Fighting Totalitarian Islam: Does Peter Beinert Have A Point?

[cali]

Peter Beinert was on C-SPAN this morning. He's the editor of the New Republic- not a magazine I have a whole lot of respect for, but he speaks for what I believe is an emerging segment of the party. Call it muscular liberalism if you will. He compares the WOT to the Cold War, and argues that Democrats haven't focused on it, or made National Security a central concern. He says that you can't just be against the Iraq War, you have to have a viable alternative. Do democrats have one? I don't agree with Beinert, but I do think we have to present alternatives in foreign policy more clearly. We haven't done that well. Why isn't anyone pointing out that with the money we've spent in Iraq, we could have truly rebuilt Afghanistan, bolstered security at home, and battled on an ideological front, through spending that improves the quality of life in third world countries. We could propose spending funds to develop energy alternatives in a race to the moon type of initiative. We could talk about sacrifice and conservation, and taking a harder position against countries like Saudi Arabia. We could also address building strong alliances that unite, rather than divide the world community. Some of this has been done, but not nearly enough. I believe we need a strong unified message, that's about more than the IW being wrong. And it needs to be repeated over and over.

I understand that many folks here will dispute even the existence of Totalitarian Islam. That's Beinert's term, not mine, though for lack of a better one, I'll stick with it. And yes, I know we're dealing with our own form of fundamentalism at home, not to mention imperialism. But I think Beinert's right about one thing: The American public trusts repubs with national security more than democrats, and we need to speak to this. We need to address not only what we've done wrong, but what we need to do that's right.

[InvisibleBallots]

1. the best lies have a grain of truth

"muscular liberalism" - let's translate that into English, okay? Pro-War Democrats.

There is a large faction of Islam that is totalitarian, authoritarian, and reactionary. Liberals would never tolerate living under a theocratic Muslim state.

Does that mean we should start invading Muslim countries and bombing their villages? I don't think so, but then again I'm a liberal.

[bryant69]

2. This argument is the equivelent of calling liberals girly men

While I do agree with some of Beinert's points (I do think we need to be serious about the threat faced by Radical Islam), the argument that we need to be more "muscular" is just so much crap. The point isn't that President Bush is more muscular than Liberals and so is willing to do what must be done.

The point is that President Bush has, apparently, a very limited selection of tools he's willing to use to deal with the problem of Radical Islam. Invading Iraq, for example, wasn't the smart thing to do; it was the stupid thing to do. It has not moved us closer to our goals, and probably has moved us further away. Someone who doesn't think with their "muscles" might have come up with a better answer--say letting the UN inspectors finish their job for example?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[gottaB]

3. I thought Kerry made all those arguments rather well

The problem was most people didn't hear them.

The Kerry campaign could have used more and better spokespeople, more message discipline. I also think the 527's could have done a better job.

And of course many people were advising Kerry to steer away from foreign policy and national security issues. I believe that was bad advice, if well-intentioned.

[HuckleB]

4. We no longer have checks and balances in our system.

Beinert is supposed to be a member of the Fourth Estate, one of those checks and balances. If the Fourth Estate had done its job, the American people would know that the GOP's foreign policy is a complete disaster, that they have spent billions to accomplish very little in terms of creating actual security. Beinert and his cohort have failed the American people. And they continue to fail the American people when they try to say that the Dems have not offered an alternative to GOP screw ups, cover ups and corruption.

As for so-called Totalitarian Islam, it's time for Beinert to learn some history. We are the biggest architects of Totalitarian Islam, as we refused to trust democracy in Iran, not to mention movements toward democracy in other Muslim nations during the first half of the last century. We crushed democracy in the middle east, in order to increase our control over those nations though control over the dictators who ran them. And we maintained those totalitarian regimes that led to a different type of radical totalitarianism gaining popularity among some of the masses. Beinert is pointing fingers from a point of his own failure, and he is talking from a point of ignorance, as do most folks in this country when it comes to the middle east.

[blurp]

7. Democracy is not the same as freedom

As for so-called Totalitarian Islam, it's time for Beinert to learn some history. We are the biggest architects of Totalitarian Islam, as we refused to trust democracy in Iran, not to mention movements toward democracy in other Muslim nations during the first half of the last century. We crushed democracy in the middle east.

Yeah, democracy now!

Let's start by voting on a national religion.

Get the point?

[HuckleB]

8. Again, please learn the history.

If we had allowed democracy to foment as it was at that time, religion would have had little power there. Religion did not have the hold it does now, as it has gained its foothold with the masses as an opposition point and a coping mechanism for life under the dictatorships that we created and supported.

Get the point?

[blurp]

15. You're the one that needs to learn a little history

If we had allowed democracy to foment as it was at that time, religion would have had little power there. Religion did not have the hold it does now, as it has gained its foothold with the masses as an opposition point and a coping mechanism for life under the dictatorships that we created and supported.

Get the point?

You have no point. You're just making an assertion (which happens to be wrong).

Religion has had a hold on the people of the middle east for hundreds of years.

Suggesting that Islamic religiosity is just "an opposition point" is silly.

Consider Hassan al-Banna who was a teacher living near the Suez Canal in 1928 and founded the Muslim Brotherhood. He wrote

"They imported their half-naked women into these regions, together with their liquors, their theaters, their dance halls, their amusements, their stories, their newspapers, their novels, their whims, their silly games, and their vices. . . . The day must come when the castles of this materialistic civilization will be laid low upon the heads of their inhabitants. "

The Brotherhood’s slogan was, and remains, "God is our objective; the Koran is our constitution; the prophet is our leader; struggle is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."

Just an "opposition point" my butt.

And if you think terrorists come from the poor, oppressed masses, you're wrong.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9058821.htm

"The stereotype that these terrorists are poor, desperate, single young men from Third World countries, vulnerable to brainwashing, is wrong, Dr. Marc Sageman told an international terrorism conference in Washington this week. "


"Most Arab terrorists he studied were well-educated, married men from middle- or upper-class families, in their mid-20s and psychologically stable, said Sageman, a psychiatrist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Many of them knew several languages and traveled widely. "

"Only a small percentage of Sageman's sample were poorly educated. Fewer than one-fifth lacked a high school education. Seventy percent had at least some college; several had master's or doctoral degrees. Except for the Southeast Asians, 90 percent went to secular schools.


"Contrary to the view that terrorists are single, childless, immature young men, lacking any attachment to society, nearly three-quarters of the sample were married. Most had children.


"Some people think terrorists are criminals or antisocial psychopaths. But Sageman found that most had normal childhoods without any trouble with the law. Those who later turned to petty crime did it to raise money for their actions, not for personal gain.


"The data suggest that these were good kids who liked to go to school and were often overprotected by their parents," he said. "They are not essentially evil, but they definitely act evil."

[HuckleB]

17. Interesting.

You don't know the history, but you claim that you do. Then you spend an entire post arguing against a phantom. I'm sorry, but you appear to be letting your pride get in the way. It's clear that have not done your homework on the history of the Middle East. Please don't just run around on the Net, posting haphazardly, pretending that you have. That serves no good end.

[blurp]

21. And you think majority rule will magically create tolerance

Please don't just run around shouting "Democracy" without understanding what it means.

If confers no extra degree of tolerance or understanding on those that practice it. It does not imply any sort of individual rights or freedom of speech or separation of church and state.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Here's your history lesson

Oil played its part in a 1953 coup in Iran - organised by the US and Britain. They managed to overthrow an elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed Shah Reza Pahlavi whose reign came to an inglorious end at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists in 1979.

Mossadegh's main sin was to have nationalised the British-owned Anglo Iranian oil company.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3625207.stm

[blurp]

41. Some lesson

You're saying that a single coup in Iran is responsible for Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East?

Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East goes back much further in time than 1953.

Besides, they have all the oil they want now. Has it made them more tolerant of the West?

[HuckleB]

39. Please respond to what I actually post.

Not the phantom you find convenient to respond to. You cannot deal with the situation in the Middle East without understanding the history, and without understanding just how that history is to their understanding of the world. What we consider to be old times is remembered as recent history there, and our role in subverting democratic experiments and, yes, subverting freedom cannot be ignored. No one can come up with a solution to the current world muddle from an ahistorical stance, as that solution is bound to ignorance and is a solution for a world that does not exist. That is the problem with Bush policy. And that is the problem with statements made by the New Republic editor.

[allemand]

44. Do you think dictatorial rule will create tolerance...? n/t

[blurp]

47. No.

I think an emphasis on individual rights creates tolerance.

[allemand]

48. And where are you more likely to find such an emphasis on individual

rights, in a dictatorship or in a democracy?

[allemand]

46. Dictatorial and corrupt regimes in the region are precisely the reason

why well-educated young people who find no place in society become terrorists.

[The Stranger]

52. Blurp, the issue isn't whether militant Islam existed, the issue was

whether it would have the appeal that it now enjoys after decades of imperialistic, oppressive regimes supported by the U.S.

You haven't addressed this point at all.

[ooglymoogly]

13. nailed it n/t

[cali]

19. Agree- to a certain extent

Not only did we not support democracy in Iran, we subverted it via asassination and other means. I do think though, that it's difficult to identify one root cause of the rise of the rise of totalitarian Islam. But the real point, is not just what happened in the past- important as that is- but what liberal democrats propose for the future, and how we develop that message and get it across. I no longer think that it's enough to simply protest the War in Iraq. We need to do more than react, even though that's difficult when we're in such a minority.

[HuckleB]

36. I guess I never thought that protesting the war was enough.

Nor do I know anyone who ever did. Nor did any of the Dem presidential candidates. So I guess I find this whole notion a bit curious.

[cali]

43. I think it's pretty clear

that liberals/progressives have been more focused on protesting the war than providing a coherent message on alternatives. And what did Kerry say? He said he would have fought the war in Iraq differently. Same goes for Edwards. That was the message sent by dems this election cycle. Howard Dean and Kucinich opposed the war, albeit for different reasons, but neither of them became the dem candidate. Lieberman was gung-ho all the way. Sharpton and Mosely-Braun were also against the war, but their voices were even more marginalized than Dean's Kucinich's.

[HuckleB]

50. Considering...

that doing nothing in regard to Iraq would have been a better alternative in terms of creating security for the world and minimizing the number of future terrorists, even if your assertion is true it comes down to media spin rather than the focus of those working to argue for a different policy. Still, I find your description of the stances on Iraq and the proposals for fighting a so-called War on Terror to be oversimiplified, to be kind. It's very difficult to discuss this matter if such generalizations are going to be the definitions of said supposed positions.

[cali]

54. You're right.

You're not kind, but you're right, and I can deal with that. Look, I'm not claiming that my vague proposals for foreign policy are the right ones, let alone brilliant answers to the extant foreign policy problems. My purpose, as it is almost every time I start a thread, is to provoke some thoughtful and knowledgeable threads, and I'd definitely include yours in that description. That way I learn something, and no doubt I have a lot to learn. I ask questions, and attempt to keep an open mind, while retaining my right to disagree. Got a problem with that?

[Walt Starr]

5. Sorry, but totalitarian Islam doesn't affect me as much as

totalitarian Christianity, which is ruling this naiton.

[blurp]

6. I think totalitarian Islam is real

There really does seem to be a strain of Islam that wants Theocracy.

Take a look at Osama's "Letter to America"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

One of the highlights:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator...

So, no separation of church and state.

More scary highlights:


(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

etc, etc.

[kentuck]

9. why don't we just tell the truth ??

Our troops are dying in Iraq because Bush lied to the American people. Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Bush was asleep at the wheel on 9/11. He had ignored the Israeli/Palestinian issue since the day he stole his way into the White House and he ignored the memo on his desk that said Osama was determined to strike our country. He was on vacation down in Crawford.

If they stop telling lies about us we can stop telling the truth about them.

[cali]

10. I agree with everything you said

but I think you miss the greater point. It's not enough to point out the lies about Iraq. We also need to address the WOT with a strong alternative strategy.

[kentuck]

45. I think Kerry had it right the first time....

When he said it was a criminal issue. They were criminals, not a nation of terrorists, that attacked us. We need to hunt them down and bring them to justice. Yes, there were 19 of them with boxcutters, not nuclear weapons, that broke down the security with our airlines and created havoc and a national disaster. They made a "lucky" hit. But that was no reason to declare war on the world or to preemptively invade other countries. Now, we pobably indeed have a "real" war on terror. We have created enemies that will be fighting us for decades. Because when you bomb and kill and innocent men, women, and children indiscriminately, there is a reaction to your actions. Just as we are reacting to the attacks on the WTC. However, it was the wrong way to react. Going into Afghanistan could have been justified, in my opinion. But not invading Iraq.

[cali]

49. I completely agree that it would have been

more effective to address 9/11 as a criminal issue, but I don't think Kerry had it right. He voted to give bushco the authority to go into Iraq, and that was just nuts.

[kentuck]

51. That was a problem...

He was not consistent. He changed his position when he saw that Dean was winning the primary war and he needed to soften his stance somewhat to appeal to the base. He waffled and flip-flopped on the issue in order to survive as a candidate.

[qanda]

11. I watched Peter Beinhert this morning on C-SPAN

And it seemed his two main points were that we need to get rid of Michael Moore and MoveOn. In other words, he wants us to embrace Arnold and FreeRepulic. What exactly is that supposed to accomplish?

[cali]

12. I don't think those were his two main points.

And they certainly weren't mine as delineated in my post. The point is, are liberal democrats doing enough to provide clear alternatives to how we fight the WOT.

[qanda]

24. Yes, the Democrats in power are

And they are being rejected as the Faux Republicans that they are. The plan to invade Iraq would have never succeeded without the Democrats on board and if I'm not mistaken just about every Democrat voted to invade Afghanistan. Democrats supported the Patriotic Act, the latest CIA Reform Bill and were the ones to propose Homeland Security. What more do they want? We ran two candidates that supported both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and they lost!!!!!!!

What Peter Beinhert wants is more of the same, only without any voices of opposition. He wants us to run around like the crazy rightwingers saying kill all the Islamofascists and save Israel from her fate of having to even look at the Muslims. Give me a break!

Sure there are enemies in the world and there are wars going on even in this country that have yet to be won. I'd bet there were more murders of Americans on American streets than there were anywhere else in the world and that statistic would probably hold true going back to the Vietnam war.

I believe true Democrats are trying to provide a clear alternative, that our country will not survive as an imperial power and so we need to cut this nonsense of going all around the world fighting battles that are not our own.

[Telly Savalas]

16. What will it accomplish, you ask?

Why, it will make Joementum an unstoppable force!!!

I've posted the link to this here before, but the blog Orcinus has a great post in rebuttal to Beinart. He agrees that the Democrats need to offer a viable alternative anti-terrorism program. He differs from Beinart in that he feels echoing the GOP's mindless bellicosity is both bad policy and bad politics. It's a long post that covers a lot of ground, but here's a little sample that addresses the issues you mention:

How exactly does he {Beinart} intend to transform the party at its grassroots by excising the people who are its grassroots? If we jettison these folks, as he's suggesting, who do we replace them with? This sounds like a classic formula for self-evisceration.

More to the point, why exactly should we drive out the faction that proved, in fact, to be right about the Iraq war? Perhaps so people like Beinart won't have to be constantly reminded reminded just how wrong they were?

Check it out. It's a good read.

[cali]

22. Thanks for the link!

I'm on my way there. Sounds like an excellent read.

[charlie]

28. If you're not familiar with Orcinus

bookmark it. Neiwert's a tremendous writer and a keen analyst. The site is a treasure trove.

[sendero]

53. That figures...

... since his whole argument seems to be "tell me a good alternative to shooting myself in hte foot, repeatedly".

Many have offered better alternatives, including Kerry. They just aren't listening. They never listen, and they depend on hte fact that Americans don't listen either.

[blindpig]

14. muscular liberalism?

can you say Viet Nam? Try again.

[cali]

18. Did you even bother to read the post?

It's not about "muscular liberalism". That was one phrase characterizing Beinert's approach. Not reading posts and then commenting seems to be endemic around here.

[Bridget Burke]

37. It's the new Domino Theory

Except the enemy is Totalitarian Islam instead of the Red Menace.

Odd--Iraq definitely had problems before we invaded, but Totaliarian Islam was not one of them.

No matter. We're surely winning hearts & minds. Is that a light at the end of the tunnel?

[blindpig]

42. same deal, different decade

Totalitarian Islam, totalitarian communism, whatever. Now where did I put Washington's Farewell speech..................

I Did read your entire post. And drew the appropriate conclusion.

[JHB]

20. What Beinert is asking for (without using the words)...

...is a Final Solution to the Muslim Problem.

I know damn well that there are fanatics in the world (and people who go along with them) who cannot be reasoned with and have to be fought, but every person I hear make his sort of argument (usually neocons or sympathizers with the Israeli right wing (if there's a difference)) doesn't seem to include a category where people CAN be reasoned with...

The argument is that inevitably there is no "reasonable" category of Muslim, and while they never come out and say it, the implcation of their argument is that the only way to stop Muslim fanatics is to get rid of Muslims -- period. Get rid of them from Morroco to Mindanao: then "we" will be safe.

I make it a point never to agree with such Nazi thinking.

[cali]

25. You're wrong.

I disagree strongly with Beinert, but I've listened to him quite a few times, and I don't believe he's proposing any such thing. Hyperbole doesn't help to counter an argument. We need to do better than that.

[JHB]

33. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong in the same way Republicans don't want to...

...destroy Social Security: just softening things up for the hardliners who do.

Beinert may not argue that himself directly, but he's the "acceptable face" of a spectrum that would find that outcome just dandy.

[IrateCitizen]

23. No, he doesn't.

Beinart isn't proposing anything new. What he represents is the old "Scoop Jackson wing" of the Democratic Party that, during the Cold War, never met a military appropriation or weapons system it didn't like, and thought that it was a GOOD thing to try and push the envelope beyond the right wing on militarism.

Furthermore, for all his hand-wringing about Iraq, Beinart and TNR actually SUPPORTED the invasion of Iraq. Now, he wants to cry sour grapes over HOW it has been done, and say that we should have focused on Afghanistan? Please. He's about as credible now as Paul Wolfowitz.

Beinart simply represents the corporate centrist wing of the Democratic Party on this issue. From his vantage point, Americans have embraced empire and all its trappings, so it's only "smart" to go along with that tide and push it to the extreme. He may use humanitarian motives to cover up this agenda, but at the end of the day that's what it is -- the projection of raw military force for the simple purpose of pursuing a self-interested agenda.

We are facing far more dire threats than "Totalitarian Islam". Despite the blow dealt to us on 9/11, the movement of "Totalitarian Islam" wasn't really going anywhere. But the reaction of the US post-9/11 -- a reaction heartily endorsed by Beinart -- has only served to bolster this twisted ideology. Further actions along the same line will only bolster it moreso, despite Beinart's claims to the contrary.

Finally, I am certain that Mr. Beinart has never served in the military. Nor will he have to see the dead on both sides of this neverending conflict. Nor will he have to see the shattered bodies of maimed soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital. Nor will he have to listen to the screams of the soldiers who return home unable to leave the war behind them, seeing dead bodies, dismembered limbs and heads, and blood-splattered walls every time they close their eyes to sleep for the rest of their lives. No, Mr. Beinart lives in comfort, making pronouncements of the need to project military strength from the warm comforts of his plush offices in the United States.

As far as I'm concerned, Peter Beinart and anyone like him can go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut, as Kurt Vonnegut used to say. His views are at best out of touch with any sense of reality, at worst immoral and abhorrent. The sooner that a progressive movement disassociates itself from voices of insanity and militarism such as his, the better.

[JHB]

29. And Remember: "Scoop" Jackson Wing = Neocons (literally)

The list of former Jackson staff members reads like a who's who of foreign-policy experts.

• Richard Perle is an adviser to the Defense Department and considered a major influence on Bush administration foreign policy.

• Doug Feith is undersecretary of defense for policy at the Pentagon.

• Elliott Abrams, special assistant to the president focusing on Middle East affairs, worked as special counsel to Jackson.

Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense and one of Bush's Iraq policy experts, never served directly under Jackson. But they had a long relationship that began when Wolfowitz, then a 29-year-old graduate student, helped Jackson prepare charts when the senator wanted to persuade fellow lawmakers to fund an antiballistic-missile program in 1969.

from
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001834779_jackson12m.html

[IrateCitizen]

31. You're absolutely correct, JHB.

The overwhelming majority of neocons used to be Democrats. Perhaps that could help explain why the neoconservative agenda actually has little to do with traditional conservatism. Conservatism preaches that existing institutions should not be discarded lightly -- therefore, change should come slowly and incrementally, rather than being forced to occur quickly.

Today's neocons actually have much more in common with Trotskyists than they do with traditional conservatism.

[cali]

32. You make many excellent points

particularly as concerns dressing up the old Scoop Jackson philosophy. I disagree with you on the following:

Despite the blow dealt to us on 9/11, the movement of "Totalitarian Islam" wasn't really going anywhere. But the reaction of the US post-9/11 -- a reaction heartily endorsed by Beinart -- has only served to bolster this twisted ideology. Further actions along the same line will only bolster it moreso, despite Beinart's claims to the contrary.

Yes it was. 9/11 is only one terrorist incident amoung many. To mention but a few: The embassies in Kenya, Bali, Spain, Istanbul, the Kobar Towers. There are many more examples. The question is how do we stop fueling it through support of repressive regimes and actions like the War in Iraq. Totalitarian Islam does exist, and as someone upthread suggested, we've been instrumental in its construct. How do we defuse such a movement?

My argument isn't to join forces with Beinert- if you read my entire initial post that would be clear. It's what does the liberal/progressive community offer in its stead. We have to fight the Beinerts with persuasive arguments and policies of our own.

[IrateCitizen]

34. I'm not denying that such attacks happened, cali...

My point is simply that, given the broad view of the world, they are really quite insignificant. Especially when compared just with actions like the ethnic cleansing happening right now in Rwanda and Sudan, in which literally millions will be killed. It's also rather insignificant when compared with US and UK bombing of Iraqi infrastructure during the first Gulf War and for 11 years thereafter, which either directly or indirectly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Virtually all of the acts you listed were the direct result of Western foreign policies in the Middle East. I'm not trying to validate nor deny violent Islamic fundamentalism, because it does exist and it does believe in using random violence to further its ends. However, when viewed through a global lens, its actions are not exactly overwhelmingly significant.

You want to know what to do to stop it? Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting a different result. That's what we're doing in the Middle East -- we're doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting a different result. The first step is for us to stop doing what we're doing. Pull out our troops from all throughout the Middle East. Stop giving Israel carte blanche to oppress the Palestinians, and instead start condemning the violence on both sides equally and tying foreign aid to the ending of violence. Stop trying to control the supply of Middle Eastern oil in order to maintain a hegemony that no longer exists, and instead join the community of nations as a partner rather than behaving as a spoiled, belligerent child.

Of course, such a course would require us to not only make a radical departure from past foreign policy, but would also mean that we would have to alter our lifestyles and admit our past mistakes. I'm not exactly confident that this is going to happen anytime soon, especially with people such as Mr. Beinart trying to affect the discourse from the "liberal" side of the argument.

ON EDIT -- Compare the zeal with which the "threat of Islamofascism" is being talked about with the relative inattention given to the looming global climate crisis. I would bet that Beinart has said virtually NOTHING on the latter, yet even the Pentagon has admitted that it is literally the gravest threat facing humanity.

If only we would give the REAL problems the same attention that we do the endless series of imaginary hobgoblins paraded before the American public to keep us frightened, in line, and ready to condemn as a traitor anyone who dares to step forward and offer an alternative or dissenting point of view from the conventional wisdom.

[slor]

26. I tried to call in...

and call him out on this. Most people, liberals included, want those that perpetrated 9/11 to face justice, including those complicit in our own country. Dropping bombs, indiscriminately, on villages in Afghanistan, was never going to have that effect. In fact, upon closer scrutiny, and in spite of, the supposed rosy news, or, more typically, utter lack of news, the way they handled Afghanistan has made the situation worse (Poppy production up, safety in the country down, to name a few). And we all know that going to Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, was not only just wrong on its' face, but might actually promote the agenda of those that do not like this country. I believe we have been seeing this occur since the start of the conflict. The chimp played right into the hands of those that want to show America as a imperialistic nation. And while Beinhart did say some interesting things, such as Al Gore doing a better job in Afghanistan, his premise that we liberals should jump, wholesale, on the military interventionist side is dead wrong. Yes, there is a time to use the military, but diplomatic and peaceful measures should always come first. This administration was never interested in that, and the elaborate and obvious lies to go into Iraq prove that. Beinhart himself, undermined his own theory, when he pointed out that right now, our overstretched military cannot become involved in any other conflicts at the current time because of the situation in Iraq. This has made us less safe on so many different levels and has undermined any moderate voices of those in the Islamic world, that would have been our most effective allies in the Middle East. He also defended the * administration by referring to the "poor planning" for the aftermath of the war. I submit that it was FAR worse than "poor planning". They planned for happy, smiling, flower-throwing people, and as a result, they did not even bother to protect weapons depots from being looted. This is criminal negligence and craven indifference, to say nothing of the illegality of the war itself, and I hope we may all live to see the day that * and friends face trial for war crimes!

[Mandate My Ass]

27. No he doesn't. "Musucular liberalism?" Oh Puh-leeze.

War is terrorism fought by the rich and terrorism is war fought by the poor.

The repubs are good at escalation. Both sides are engaged in eradicating violence by using violence and it isn't working. Go figure. :shrug:

Crack down on the Saudis? Won't happen. We have not one whit of cred in the Islamic world because we condone whatever Israel and the Saudis do and condemn everyone else. Why are we discussing letting a so-called progressive insist liberals allow repubs to frame the debate an engage in a dialogue of how we're better qualified to carry out a losing strategy?

The response to Beinert's essay by David Neiwert shines light on his obfuscations.

The key to winning any war, whether amorphous, cold, or real, is contingent on one's ability to objectively assess the facts on the ground. When your assessments are constantly twisted by politics, ideology, and public relations, you lose that ability. The Bush "war on terror" is doomed to fail because it has made itself ideologically incapable of recognizing the real nature of terrorism itself.

.....

It's arguable that liberals are foolish to let all this prevent them from seeing the totalitarian danger for what it is. But it's hardly surprising. The fact is that compared to fascism and communism, Islamic totalitarianism seems like pretty thin beer to many. It's not fundamentally expansionist, and its power to kill people isn't even remotely in the same league.

....

No one is saying the Beinarts and Drums of the world don't have anything to contribute. What Beinart is explicitly saying is the reverse: That the Michael Moores and MoveOn folks have no value to the party.

So really, what doesn't help matters is evading the issue by implying the people who opposed the Iraq war -- that is, the people who were right -- not only are unqualified to contribute, but must be evicted from the ranks of liberalism. That, in fact, is the opposite of an honest conversation.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/12/liberal-war-on-terror.html

[necso]

35. "Democrats are soft on defense"

is one of the propaganda themes that the neocons (and their predecessors) have pounded into people's heads for decades. -- And it has worked to some degree.

The problem is that with important elections being so close, every little bit of erosion in our support is a potential disaster. But changing people's "thinking" is difficult, particularly when they have been conditioned (for decades) to "think" that way. -- For one thing, this "thought" is liable to be wedged in the unconscious mind at this point, and it could take years to pound it out and pound something else in. And with the media being effectively under the control of the propaganda masters (more properly, the masters have "first rate" "advertising types" at their beck and call), this will be most difficult to pull off.

Still, we need to try to counteract the propaganda that has been hammered into the mass mind.

And the whole Islamic terrorism thing is a much more intractable problem. Moreover, it is just part of a larger problem, that of the (nearly) worldwide rise of fundamentalism and fanaticism. In our own nation, the fundie leaders have roused their followers to a pitch of "real world" activism. And the various "secular" neocon leaders (with varying degrees of pretend religiosity) have whipped up their followers to a frenzy of ugliness that can only maintain itself by increasing its scope and intensity. (And all the paleocons have to offer is whimpering and whining, excuses and "hope".)

Dealing with this problem this will require sophisticated, knowledgeable, clear-minded and perceptive thinking (etc) -- which is exactly the kind of thing that does not make for meaningful and memorable 30 second sound bites. (On some level, we lost the battle when we let it get to this point.)

So I guess that we will have to create a plan to deal with this problem (or almost any problem), and then "cover" this plan with some catchy "jingles" about "improving homeland defenses", "attacking the weapons black market" or whatever. -- Because we sure aren't going to be able to have an intelligent discussion of this (or any major) problem and its solutions on the national level -- for if this was even possible (given the state of our culture, etc), the neocons would be sure to disrupt it.

But, yeah, "national security" has to be one of our themes, and we need to make a compelling case. -- There must be some of those "advertising types" who would whore out for us too. After all, they mostly just do it for the money.

[MadHound]

38. Beinert has a point, but his historical context is missing.

Why did a "Totalitarian Isam" come about?

Because of blowback from not only American abuse of Muslim nations, but the abuse of Muslim nations by the imperial west for the past 800 years. From the Crusades, down throughout the ages to now, imperial European and American powers have jacked the ME and Muslim countries around for their own benefit and gain, yet act suprised when somebody or some group in the ME says enough is enough, and starts fighting back. Islam is the common ground that diverse anti-imperialist forces have with each other, so they use their religion as a base on which to found a coalition. Sunni and Shi-ite may hate each other, but they will put aside their difference in order to face an imperial Western entity, this has happened again and again, not just in Iraq, but all throughout the Muslim countries.

And sometimes, totalitairian Islam is even encouraged by one Western power or another. Take Osama bin Ladin's militant sect of Wahabiism. Virtually unknown, and much less militant, before the Soviet-Afghan war, a virulent, militant strain of Wahabiism was not only tolerated by the CIA agents covertly helping the mujahadeen "freedom fighters", it was actively encouraged and spread throughout the Afghan military forces. It was seen as a favorable religion because it encourage the rag tag forces in Afghanistan to fight much much harder, with the fear of death taken away by the promises of martyrdom.

Yet after that proxy war was done with, Wahabiism blew back on the US, through our own selfishness and greed. Osama bin Ladin and others who had fought and died helping stamp out Communism(and ultimately bring down the Soviet government) had been promised that the US would provide aid in order to help Afghanistan rebuild. Well, the US didn't come through on that promise, and the full fury of a betrayed people, fueled by a militant religion we had encouraged and fostered, was turned full force back on the US. Now look what such a blowback has wrought.

If we want to put a halt to the growth of totalitarian Islam, then we need to stop encouraging it's growth. The needless invasion of Iraq is going to have massive blowback consequences for decades to come, and if we continue the cavilier treatment of the rest of the world, then not only will we have a WOT to deal with, we will have a war against the rest of the world. Sad to say, that is perhaps the medicine that this country needs in order to stop acting like the baddest bully on the block. The US has rarely, if ever, played well together with the rest of the world. One way or another, we need to learn.

[HuckleB]

40. Indeed. -eom-