Thread: Has Anyone Read CIA Guy Michael Scheuer?

I think this is interesting: http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson040407.html

Justin,
The biggest problem is that the Islamic faith (with 1.3 billion adherents) specifically says that infidel forces on Islamic land must be resisted until they leave. If they are killed in the process they are rewarded more highly in the afterlife. If they succeed then they are heroes of Islam. This is not a fringe idea - this is mainstream. We have troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia as well as the obvious other areas. These muslims are not remotely similar to the Germans and Japanese (after we thoroughly defeated them in all out war).
I don't think that America deserves the hatred that we see. However, it's not hard to understand that muslims see that we back many brutal regimes in the middle east (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan all come immediately to mind) and suppress all Islamic Democracies (because we're afraid of the unknown - and, yes, sometimes very scary theocracies) and top it off with unlimited support of Isreal and we are seen as enemies of Islam - not just an "ungodly", rich, Superpower.
And, no, we do not get any credit for actually being very tolerant of muslims in America.

BTW - interesting attachment, too.

Originally Posted by DEwey

Justin,
The biggest problem is that the Islamic faith (with 1.3 billion adherents) specifically says that infidel forces on Islamic land must be resisted until they leave. If they are killed in the process they are rewarded more highly in the afterlife. If they succeed then they are heroes of Islam. This is not a fringe idea - this is mainstream. We have troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia as well as the obvious other areas. These muslims are not remotely similar to the Germans and Japanese (after we thoroughly defeated them in all out war).
I don't think that America deserves the hatred that we see. However, it's not hard to understand that muslims The fact that we also back many brutal regimes in the middle east (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan all come immediately to mind) and suppress all Islamic Democracies (because we're afraid of the unknown - and, yes, sometimes very scary theocracies) and top it off with unlimited support of Isreal and we are seen as enemies of Islam - not just an "ungodly", rich, Superpower.
And, no, we do not get any credit for actually being very tolerant of muslims in America.

BTW - interesting attachment, too.

Yep -- I know and I agree with everything you've said ---- my point was that there is at play a religion and maybe a philosophy unique to the middle east --- and the attachment was to show this stuff is nothing new --- I agree with you much more than I disagree.

Justin

You're absolutely right, this religion is a unique factor in that part of the world. Our gov likes to think (and it sells well to the American people) that the Extremists Hate our Freedom and that the Regular Middle Eastern muslims just want to be free from theocracies. Their religion calls for religious government. The people want religious government. We're just butting in where it seems to me that there is not much to win. Oil is definitely needed, (but how about some domestic drilling you damn tree huggers!!! We need to look out for America first!) but we all know that there will always be Arabs, Russians, Mexicans & South Americans that will be lined up to sell oil for greenbacks. I am afraid that Scheuer has a point that our foreign policy must change or our military tactics must become far more convincing - and that will certainly require far more blood of the enemy.

So Dewey, what is Scheuer's change of policy?

Justin

Suggestions of Michael Sheuer:
Remove all troops from the middle east. Stop support of foreign governments in the region - including (most controversially), Isreal. Bring the troops home and thoroughly protect the borders.

If and when an attack occurs, QUICKLY and IMMEDIATELY bomb the sh*t out of them and make it punishing enough that the enemy and their families beg for us to stop. That's what winning a war looks like. If our guys are going to be sent into harm's way, make the enemy plead that we stop. Then declare victory and leave. Don't try to hold or occupy Islamic land. Don't weaken our position by asking anyone else for permission especially our lilly-livered allies. Act quickly in the best interest of America and do not nation-build.

Arabs WILL kill one another and they will kill Israelies. These are not American responsibilities and we risk our people and our interests to involve ourselves.

I need to read his new book to know of his latest suggestions.

Originally Posted by DEwey

The biggest problem is that the Islamic faith (with 1.3 billion adherents) specifically says that infidel forces on Islamic land must be resisted until they leave. If they are killed in the process they are rewarded more highly in the afterlife. If they succeed then they are heroes of Islam. This is not a fringe idea - this is mainstream.

I do not agree with this view. I understand that it's popular, but as an example my country along with few others was islamic rule for 500 years. Now that's a really long time and there was no concern whatsoever about what we today call atrocities, war crimes or genocide. All these things were committed every now and then, but various religions were allowed to exist, even though they were always supressed when threatening the state. This was not any different to how Christianity states dealt with non traditional religions.

Originally Posted by DEwey

We have troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia as well as the obvious other areas.

The role of troops in Saudi Arabia has very little to do with religion - it's to ensure the stability of the oil business. If the arabian peninsula was inhabited by hindus under totalitarian dictatorship US would still have troops.

As far as that victorhanson.com link goes - it certainly is 'interesting' - do you buy any of his 'explainations'? I certainly don't - if I make an analysis like his I'll be out of job the next day.

Originally Posted by gugi

I do not agree with this view. I understand that it's popular, but as an example my country along with few others was islamic rule for 500 years. Now that's a really long time and there was no concern whatsoever about what we today call atrocities, war crimes or genocide. All these things were committed every now and then, but various religions were allowed to exist, even though they were always supressed when threatening the state. This was not any different to how Christianity states dealt with non traditional religions.


The role of troops in Saudi Arabia has very little to do with religion - it's to ensure the stability of the oil business. If the arabian peninsula was inhabited by hindus under totalitarian dictatorship US would still have troops.

As far as that victorhanson.com link goes - it certainly is 'interesting' - do you buy any of his 'explainations'? I certainly don't - if I make an analysis like his I'll be out of job the next day.

What did you have problems with? I don't think anything he said was terribly controversial or hard to follow --- maybe a little simplified as by historic perspective.

Justin

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

What did you have problems with? I don't think anything he said was terribly controversial or hard to follow --- maybe a little simplified as by historic perspective.

Justin

Nope, not hard to follow at all. It boils down to two main arguments:
(1)

Fairly or not, Westerners have always viewed their relations with Persia in terms of freedom versus despotism.

(2)religion

a binary world of light against darkness in an apocalyptic and all-encompassing belief system

Both are extremely simplistic and he's cherry picking facts to support a thesis. The same things can be said about any other empire and religion complete with examples. Makes for an 'interesting' narrative, but as analysis has zero value.

Originally Posted by DEwey

If and when an attack occurs, QUICKLY and IMMEDIATELY bomb the sh*t out of them and make it punishing enough that the enemy and their families beg for us to stop. That's what winning a war looks like.

Unfortunately, this is no solution to terrorism.
a) you might not know who did it, or have no proof, so who do you bomb? And even if you have proof... Saddam had WMD, right? and he had ties with AlQaeada, right? Only afterwards he suddenly didn't and the proof was nonexisting.
b) even if you know who did it, if it is e.g. 'The judean people front' , then which country do you attack?
c) some of the 911 hijackers were saudis, which are still Bush's best pals in the middle east, regardless of what they do. The US needs the saudis more than anything else. The dollar is propped up by the Saudis asking for US dollars. If they would switch to selling in Euros, the US economy would plunge, so the US government will not want this to happen, regardless of who flies a plane into a building.

You can only hold a country responsible if its government initiated the actions.
You cannot hold a country responsible for what their non-governmental citizens do. And that is what makes the political situation very complicated these days.
At least in the past you knew who the enemy was.