramid is all those who agree that the U.S. has been hurting and humiliating Muslims for fifty years. The pyramid is essential to the terrorists for cover and for recruits. The terrorists hope that a clumsy and over-generalized strike against them will hit some of their own side who are not yet radicalized and mobilized, will enlarge their base of sympathy, will turn the sympathetic but unmobilized to action and sacrifice, and will strengthen their own status at the apex of this pyramid.”

The pyramid is built on views of systemic problems, not local problems. And thus a radical Islamic terrorist, by definition, believes in that systemic problem involving the West’s attitude and actions perpetrated against fellow Muslims.

U.S. policy should be aimed at weakening the base of that pyramid.

**astralis** · 06 Mar 09,, 15:03

tetracide,

i am certain that for the ideologues that command the terror organizations, they take a bigger view- but even this is not always connected to the idea of the worldwide ummah (hamas, for instance, isn't really interested- it "just" wants israel destroyed), which is actually a fairly new and not particularly popular idea. look at how even with the iraqi sunnis, the "united front" soon cracked to the point where sunni jihadi organizations were shooting up AQI, whom they viewed as foreigners bent on using iraqis for their own purposes.

The pyramid is built on views of systemic problems, not local problems. And thus a radical Islamic terrorist, by definition, believes in that systemic problem involving the West’s attitude and actions perpetrated against fellow Muslims.

much more the latter than the former. if we accept the former, then the natural conclusion is that a sunni jihadi from indonesia has the same goals and beliefs as a shia hezbollah member. that's certainly not true.

**Shek** · 07 Mar 09,, 17:02

Originally Posted by astralis

tetracide,

i am certain that for the ideologues that command the terror organizations, they take a bigger view- but even this is not always connected to the idea of the worldwide ummah (hamas, for instance, isn't really interested- it "just" wants israel destroyed), which is actually a fairly new and not particularly popular idea. look at how even with the iraqi sunnis, the "united front" soon cracked to the point where sunni jihadi organizations were shooting up AQI, whom they viewed as foreigners bent on using iraqis for their own purposes.

***

much more the latter than the former. if we accept the former, then the natural conclusion is that a sunni jihadi from indonesia has the same goals and beliefs as a shia hezbollah member. that's certainly not true.

astralis,

Completely agree with your assessment. As the saying goes, all politics is local.