I preface all of my remarks with a disclaimer that I have never been a fan of Rummy. I find his support for the war in Iraq, going into Iraq without a long term plan, thinking that he is a movie star more than the Secretary of Defense and his general neo-conservativeness quite abhorrent. But I read an op/ed piece that he wrote for the LA Times today and I wholeheartedly agree with this part of his assessment:
"The enemy we face today is different from the enemies we have faced in the past, but its goal is similar: to impose its fanatical ideology of hatred on the rest of the world."
I disagree with how he proposes to deal with "the enemy" but I don't disagree that we face this enemy and we must deal with it. Interestingly, he never actually defines this enemy other than to call it terrorism, maybe he is afraid of offending Arab Americans or our Saudi allies. So, in case anyone is unsure, the enemy he refers to is fundamentalist Islam spread from the Middle East to South East Asia.
5 comments:
What? I'm sorry but I fail to see how that snippet of ideological propaganda is anything but simplistic and erroneous. First of all, it's the same reductivistic thinking that allows us to not consider the "enemy" the same species as us, so we don't have to deal with them ethically and, worse, don't have to respect them strategically (thus allowing for all the Bush administration's amateurish planning). It also reduces the philosophy of muslim extremists as well, to suggest that they have no real motive, when they actually have a very complex and specific range of motivations, ones we should study and understand in order to no better how to defeat their leaders and make their foot soldiers happy in their own lives so they are not blowing people up. Their philosophy is just to hate stuff? What are they, the reavers from Serenity? It's baby talk.
Finally, it's just wrong. Did the Nazis not want to impose their ideology of fanatical hatred on the rest of the world?
Extreme and violent islamic fundamentalism is a problem in the world. One that the world and its leader nations needs to address. But until the Bush administration got in, it was no worse than all the rest of the world's problems (9/11 not withstanding). Now, thanks to language and thinking of Rumsfield's quote, and the actions being spurred on by such, the fundamentalist movement is getting slightly more significant than it was before (though in the U.S. it is as negligible a danger factor as it ever has been).
I said that I disagreed with their current and proposed methods. However, I agree with the sentiment that we are fighting against fundamentalist Islam and that it is a fight worth pursuing.
My hawckishness on this is motivated by the knowledge that fundamentalist Islam is a sham - there is no depth to it. It is simply a case of an educated, entrenched elite manipulating the thoughts and emotions of a mass of poor and uneducated people. The leaders of the fundamentalist sects aren't after anything but sustaining their power through the persistence of ignorance.
I agree with all that you say, but that is not what Rumsfield is saying. But I think I see the point of your post now. You are simply saying that you are a hawk when it comes to Islamic Fundamentalists. I just don't think using Rumsfield's quote is a good way to convey this. You are a hawk in the sense that you actually want to solve the problem. And I assume you would want to do it without turning the Middle East into Middle America. But I don't think Rumsfield and the rest of the Administration are even thinking that far ahead. I don't know if it's because it keeps them in power, or because they are just incapable of thinking in the long-term or what, but they don't seem to really be motivated to actually adress the issue of the rise of extremism. And I think you could probably make a pretty good argument that they have actually exacerbated it.
I agree that these extremists are bad and need to get smacked. They are intolerant fascists who manifest their sexual frustration in violence.
I was using the sensationalist headline to try to get some comments from Levar. Alas no luck, he is kicking it back west coast style wondering where in the wall all these pictures and words come from. Since you're the only one posting here maybe we should just email or speak on the phone!
The current administration's "plans" for the Middle East are unclear, poorly put together and wrong. Their focus is on the wrong place. Introducing democracy in countries by force does not work, introducing democracy to citizens who can't read and write and are influenced by intolerent relegious beliefs and are dirt poor also does not work.
Instead, they should funnel all of the money that they are spending on the war in Iraq into well run aid programs for Middle Eastern youth. Build schools, hire teachers, build infrastructure etc. Only then will the people in the region take to liberal democracy.
Imagine if the $100B per year being spent in Iraq was instead focused on these kinds of projects. We certainly wouldn't be worse off than we are today.
Coming in late here because my rss reader is not picking up new posts from Buzbys Life.
I sure hope that all you were trying to push my buttons with that quote! A 15 year old high school drop out could have come up with that one. The enemy of today is different from the ones of the past - well, duh. In fact, that whole quote come straight out of the Bush administrations playbook and Rummy has been singing this tune since the beginning:
The truth is that this is a broad, sustained, multifaceted effort that is notably, distinctively different from prior efforts. It is by its very nature something that cannot be dealt with by some sort of a massive attack or invasion. It is a much more subtle, nuanced, difficult, shadowy set of problems . . . . [T]his is not a quick fix. It's not something that all of us who like to have things immediately over and—it isn't that way. It is not going to be over in five minutes or five months. It will take years, I suspect.
—Donald Rumsfeld, Press Briefing, September 25, 2001
Post a Comment