[lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:15:12 -0800
Julie,
A big help in understanding the issues would be to read Thomas Barnett's The
Pentagon's New Map. But he has several articles and some interviews that
could give you an idea of what he is talking about. He uses the terms
"Integrated Core" to represent not only Western Liberal Democracies but the
rest of the successful nations. He doesn't use a term like Radical Islam or
Militant Islam. He takes a broader view and refers to the "Non-Integrated
Gap." He essentially takes Fukuyama's theory and develops a plan for
facilitating "non-Integrated-gap" nations moving into the "Integrated Core."
Barnett is very accessible. He's written a lot of articles and done a lot
of interviews. This one for example:
http://www.booktv.org/ram/afterwords/1005/arc_btv102905_4.ram
Lawrence
_____
From: Lawrence Helm [mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:52 PM
To: 'lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
Think of it this way, "war on terror" was a dumb term. People have been
looking for better terms ever since. Not even Bush uses it any more. When
I first began studying I encountered several terms and they all included
slightly different threats. There was no way our "war" could be against the
perpetrators of 9/11. They were a manifestation of the problem, and example
of it and not the entire problem. There were Rogue States and para-military
organizations garnering support from Rogue-States or operating independently
of them.
To simplify matters some of us now group the enemy under a rubric like
"Islamic Militantism." Others prefer the term Jihadist but these people are
inclined to think almost anyone innocent until someone gets killed. That's
taking a litigious approach rather than a military one. Those who use
"Islamic Militantism" or "Militant Islam" or "Radical Islam" are looking at
all of Islam and considering those agencies whether national, or
para-military who are representing a threat to the Free World, to allies of
ours or to ourselves. Note for example that at the present time, the chief
threat is not a para-military organization but a Rogue Nation, Iran.
You can't make up terms in advance and insist on them if they don't match
reality or if reality moves out from under them. For example, the term
"Islamism" was very popular amongst writers for awhile and then a number of
people identified themselves a "moderate Islamists," meaning they believed
everything the Jihadist-Islamists believed except for the violence.
This isn't about me. I'm not trying to have anything any which way. I'm
reading and studying trying to keep on top of what's happening. "War
against Terror" was Bush's inadequate term and even he has given it up. But
note that he never said his war against terror was just against the
perpetrators who were after all dead. It was against any who supported the
militant point of view.
Paul Berman the Liberal was the one who thought we ought to have declared
war against Saddam Hussein under the Clinton administration because he was
all of those attributes. We went to war against him because he was a major
player in the Militant Islamic war against the West. You need to read about
him to see what his desires were, what steps he took, what steps he was
taking to regain his independence from the sanctions, what he hoped to do
after the sanctions were removed. He was as Thomas Barnett said the
"Biggest Baddest actor in the region." Getting rid of him removed a major
hostile force in the Militant Islamic camp and it was hoped that a "new
order" would take away from the active militants and contribute to the
support of a more moderate approach to the free world.
As to their being bigger fish in the sea than Saddam, that wasn't true.
There was just Iraq and Iran that were big fish. Libya and Pakistan caved
in to a little State Department intimidation.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 7:35 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
My mistake. I apparently misunderstood you, Lawrence, to suggest that the
war in Iraq was inextricably linked to the War on Terror and a prevention of
another 9/11 episode. Once more (in this revolving door of opinions and
statements), if the U.S. declared war in Iraq because Hussein was a horrible
tyrannical dictator, there are bigger fish in the sea. You just can't have
it both ways. The war in Iraq is because either Hussein was critical to the
War on Terror or because he was a profoundly bad guy. Or...the war in Iraq
is because Hussein was critical to the War on Terror (i.e. contributed to
9/11, allied with Bin Ladin in theory/ideology if not in practice), and was
a profoundly bad guy.
I'm not one to hold Aristotelian rules as unbreakable, but you, sir, are I
think.
Julie Krueger
========Original Message========
Subj:
[lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
Date:
1/12/2007 9:45:34 A.M. Central Standard Time
From:
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To:
lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent on:
Julie, in order to make your statement true, you have to assume Ursula
intended an argument something along the lines of the following:
Saddam should have been deposed if and only if he was an Islamic Militant
Saddam was not an Islamic Militant
Therefore Saddam should not be deposed.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:56 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
So "Hussein had nothing to do with Militant Islam" [Statement made by
Ursula] is a false premise?
Julie Krueger
========Original Message========
Subj:
[lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
Date:
1/11/2007 7:08:02 P.M. Central Standard Time
From:
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To:
lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent on:
Sure. You need to understand that I made the first statement and Ursula
made the second one. Sere bracketed names indicating who made which
statement. I hope that helps.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:58 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
Okay, 'scuse please. Will someone apply formal logic to this? It really
should come from someone well-versed in the current world of philo....
"Our war is against Militant Islam" [Statement made by Lawrence]
"Hussein had nothing to do with Militant Islam" [Statement made by Ursula]
"Therefore attacking Hussein is part of the war on Militant Islam"
Julie Krueger
deciding to just watch tv -- what the hell
========Original Message========
Subj:
[lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
Date:
1/11/2007 5:04:15 P.M. Central Standard Time
From:
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To:
lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent on:
Just how many times do you have to be told that our war is against Militant
Islam?
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ursula Stange
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 2:53 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
Just how many times do you have to be told that Saddam Hussein had
nothing to do with 9/11 or with Militant Islam? This makes no moral
difference to you?
Ursula
Lawrence Helm wrote:
> ...and to use a quote from Thomas Barnett, kindly provided to us by
> Brian, "We're mad as hell after 9/11, we're not going to take it
> anymore, and we're going to go in and lay a big bang on this part of
> the world, try to shake things up by taking down the biggest, baddest
> actor in the region, and establishing the possibility of a new order."
> This by the way is very much in keeping with the Islamic sense of
> honor (see /Honor, a History, /by James Bowman).
>
> Lawrence
>
>
Other related posts:
