fair enough, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I realize that although we have different perspectives, at least it's good to know that ultimately, we share a common goal.
I want to conclude my point, though, that I really think Obama is displaying how naive he is in foreign policy. If he wants to distinguish himself from the hawkish Republicans and President Bush, that's fine...if that's what it takes to get himself elected. But please don't tell me that by sitting down and talking will result in peace talks, Mr. Senator.
If it was that simple, we could have avoided every war imaginable. Nobody with a common sense really want or enjoy warfare. Soldiers, they want to avoid war if they can help it. But the fact of the matter is, war is how human beings settle differences, when diplomacy doesn't work. And if Obama thinks he'll be the first guy in history of mankind, who can somehow make diplomacy seem like a piece of cake and avoid war left and right, then he is being naively optimistic.
I really wish he'd reconsider....but that is highly unlikely. There's no doubt in my mind that if he becomes president, he'll soon realize this. It will come with experience...he'll learn how the world really works, and that there is no easy solutions.
And just because I believe in the notion that we should not make any attempts at negotiation unless there are preconditions, this does not necessarily mean I'm a belligerent and hawkish type who wants to invade every single country that disagrees with us.
No....far from the truth. If we can avoid war, sweet. But at the same time, I want my President not to capitulate and give up power too easily, to risk emboldening and strengthening the enemy. If there is a negotiation taking place, I want it to be fair, and not to our expense. That is not belligerent...it just means I prefer caution over lenience.
To illustrate my point one last time, why showing "weakness", especially to Middle Easterners, is a very bad idea, I will give two examples.
[1] Culturally, Midde Easterners value "strength" and "trustworthiness" as very significant values. Before Islam, the settlers of the arid Middle East heavily guarded "water" as a matter of life and death, and survival. If there's anyone in the community who is "weak" or "untrustworthy", that person is considered "inferior" and puts the entire community at risk from water-theft-invaders. Thus, if you are "weak" or "untrustworthy", you are less respected, and you needed to be weeded out. You don't belong.
And when Islam was introduced in the region, it took on a slightly altered meaning. To protect the faith, you needed to show strength and trustworthiness (in other words, being truthful and honest) -- hence jihad. If you are weak, then you are regarded as either a "tool" of the enemy, or a "usurper" of the faith. That's why corrupt leaders are seen in a very low esteem in the Middle East, and most times, they'd prefer a religious leader, regardless of their fanaticism, vs. a leader who is corrupt and impious, because the latter is seen as weak and also untrustworthy.
In the same manner, in war, Middle Easterners respect even their enemies when they are "strong". You attempt a "cease-fire" if you cannot defeat the enemy. But once you sense a "weakness" in the opponent, not only do you lose respect for that enemy, but you also break that cease-fire and try to defeat that opponent.
Strength deters the enemy, as well a gain in respect.
Weakness emboldens the enemy, and you've lost respect.
[2]in 1978, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and for almost a decade, they unsuccessfully tried to export Communism in that country but was thwarted by the mujahideen resistance movement, in which Osama bin Laden was a key player in the whole operation. USA assisted the mujahideen........and this was normal foreign policy back then....our goal was to prevent Communist expansion.
Osama bin Laden obviously realized that the Soviet Union was weak, because it was only a short period after their expulsion from Afghanistan that the empire fell, in 1991.
Osama bin Laden thought, that by defeating one superpower, that he can also defeat the USA, the last remaining superpower. Because the Soviet Union showed signs of weakness, he was able to succeed and conquer the Soviets, so to speak, and this, without a doubt, emboldened him. And it gave him the courage to threaten the USA, and indeed, he did that during 9/11.
Because we haven't been attacked ever since, think of this as a relative "cease-fire". But once Osama bin Laden notice a sign of "weakness", this will only embolden him, and he might attack again.
Weakness is a sign of inferiority especially in Middle Eastern culture, and we cannot afford to convey to them our weaknesses...only strengths.
Notice how Ahmadenejad uses provocative language against his opponents, namely the USA and Israel. He threatens to "wipe out" Israel.
Such provocative language, like I said, to Middle Easterners, is culturally regarded as valuable and respectable traits. Imagine if Ahmadenejad suddenly changed his tone, to a more peaceful and less belligerent one, which is a sign of "weakness", or "capitulation", which is so despicable and an unacceptable Middle Easterner behavior.
When Egyptian President Anwar Sadat renounced his belligerency towards Israel and signed a peace treaty in 1978, guess what.....the radical Muslim Brotherhood, who perceived of their President as having "capitulated", assassinated him.
The reason I emphasize "weakness" relative to Middle Eastern foreign policy, is because I've studied Middle Eastern culture. We shouldn't assume they'll be more understanding towards us, once we show them that we are willing to talk with them. That doesn't necessarily produce favorable results.
Middle Easterners deal with things via a set of "truces" and cease-fire agreements. Capitulating is such a taboo notion for them, that it's despicable, and proves your inferiority. We are better off if we show our toughness, but at the same time, be safely unprovocative so as not to anger them. This is the only diplomatic options we have in terms of the Middle East.
The key is, that we keep them in check, but at the same time, not scare them off to the point that they'll resort to war. That's how Middle Eastern foreign policy has worked, as early as Muhammad, and even preceding him. Checks and balance to power. Strength only, weakness unacceptable.
The only way the Middle East will stop being a haven for Islamo-fascism is to cut off their source of cash, and to do that we need to get off oil. Without funds, these regimes will have difficulty buying and developing weapons or maintaining power, which will lead to an eventual uprising by the people.
Well, this is a good point, although I somewhat disagree with it. It is true that we have to get to the heart of their power, and resource is part of it....oil money.
But in my view, that isn't the main problem. What you are essentially suggesting is a policy similar to the Cuba embargo, and we've tried something similar to this in the Middle East called the Iraq embargo/sanctions, and it angered a lot of Middle Easterners, and in fact Osama bin Laden uses this as part of his anti-American rhetoric.
And it wasn't necessarily successful of overthrowing Saddam either, which was the idea behind the embargo. What actually happened is that Saddam seized all the assets and money all for himself, which in addition to the embargo, further deprived the general population as a result of Saddam's seizing of these wealth. Embargos against totalitarian regimes have proved to be ineffective, and in fact counterproductive, which causes more harm than good. Depriving the Middle East of oil wealth, I think will yield similar results.
I truly want the Middle Easterners to prosper and experience freedom, like we do. And depriving them of any further wealth than necessary is something I take very seriously.
Oil has a double edged sword for Middle Easterners. On the one hand, it have improved their economy and has alleviated poverty. On the other hand, it has been a source of conflict and political instability, because with oil, there is money, and thus power. One example is Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait on the pretext that Kuwait is a province of Iraq. In reality, Kuwait is a very rich oil country, and the only reason why it hasn't been conquered by neighboring countries is because we have made a defense treaty agreement to protect Kuwait from bullying countries such as Iraq.
The problem in most Middle East nations is that power reside in the hands of the elite, and thus there is a widening gap between the rich and poor, and those who have power and powerless. The elites have manipulated the environment in such a way that they are able to maintain their hold on power, either by using
military force or
persuasion. The tools that is most often useful for persuading followers is by adopting radical religious ideologies, often militant in nature. A great example of this is when the al-Saud tribe, in the late 1700s, made a pact with a radical preacher al-Wahhab. With their coalition, al-Wahhab's ideology was able to attract many followers, and the military arm of this coalition was further provided by the al-Saud family, and together both forces were able to conquer the Saudi peninsula (although it took them three attempts to succeed in this).
This ideology, btw, is also known as Wahhabism.....the religion that mostly influenced Osama bin Laden in his upbringing.
So what we need to attack, I think, is to introduce to the people what it is actually like, when they experience
true freedom. Most of the people of Iran, for example, are genuinely eager to gain more freedom and for their country to democratize. They are increasingly discontented with the way the religious elites of that country has been monopolizing government, and it has gotten worse when a fanatical President, Ahmadenajad, was put in office (he's actually an unpopular President).
What we need to do is figure out a way to introduce freedom and democracy, in a way that is palatable to Middle Eastern sensibilities. For example, when the Spaniards introduced Catholicism to the Natives, the adherence of the Natives to idolatry (because they were previously polytheistic), is partly the reason why in some Latin American cultures, there is more emphasis on the Virgin Mary, the infant Jesus, etc.....as opposed to the prescribed worship of only God. So the Catholic priests attracted more followers by making Catholicism less rigid on the issue of God-only worship, which made the religion more palatable to the Natives. The same is true with our notions of freedom and democracy. Middle Easterners are cautious about adopting democratic concepts and modernity, in part because they feel threatened of what it will do to their religion. But look at Turkey.....they have a nearly democratic government, but at the same time, they are devoutly religious. This, I think, is the message we need to send. That Democracy and Religion can coexist, and when people actually get to experience freedom, then it will be the end of totalitarian thinking regimes and power-manipulating terrorists and radical Islamic ideologies. Rather than impoverishing the Middle Eastern regimes via oil, I don't think that's such a good idea. Oil can be good for them.........but you're absolutely right....we have grown way too dependent on foreign oil, and that's bad for us.
I wish that our President is more knowledgeable about the Middle East. Bush sucked at this initially....he knew very little about the Middle East at the beginning, but he slowly learned bit by bit through experience. We cannot afford to repeat that again. The Middle East is very complex, and simplistic solutions will not cut it. I'm so turned off by Obama right now, because of this issue. And I'm almost positive he'll be the guy, and there's nothing I can do but to accept him eventually.
