Fitzgerald: Why aid to Afghanistan will accomplish nothing

Nonsense. All the evidence suggests that greater access to the outside world [...] will only cause the people in Afghanistan [...] to be more easily subjected to the al-Jazeera messengers from outside, and what's more, more inclined to participate in Jihad.

I don't agree. The incitement to Jihad happens if not daily, then weekly at Friay prayers. It's in the mosques and madrasas that Jihad is being propagated by those who already have access to information of whatever provenience.

This is a naive argument to believe that by NOT building roads, by NOT enabling infrastructure those with jihadist extrememist inclinations will be stay happily ensconced at their mud homes and be happy with their backward existence.

Instead, as risky a strategy it is, inward investment and aid from non-muslim countries can help (with the right accompanying PR) to show up the disloyalties of the fellow 'Umma'.

Let's not forget that the majority of Muslims have no jihadi outlook. It's those who we should convince and 'corrupt' of our views so that they may counteract extremist movements within their communities. Jihad can best be contained and counterbalanced by Muslims themselves.

Nonsense. All the evidence suggests that greater access to the outside world [...] will only cause the people in Afghanistan [...] to be more easily subjected to the al-Jazeera messengers from outside, and what's more, more inclined to participate in Jihad.

I don't agree. The incitement to Jihad happens if not daily, then weekly at Friay prayers. It's in the mosques and madrasas that Jihad is being propagated by those who already have access to information of whatever provenience.

This is a naive argument to believe that by NOT building roads, by NOT enabling infrastructure those with jihadist extrememist inclinations will be stay happily ensconced at their mud homes and be happy with their backward existence.

Instead, as risky a strategy it is, inward investment and aid from non-muslim countries can help (with the right accompanying PR) to show up the disloyalties of the fellow 'Umma'.

Let's not forget that the majority of Muslims have no jihadi outlook. It's those who we should convince and 'corrupt' of our views so that they may counteract extremist movements within their communities. Jihad can best be contained and counterbalanced by Muslims themselves.

Nonsense. All the evidence suggests that greater access to the outside world [...] will only cause the people in Afghanistan [...] to be more easily subjected to the al-Jazeera messengers from outside, and what's more, more inclined to participate in Jihad.

I don't agree. The incitement to Jihad happens if not daily, then weekly at Friay prayers. It's in the mosques and madrasas that Jihad is being propagated by those who already have access to information of whatever provenience.

This is a naive argument to believe that by NOT building roads, by NOT enabling infrastructure those with jihadist extrememist inclinations will be stay happily ensconced at their mud homes and be happy with their backward existence.

Instead, as risky a strategy it is, inward investment and aid from non-muslim countries can help (with the right accompanying PR) to show up the disloyalties of the fellow 'Umma'.

Let's not forget that the majority of Muslims have no jihadi outlook. It's those who we should convince and 'corrupt' of our views so that they may counteract extremist movements within their communities. Jihad can best be contained and counterbalanced by Muslims themselves.

oops - sorry for the multiple posting

nick, hate to burst your bubble, but Hugh is spot on. Gonna let you in on something, I'm on my second tour of duty in crapistan and anytime we're around Afghan National Army or Police, we're ready to "light them up" because since I've been back, we've had two incidents where our "allies" have shot U.S. servicemembers training them. We should've launched a punative strike against Al Quaeda in '01, killed as many of them as quickly as possible & got out of this tar baby post haste. Treachery is a character trait amongst these people.

Armalite....I agree totally with you...a story from WW1...
an Australian battalion relieved a NZ one in some arab infested part of the ME. The NZ CO warned the Australian CO about arabs sneaking up on sentries, cutting their throats and stealing their gear(they lost about 20). Australian CO say "NP we are experienced troop". First night 2 Australian sentries get their throats cut. Next morning 2 companies march out in full combat gear: one surrounds the nearest arab village; the other does a house to house search looking for any Australian gear(never been any Aust troops here before).

In six houses they find gear. They take all the men >16 from these home(12 I think), they line them up and they shoot them. NP with the arabs
during the remainder of their stay.

That is the ONLY way to deal with an enemy like this: who never ceases to wage war, who engages in constant deceit and for whom ALL are potential soldiers. Weakness they pounce upon. Only strength
and its consequence: fear makes them leave you alone. Just add some pigblood bombs a la Pershing as well.

Hugh-

We need to mold our will somewhere against a core jihadist threat.

Afghanistan is perfect.

We are righteously acting upon a conquered enemy who allowed us to be attacked on 9/11.

They gave us the moral highground on a platter.

If we cannot now demonstrate our superior understanding of the world ( through our advanced Science, liberating Art; dignifying Philosophy; profound Music; and protean technology) in Afghanistan, then we do not have the brains or the will to really defend ourselves.

We are trying to supplant a morbid ideology- Koranic fundamentalism- with a better model for human life: a free people, restraining extremism from every angle, and then exploring in every decent direction.

Why shouldn't we be communicating this generous offer of a better method for creating a humane and stable world? In a Civilizational debate (backed-up by our military, to keep things non-violent)?

And why aren't looking for help from those Afghans already in sympathy with this belief? Instead of abandoning them to random beheadings in rural schoolhouses?

(For the Islamic fundamentalist sin of "teaching girls".)

We have a more decent vision.

And if we don't fight for it (ideologically, as well as literally) then we cede Afghanistan back to the Unanswered Threat.

And let it be devoured by paranoid theocratic lunacy..

We have to defeat the Idea.

And we have a "righteous" reason (world-approved outrage against the Talibans and their allies for 9/11) to impose our will and promote our world view upon the Afghans now. Strongly.

We had better take advantage of this gift.

Otherwise, why did we bother?

Armalite and JW readers,

This is the first time that I have seen a post here at JW from someone in the military and actually posting from within Afghanistan or Iraq ( but then again I've only started visiting here since Jan ).

I strongly encourage Armalite and any other active military types to please give your opinions on these issues, particularly when articles on the wars are put up. I am keenly interested in knowing of your opinions, feelings, and observations. It helps me understand these issues a lot better whether you agree or disgaree with the opinions of Hugh & Robert.

Nick says:

"Instead, as risky a strategy it is, inward investment and aid from non-muslim countries can help (with the right accompanying PR) to show up the disloyalties of the fellow 'Umma'."

This presumes that the beneficiaries within the "umma" can understand and appreciate gestures of good will and largesse. I don't see any such appreciation. In fact I see an expectation of charity as a matter of right.

Look at all the foriegn aid the US provides to muslim nations. Palistinans are good example. Have you ever heard of one complain about lack of charity from Saudi Arabia, point to the humanitarianism of western governments and show their appreciation? We get Farfour the mouse on TV while poverty and stagnation remain.

How about Pakistani's. How do these beneficiaries show their appreciation? By giving aid and comfort to Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Hugh is correct to say that foreign aid to muslim countries to build roads and other public work projects is nothing more payment of the jizya. Paid to keep the natives pacified with hopes it will keep us all safe.

The problem is your theory prevails in Washington Nick. And my tax dollars are spent to perpetrate the myth that charity and humanitarian aid is more effective way to confront the spread of Islam, and that it is appreciated, and worse of all, that it actually works.

So add up all the foreign aid that has been spent over the past, lets take 5 years, add to it the some portion of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan being used to build infrastructure and then ask yourself this question: Do you think they like us any better now?

Nick wrote:

"Instead, as risky a strategy it is, inward investment and aid from non-muslim countries can help (with the right accompanying PR) to show up the disloyalties of the fellow 'Umma'."

you are analyzing the situation through Western eyes. their loyalty is, and will always remain, to the umma. no amount of munificence from us, or stinginess on the part of fellow muslims, will change that. furthermore, i'm sure they prefer aid from the West instead of muslim countries because it uses up our resources & conserves theirs.

you also said:

"This is a naive argument to believe that by NOT building roads, by NOT enabling infrastructure those with jihadist extrememist inclinations will be stay happily ensconced at their mud homes and be happy with their backward existence."

I don't think Hugh's point is that if we do not build up their infrastructure, they will be content in their mud huts. it's that if we do not build up their infrastructure, they won't have the satellite dishes & roads that would make it easier for them to wage jihad.

From a military standpoint, Iraq is a better place to fight than Afghanistan.

Tactically, the terrain and airspace in Iraq support freedom of movement--Afghanistan is remote, mountainous, and rocky.

Strategically, Iraq is a better place to fight than Afghanistan, because it has a huge vulnerability--the oil fields. Afghanistan has nothing of strategic value other than its geographic location.

I think Hugh's idea of abandoning Iraq (and Afghanistan also) is based on solid reasoning, but if the goal is to weaken Islam and Islamic jihad, it is the wrong way to go.

We should definitely abandon Afghanistan, returning only from time to time with punitive raids to destroy terror camps, poppy fields, and cave complexes, as needed.

But we should stay in Iraq. There, what we should abandon are the wasteful nation-building efforts. Instead, we should seize the Iraqi oil fields permanently, and use the money from oil sales to 1) pay for current and future military expenses our war of defense against the Islamic global jihad (including financial support of our wounded and the families of the fallen), and 2) to pay for a counter-dawa campaign against Islamic fascism.

The thing that is enabling Islamic militancy and disinformation across the globe is money from oil sales. Muslims will never use that money, or foreign aid, to build a better civilization for their people. By their Islamic ideological imperatives of loot, plunder, and jizya, they will apply that money to the primary duty of every Muslim--jihad, in all its forms, against humanity.

Every time the Muslims mount an attack, we should strip away more of their oil fields so as to change the strategic balance in our favor. That is the military thing to do.

...aid to Afghanistan will accomplish nothing

I concur.

============

To date there is no evidence that I am aware of that money, as such, whether gained from the oil trade or simply received from other countries, has ever done anything to liberalize or modernize any mohammedan country or culture.

There are no grounds on which to expect that it will do so in the future.

=============

That said, it might be an interesting experiment, and obscure and largely ignored Afghanistan might be an interesting place to try it, to try to develop a sort of de-islamification program and an education/propaganda campaign to encourage self-reliance and awareness of a realistic concept of human rights.

Mind you, there isn't a lot of evidence that this would work either, but there is at least some.

I offer the example of Japan.

It's questionable, and in any case a long shot, but if we're contemplating spending money on that country, why not spend it in a way that has at least a remote possibility of doing us some good.

"Hugh's idea of abandoning Iraq (and Afghanistan also) is based on solid reasoning, but if the goal is to weaken Islam and Islamic jihad, it is the wrong way to go.

We should definitely abandon Afghanistan, returning only from time to time with punitive raids to destroy terror camps, poppy fields, and cave complexes, as needed.

But we should stay in Iraq. There, what we should abandon are the wasteful nation-building efforts. Instead, we should seize the Iraqi oil fields permanently, and use the money from oil sales to 1) pay for current and future military expenses our war of defense against the Islamic global jihad (including financial support of our wounded and the families of the fallen), and 2) to pay for a counter-dawa campaign against Islamic fascism."
-- from a poster above

The very idea that the American government, still tremblingly solicitous of Muslim opinion, and seemingly incapable of making the case to other Infidels, much less rallying them around a joint strategy to weaken the Camp of Islam -- or even to recognize that a Camp of Islam may be said to exist -- would "seize the Iraqi oil fields permanently" shows an un-realism which is un-arguable -- meaning here that it simply cannot be argued with.

And the position I have maintained at this website since March 2004, that the American government can achieve a kind of "victory" in Iraq, or at least get a return on the colossal American investment, not by remaining in Iraq but by leaving it, as should have occurred just as soon as the country-scouring for WMD had been completed and the regime of Saddam Hussein permanently undone, both of which had been completed by the beginning of 2004, is based entirley on the notion that this will weaken the Camp of Islam, the image of Islam (internecine fighting will be observed by Infidels with keen interest). So when that same poster describes that position -- my position -- as being "based on solid reasoning" but then immediately follows this by declaring that "if the goal is to weaken Islam and Islamic jihad" then leaving Iraq "is the wrong way to go" I simply do not understand him.

He does not rebut my argument. He does not say that the sectarian and ethnic fissures in Iraq, or within Islam, do not exist, or that those fissures did not exist since the beginning of Islam, or that what happens in Iraq between Sunnis and Shi'a will not have consequences among their co-religionists elsewhere, nor that what happens to the non-Arab Kurds in Iraq, and to their dream of an independent state, will not have consequences for non-Arab Muslims chafing under Arab domination and mistreatment elsewhere. He does not say that these fissures can or will be assuaged, and does not argue that when I say that they cannot be assuaged, because the attitudes of Islam prevent compromise, prevent sweet reason, but encourage instead aggression, violence, and a worldview in which there is only victor and vanquished, I must be wrong.

No, he simply ignores all that, and insists that the best we can do -- a realistic thing, in his view, is to "seize the oilfields of Iraq" when the American government, and Infidels everywhere, are hardly capable of contemplating anything like the ferocity that was routine in all previous wars against enemies as dangerous as those now prompted by the tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam.

There has been ONE case of sucessful nation building in 20th and 21st Century history. Post WW II Europe and Japan. This was a sucessful due to the fact the European Nations and Japan had cultures and work ethics that facilitated recovery. In the case of Japan and Germany, their previous fascist governments were anihilated and lost all legitimacy. Much hoopla is generated about the Marshal Plan & the dollars we put into the rebuilding of Europe and Japan, but truth be told, the money we invested was minimal and the U.K., which recieved the most funding, ended up being worse off when all was said & done.
If you take a quick glance at the history of Afghanistan, you will see that the country resists foreign nation building tooth and nail every time.

Leave Iraq Now, based on my experiences with Islam through deployments in the Balkans, Middle East, and South West Asia, you could say I'm in lock step agreement with Hugh and Robert.

Am ABSOLUTELY against Wilsonian Internationalism and it's diseased handmaiden, nation building. The trillion plus dollars we have spent on foreign aid since the 70s was money flushed down the toilet.

"The trillion plus dollars we have spent on foreign aid since the 70s was money flushed down the toilet."
-- from a posting above

Almost entirely -- but not entirely. A few countries, a very few, are solidly in the Western, even American camp and while most such countries do not need any aid, there are what the investment advisers call special situations. Israel is an obvious case: a victim of a Lesser Jihad, and a country that has for decades essentially drawn the enemy fire, used up its resources, until now -- for now the Arabs and Muslims feel themselves powerful enough, now that they possess the ten trillion dollars from OPEC, and the millions of Muslims now permitted to settle in Western Europe, and with the West's technology that helps make the dissemination of the message of Islam easier. Other such states to whom such aid can be justified would include Ethiopia, with the Ethiopian army of help in East Africa (though HR 56 should be signed and the Addis Ababa regime strongly chidden), and Bulgaria, which by its history under the Ottomans is likely to understand the situation better. And the same goes for Serbia, which has been the recipient not of aid but of misundersang and undeserved animus.

But generally, you are right. Time to stop all the spreading of American money around. Our own country is a mess, and we need to rebuild it, to "reconstruct" it. And foreign aid, when received by members of what used to be called the "underdeveloped world" or the "Third World," is usually wasted, often is the disease for which it is supposed to be the cure. It encourages Bad Government by those who already govern badly. It provides the wherewithal for corrupt rulers, and corrupts others not yet corrupt. It discourages a reasonable internal market.

This has all been written about, by the late Peter Bauer, a development economist, and by William Easterly, who started life as an innocent participant in the foreign-aid racket, but was keen enough, and honest enough, to see through the holier-than-thou rhetoric to the racketeering beneath. Easterly has proved to be unanswerable; Amartya Sen tried, most unconvincingly, in a review, but did not succeed.

@Hugh: "He does not rebut my argument."

I think Hugh's argument is spot on, so why would I rebut it, indeed? Yes, we can and should certainly weaken Islam by letting them fight out their differences to exhaustion.

However, there is plenty of territory in Iraq on which the Muslims can engage in that kind of in-fighting without our being participants or caught in the middle. So why do we have to depart from every square inch of Iraq, when "Iraq" in the first place is an artificial nation state--merely an irregular polygon drawn in the sand? Why does our range of options have to include only two: pull out from everywhere with every last soldier, or stay everywhere trying to defend every city and town and province from the Islamic crazies? When I say we should stay in Iraq, I certainly do not mean the latter.

The question that I was trying to address is what would a military man do in Iraq if he were permitted to proceed in a military way, with the proper overall objective of winning against the global jihad? He would seize (or destroy) the only source of strategic power that exists there. He would change the correlation of forces, to use an old Soviet phrase, in our favor. The oil fields are a strategic asset of global jihad. Nothing else in Iraq is.

In Afghanistan, by way of contrast, there are no strategic assets there for the Muslims, so there is nearly zero benefit to our staying there permanently. By correlation of forces logic, it makes more military sense to depart from Afghanistan than it does from Iraq.

I recognize that, since WWII (notably beginning with Korea), we have never entered a war to win, and are unlikely to do so here. Following that pattern, so far we have not tried to win militarily against the global jihad in Iraq. In effect, since we have not properly identified the enemy, we are once again fighting for stalemate. We will not take the oil away from the Muslim fascist enterprise, even though ideologically they have only one use for it--to fund war against our civilization. But these crippling insanities are political choices, not military.

So Hugh's "everybody out" solution makes sense in an insane western world. My suggestion is let's stop embracing insanity--let's use our military in a military way. If we cannot or will not do that, then Hugh wins the argument.

For sure, I was being too categorical in saying Hugh's solution "is the wrong way to go." Maybe the better statement is that Hugh's solution "in a sane world, should be the wrong way to go."

Well said Armalite. Right on the money. Please keep on posting.

From Nick concerning Hugh's article.

"This is a naive argument to believe that by NOT building roads, by NOT enabling infrastructure those with jihadist extrememist inclinations will be stay happily ensconced at their mud homes and be happy with their backward existence."

Well for starters nearly all the Secular muslims left Afghanistan when the Soviets left and when Naj's regime collapsed the last remaining few left, never to return. So, who then are we giving all these billions to?

Yes, to some of the most vicious, tribal, backwards, anti Western Jihadists on the planet, that's who.

And you're happy with that?

We can't give medical insurance to shelf stackers in Walmart - outrageous! - or build better schools back home - the thought of it! - or give back the money in tax breaks - sacrilege! - we have to flush it all down a toilet called Afghanistan.

And the open ended nature of the operation you're suggesting. You're expecting soldiers to be there for decades: centuries even. You can't plan a military campaign like that. My God, Coca Cola will have a better organised strategy when they move into a foreign market, with strict targets, tons of analysis, and with a bottom line that, if reached, means they will move out.

And they're selling fizzy piss FFS.

What is it with Neo Cons? Has the hubris reached such levels that they think that people on the other side of the world have to be impressed with us, and want to become Westerners? In fact it's worse than that. They think that people are so malleable -with no loyalty to a tribe or country- that they can be bought with a new road here, a new school there.

And the underlying self hatred. Somehow it's our duty - out of guilt or shame - to piss our hard earned power away in the Hindu Kush mountians.

And all this arrogance and hubris leads to laziness: Which leads to scenes like US troops having to use sandbags...yes,sandbags....to ward off an IED 155mm shell cos the Neo Cons really really really really really thought that the Iraqis would love us.

Give me a break

Hugh , great posts as per.

@ sheikh your booty

” [Hugh’s argument] …it's that if we do not build up their infrastructure, they won't have the satellite dishes & roads that would make it easier for them to wage jihad.”

As I said, the indoctrination happens not (only) via Al Jazeera and Pallywood etc. but in the mosques and madrasas already.

Why not use nation building, infrastructure, TV to convince others of our ways?
Investment and development aid and western presence has transformed e.g. Gulf Arab states into complacent Americanized pseudo Muslim societies with little interest in Jihad. OK, Shari’a law prevails for sure, but – to paraphrase Tom Friedman’s hypothesis - those Arab countries with McDonalds outlets do not wage war on others.

One reason the US military campaign in Iraq is doomed to fail is that it came far too late. The chance to build a nation was wasted in 1991 when the first intervention was not followed through all the way to Baghdad. The Shia and Kurdish uprisings against Saddam were abandoned. Hopes of Iraqis were disappointed. They have not forgotten.

*If you go to war be prepared to do the job properly.

*If you go to war be prepared to clean up afterwards, and rebuild.

Afghanistan is a different case – a vacuum which we need to attempt to fill with our values.
Investment and development aid may come late to follow up on military intervention (both in Iraq and Afghanistan)– but follow up they must.

@ Hugh

”But generally, you are right. Time to stop all the spreading of American money around. Our own country is a mess, and we need to rebuild it, to "reconstruct" it.”

If your country is in such a mess you might want to consider stop going to wars in the first place, and spend that money for ‘reconstruction’ instead.

"If your country is in such a mess you might want to consider stop going to wars in the first place, and spend that money for ‘reconstruction’ instead."
-- from a posting above

The first thing to stop is all aid --disguised Jizyah -- to Muslim countries. The money saved should go toward the increased expenses of monitoring Muslim populations here and abroad, and toward broadcasting stations that will not be about Britney Spears or what wonderful lives Muslims live in this country, but about the Constitution, and the principles of liberal democracy, and about other relevant topics, such as the history of the development of the idea of a free press and free speech, and the very idea of skepticism and free inquiry, unhindered by any dogma at all.

The second thing to do is to fight this war appropriately, which does not require large-scale invasions of any country. Only in the case of the destruction of enemy weapons systems and projects are such invasions justified. They are certainly not justified to do good, to bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads," in Bush's phrase, and in any case, will never succeed in societies suffused with Islam.

Best to treat the Islamic countries as a closed system, where the aim should be to diminish as much as possible the total transfer of wealth, whether through oil and gas sales, or through misguided foreign aid, from Infidels to Muslims. At the same time, poorer Muslims should be constantly reminded of the huge amounts -- some ten trillion dollars since 1973 alone -- going to the rich Arabs and Muslims, and encouraged to dwemand, from rich fellow members of the umma, their share.

The aim should be to create a situation in which first Infidels,and then Muslims, make the connection between the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim peoples and societies and states, and Islam itself. It is not so hard to do, and it is ony a vast edifice of blague and taqiyya and wilful ignorance that has kept so many Infidels from undrestanding this. And once they do, and are not shy about expressing this understanding at every possible forum, Muslims too -- the more intelligent ones -- will have to admit the justice of the claim. And this will help to demoralize the Camp of Islam, and possibly lead to defections, and even a rethinking, at least by some.

"One reason the US military campaign in Iraq is doomed to fail is that it came far too late. The chance to build a nation was wasted in 1991 when the first intervention was not followed through all the way to Baghdad."

You NeoCons. You're hilarious.

You screw it up to the Nth degree and then knock one of the greatest military victories of the 20th Century.

Mind numbing.

Up is down. Blak is white. Mork is Mindy

"Afghanistan is a different case – a vacuum which we need to attempt to fill with our values."

Your taking the piss right?

The West mans' burden and all that?

And you paraphrase KLA apologist Friedman. That genius.

And the irony. He's yet to talk about his heroes - the KLA - torching the entire Pristina Jewish population out of their homes. Even the Gestapo with the Albanian WW2 Fascists were unable to achieve what NATO and the KLA managed - His other hero in the Balkans was SS recruiter Izetbegovich who wanted the Caliphate back

It's Jedenfrei time folks.

He's the archetypal NeoCon. He supported the Mujahideen in the Balkans and think it's the duty of US soldiers to give their lives - he's exempt of course - so that the foaming Jihadists can become Big Mac munchers and channel hoppers. Meanwhile the US goes bankrupt.

@ ewha1,

”You screw it up to the Nth degree and then knock one of the greatest military victories of the 20th Century.”

Huh? I would say, as far as great military victories go, the Allied victory in WWII and subsequent re-building efforts is the benchmark. Now, would you be so kind to compare that to Iraq 1991 and explain to me how great that victory was?
------------------------------
”And you paraphrase KLA apologist Friedman.[…] He's yet to talk about his heroes - the KLA - torching the entire Pristina Jewish population out of their homes. “

Despite your intention of maligning the argument by dragging it ad hominem, and seemingly into irrelevance, I reply to it because it is clear that the latent parallels to the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq are lost on you:
Sorry I have to break that to you and shatter your self righteous perfect little isolationist world– but war is a dirty business indeed. Sometimes one has to associate with the smaller evil against the greater one. And FYI, in due course several KLA officers were convicted for war crimes by the ICTY.
Conversely, alliances in Iraq have to be strategic and not permanent. Support of Shia and Kurdish uprising in 91 could have had the desired effect, but this was abandoned and a great chance was missed.
--------------------------

@ Hugh,
”The second thing to do is to fight this war appropriately, which does not require large-scale invasions of any country…”
”Best to treat the Islamic countries as a closed system…”
”The aim should be to create a situation in which first Infidels,and then Muslims, make the connection between the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim peoples and societies and states, and Islam itself. It is not so hard to do..”

As I said, I do not agree with your declared aim of isolating the Islamic world, but for the sake of the argument I want to know how you intend to do this in practice.

Apart from suspension of aid, you allude to 4GW, Fourth generation warfare when you say that war should be fought appropriately. I cannot see much evidence of the other ingredients of 4GW, or the intention of applying those accompanying elements of conventional war.
Are you, or are you not against military intervention?
Would not terrorism, i.e. covert operations, qualify under 4GW?
Would not selective foreign aid qualify?
Does your blog qualify as a speck on the spectrum of 4GW counterjihad, or is it merely smashing in open doors?
HOW will you reach those you need to convince? You say it is not hard to do.

I said the same: Invest and develop and corrupt them at their homes! Which is what you rejected?

@ ewha1,

”You screw it up to the Nth degree and then knock one of the greatest military victories of the 20th Century.”

Huh? I would say, as far as great military victories go, the Allied victory in WWII and subsequent re-building efforts is the benchmark. Now, would you be so kind to compare that to Iraq 1991 and explain to me how great that victory was?
------------------------------
”And you paraphrase KLA apologist Friedman.[…] He's yet to talk about his heroes - the KLA - torching the entire Pristina Jewish population out of their homes. “

Despite your intention of maligning the argument by dragging it ad hominem, and seemingly into irrelevance, I reply to it because it is clear that the latent parallels to the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq are lost on you:
Sorry I have to break that to you and shatter your self righteous perfect little isolationist world– but war is a dirty business indeed. Sometimes one has to associate with the smaller evil against the greater one. And FYI, in due course several KLA officers were convicted for war crimes by the ICTY.
Conversely, alliances in Iraq have to be strategic and not permanent. Support of Shia and Kurdish uprising in 91 could have had the desired effect, but this was abandoned and a great chance was missed.
--------------------------

@ Hugh,
”The second thing to do is to fight this war appropriately, which does not require large-scale invasions of any country…”
”Best to treat the Islamic countries as a closed system…”
”The aim should be to create a situation in which first Infidels,and then Muslims, make the connection between the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim peoples and societies and states, and Islam itself. It is not so hard to do..”

As I said, I do not agree with your declared aim of isolating the Islamic world, but for the sake of the argument I want to know how you intend to do this in practice.

Apart from suspension of aid, you allude to 4GW, Fourth generation warfare when you say that war should be fought appropriately. I cannot see much evidence of the other ingredients of 4GW, or the intention of applying those accompanying elements of conventional war.
Are you, or are you not against military intervention?
Would not terrorism, i.e. covert operations, qualify under 4GW?
Would not selective foreign aid qualify?
Does your blog qualify as a speck on the spectrum of 4GW counterjihad, or is it merely smashing in open doors?
HOW will you reach those you need to convince? You say it is not hard to do.

I said the same: Invest and develop and corrupt them at their homes! Which is what you rejected?

Nick"Sorry I have to break that to you and shatter your self righteous perfect little isolationist world"

Ooh that hurt. Ouch the pain. A NeoCon calling others "self righteous". Lovely.

"war is a dirty business indeed"

No shit Sherlock. Better write that down. You got that from a Xmas cracker didn't you.

"Sometimes one has to associate with the smaller evil against the greater one. And FYI, in due course several KLA officers were convicted for war crimes by the ICTY."

The Secular muslims supported the Serbs in Bosnia while you plumped for Izetbegovich. Nice choice. An unrepentent SS recruiter. Way to go Mr Morality. That must take genius to somehow back a guy who was buried in a shaheed with all his beloved Mujahideen fallen.

So Slobo was a bigger Evil than the KLA was he?
So why did all the minorities support Slobo against the KLA in Kosovo? You don't seem to care that your heroes decimated the Jewish population of Kosovo do you? Why is that? Not even croc tears.

Also Israel didn't seem to think that the Serbs were a worse Evil fort they poured in guns and intel into both the VRS and the Yugo army.

"Support of Shia and Kurdish uprising in 91 could have had the desired effect, but this was abandoned and a great chance was missed."

Disired effect? What desired effect?

Let's be honest , you just can't stand it that a great Paleo Con like Bush Senior got it so right in 91 and the NeoCons got it so utterly friggin' wrong in 03.

Hugh -
What about building secular schools in Afganistan? What are your thoughts about giving Muslim children the tools to question the "priests" of Islam? Is ignorance the father of fundamentalism? Does it weaken our position or does it strengthen it? The Taliban now attacks teachers, schools and students. If they fear education so much, does it make sense for us to promote it?
-Tanstaafl