[lit-ideas] Re: What should we call this war?
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 07:13:46 -0800
The problem is with Islamists who use terror as a means of asymmetric
warfare. Islamists don't exist outside of nations. We can put pressure on
nations to keep their Islamists under control. Many nations are already
doing this, or attempting to. The nations in the Middle East that are the
prime staging ground for Islamist activists are Iran, Syria, Pakistan and
Lebanon. As we reduce the number of nations actively hostile toward the
West, more Islamist activities will be brought under control.
Iran is the most hostile at the present time. They insist on doing whatever
they like. Syria is hostile but pretends to be cooperative. Pakistan is
cooperative at the Governmental level but can?t control their hinterland.
Lebanon has officially moved into the pro-West camp but has yet to make a
dent in the Islamists in South Lebanon.
We are making progress. Nations which were hostile and staging grounds for
Islamists were Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are no longer nations Islamists
feel comfortable in. These nations are officially out of the hostile
category and Islamist activity in these nations has been much reduced and
where it exists it must do so in hiding.
The major staging grounds for 9/11 were probably Iran and Germany. Iran
continues to be a problem, but Germany and other European nations are
becoming less tolerant of their Islamists.
Samuel P. Huntington?s argued that we will continue to feel as though there
is no nation to hold accountable until the Middle East gets a Core State.
The U.S. can apply a lot of pressure on Middle Eastern nations to control
their Islamists, and we are getting cooperation, but we eventually need a
Middle Eastern nation to replace us.
Consider Condoleezza Rice?s visit to Lebanon yesterday. She did the sort of
thing a representative from the Middle Eastern Core State (when it exists)
will do: Rice made a ?surprise? visit to Beirut yesterday. She snubbed
Emile Lahoud, the Pro-Syrian president of Lebanon. ?I?ve already met him,?
Rice said.
?Rice?s stated purpose,? for the visit, according to the New York Times News
Service, was to show ?support for the Lebanese people and the Lebanese
government as they continue to recover their sovereignty.?.
?She met with every manner of political leader here ? Christian, Muslim and
Druze ? in a country long riven by religious rivalry and warfare. But the
new great divide, as the State Department sees it, is between the Lebanese
politicians who supported Syria during its long occupation of Lebanon and
those who did not.
?The assassination early last year of Rafik Hariri, the popular anti-Syrian
politician, sparked an uprising of resentment that helped force Syria to
withdraw its troops from Lebanon. An election a few months later put Fouad
Siniora, a protégé of Hariri, into the prime minister?s office. But Lahoud
lingers on, his term extended by a constitutional amendment Syria forced
through the Lebanese Parliament.
?. . . Parliament is now debating a recall initiative that could remove
Lahoud from power. Asked her view of that possibility during a news
conference with Siniora, Rice responded that the decision was ?up to the
Lebanese people.? But for many Lebanese, her decision not to see Lahoud
during her visit probably spoke louder than words.
?Lebanon has so long been controlled by foreign powers that many Lebanese
still seem inclined to look outside for guidance. Several Lebanese
journalists asked Rice whom the United States supported to be the next
president of Lebanon and seemed unconvinced by her answer that it was not
for her to say.
?Siniora was clearly grateful for the visit, and Rice took pains to place no
real pressure on his government to deal with an important lingering problem,
the disarming of the Hezbollah militia that controls southern Lebanon. More
than one United Nations resolution over the past two years has called on the
Lebanese government to disband Hezbollah and extend its authority across the
entire country. But Hezbollah remains the de facto ruler of the south.?
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of John McCreery
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 5:58 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: What should we call this war?
On 2/24/06, Eric <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The central contradiction of our times: half-in /
> half-out of globalism.
>
A shrewd observation. On this one I have to agree with Eric. Even if
some transnational corporations are bigger and, yes, more powerful
than many nations, nations still exist and, barring the creation of a
world government, will continue to exercise the monopoly on legitimate
use of force that is the sine qua non of sovereignty.
Interesting corollary: One of the problems with the "war" on terror is
that since terrorists are not accepted as sovereign peers of any
nation there is no terrorist authority with whom it is possible to
negotiate an end to terrorism or, if we win the "war" sign a binding
treaty.
--
John McCreery
Other related posts: