Tweet
Astralis,
While a discussion of biological warfare isn't the main focus of the thread, I still think an outbreak of smallpox would be devastating. I am not an expert, but I have read about its effects throughout history. In the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond revealed that smallpox was one of the deciding factors in the Spanish conquest of the Americas. Perhaps a modern outbreak could have comparable effects.
That being said, I do recognize that Huntington's theory has errors. However, I maintain that the conflict between Islam and America is fundamentally cultural, not socio-economic.
The ultimate reestablishment of the Caliphate requires the creation of a nation-state. If that is the condition for Islamist victory, your ideas are correct. However, it appears that terrorists are well-equipped to win their short-term victories, at great cost to America. For example, I believe the United States will pull out of Iraq because of the turmoil there. While the insugency has not caused a great deal of military damage, they have cost the United States many billions of dollars and inestimable fall from grace in the world.
Terrorists are able to execute deadly attacks for a few hundred dollars, while America must spend millions on warheads to achieve comparable damage. In asymmetrical warfare, Muslim insurgency has proven itself. If such warfare is successful in driving America from Iraq, I think Islamism can claim a legitimate and influential victory in the region.
To say that we could defeat the terrorists in pitched combat is irrelevant, although true. Jihadists do not desire pitched combat and seldom put themselves in that scenario. In summation, the terrorists do not need to put themselves in the open to achieve a majority of their goals. I think the Israeli invasion of Lebanon last summer attests to this point. Of course, that war warrants a longer discussion.
I do need to consider your criticism of Huntington at length. As of now, I have no satisfactory reply to your points. Hard thought and time shall provide it. Adieu for now.
Sincerely,
Bulgaroctonus
While a discussion of biological warfare isn't the main focus of the thread, I still think an outbreak of smallpox would be devastating. I am not an expert, but I have read about its effects throughout history. In the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond revealed that smallpox was one of the deciding factors in the Spanish conquest of the Americas. Perhaps a modern outbreak could have comparable effects.
That being said, I do recognize that Huntington's theory has errors. However, I maintain that the conflict between Islam and America is fundamentally cultural, not socio-economic.
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.
Terrorists are able to execute deadly attacks for a few hundred dollars, while America must spend millions on warheads to achieve comparable damage. In asymmetrical warfare, Muslim insurgency has proven itself. If such warfare is successful in driving America from Iraq, I think Islamism can claim a legitimate and influential victory in the region.
To say that we could defeat the terrorists in pitched combat is irrelevant, although true. Jihadists do not desire pitched combat and seldom put themselves in that scenario. In summation, the terrorists do not need to put themselves in the open to achieve a majority of their goals. I think the Israeli invasion of Lebanon last summer attests to this point. Of course, that war warrants a longer discussion.
I do need to consider your criticism of Huntington at length. As of now, I have no satisfactory reply to your points. Hard thought and time shall provide it. Adieu for now.
Sincerely,
Bulgaroctonus
Comment