Friction between the West and Islam - How to fix?
 

I have to first congratulate this forum for being one of the most entertaining and civil forums I've lurked in. As a long time FOF fan, I've originally visited this site for its FOF information but I now visit more for the diverse topics and points of view.

Here's my first attempt to start a group discussion.

There's been threads discussing the latest West vs Islam (and the clash of civilizations, okay so I'm a Civ fan also) and the why's but I would like to ask this forum their thoughts on HOW to resolve this (seemingly continuous) friction, or even if its possible.

Here's my perspective. I used to believe if we won over the Muslim moderates, they will ultimately control the fringe radicals. I don't believe this anymore.

(1) I suspect muslims that consider themselves moderates would appear pretty radical to me.

(2) The polls seems to indicate a large majority of Muslims in all Muslim countries hate the US, and probably to a lesser degree the West in general.

(3) There seems to be a lack of will/want of Muslim governments and religious authorities to reconcile their population with the West.

(4) The Iraq war and establishing democracy to encourage changes is an interesting experiment but the results do not look promising.

(5) I suspect (no hard evidence) that the majority of the Muslim population are not well educated.

I have my own thoughts on how to correct this problem but would like to hear from this group first. Assuming you are in a position to influence US policy and your goal is for the best interest of the US, how would you REALISTICALLY proceed with correcting this problem?

is anyone else's troll-dar going off?

Listen to Pat Buchanan. Quit being the world's policeman. Understand, ultimately, that Muslims want to rule an Islamic World and let the smaller countries that love to hammer the U.S. about wanting to 'control' international relations learn that lesson the hard way. Then let them come up with solutions to fix the problem. We get to balance our own budget, correct our trade deficits and sit in the back of the room for awhile shooting spit-wads at other countries. Japan and South Korea would have to stop freeloading on our defense to start with, and start spending all that government money they funnel into R and D for their businesses that compete with us into defense.http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48648

It is now....

Well, I know I don't have the answer.

took me a long time to figure out that "quite" was "quit" that had me messed up.....not complaining as im the worst typer on the boards (just ask duckman) but that one got me.

Fixed it, don't usually get that one wrong...read the article though. Posted after the opinion.

It may be a bit early to reach this conclusion. It may well prove to be a miss, but I don't think a true success in this regard would be evident by now under many scenarios.

Lighthousekeep and Sabotai,

I apologize if my post seems trollish to you.

Instead of posting about why things happen, I wanted a (hopefully, comprehensive) thread on ideas on how to reconcile/fix the issue. I honestly find the HOW much more interesting than the WHY.

One thing that I think needs to be done is to, basically, double and triple our bet in Iraq. Increase prosecution of terrorists/criminals, and develop the best educational and medical facilities in the region. In other words, make Iraq the most civilized place in the region, the country that all Arabs want to live in. I don't know if that is possible or would have the intended consequence, but I think it's our best move.

Yeah, except for two news items that I ran across yesterday and today 1. USA TODAY reports that clinics cannot be built according to plan because its become too dangerous and 2. One of the cable news shows (Fox or CNN maybe) had a story on 900 new Iraqi soldiers going south for "duty." After 1 week they were down to 400 (there is no penalty for desertion in the Iraqi forces) and more desertions were expected after payday. So your plan has some big and continuing holes in it.

In answer to the question in the title: you begin by dropping this ludicrous politically correct idea that everything that is wrong with Islam is islamist.

Actually, I wasn't talking about you. :p

(I was refering to the person how posted before me)

Mac Howard,

As in any discussion by writing/emails, what you infer may not be what I said (or mean to say). The subtleties in 'parsing' my text is probably better left to a face-to-face discussion.

Please take my question on its own merit, ignore the perceived bias. How would you resolve/lessen this conflict?

Gee, and I thought being a 'troll' meant that you ignored the topic in order to launch personal attacks on someone you didn't like. Kinda like, well...

*sigh*

It was just a joke....

Gee, and I thought jokes were, you know, funny

I don't think anybody really has any ideas other than what's happening right now with western (US/UK) intervention. The US effort in Iraq and Afghanistan seem a worthy effort to piggyback on, however. If democracy can hold in those two nations (I looks like they may right now) then the people of those two nations will start to get a lot more information and a lot more exposure to the west than they are used to.

That'll have it's ups and downs, but to me, desegregation should be the key mission of the human race. So bringing the west to Iraq and Afghanistan is something I consider a noble and neccessary effort. The question that makes this endeavour risky is, "Are these people ready for desegregation?"

In 2001, the Middle Eastern segregation had it's own Berlin Wall. It stretched from Pakistan to Algeria. The transport for that message rode on the coat-tails of terror groups. Kings and dictators alike either appeased these mullah's, or faced overthrow by the mullah's large support base.

But this uninterupted chain is no more. Afghanistan and Iraq splits Pakistan off on it's own. Iran off on it's own. And Syria nearly off on it's own.

And as long as Iraq and Afghanistan can succeed to the point where democracy becomes self-regenerating in their own flavor of democracy (and with no US support) their own sphere's of influence will push back against the aniquated systems of hard-liner theocratic rule.

Of course, a democratic middle east would present it's own challenges, but I think economic rivals are better than ideological rivals. At least in today's global world.

It's all a bit risky, but right now, success seems to have huge rewards, while failure seems to return us to where we were in 2001. It's worth the effort in my opinion.

I laughed. :p

We ignore creeping multipolarity at our peril. The US is of course currently the world's dominant power but will face challengers in the coming century. Those challengers are unlikely to come from the Middle East. Already in this past year China and Russia have signed a strategic cooperation pact whose aim is to place a check on American strategic interests. The Euro has emerged as a legitimate competitor to the US Dollar as a preferred global currency.

I'm not saying that the US policies toward Middle East are a sideshow, but the expense in political, economic, and military capital they require are giving potential competitors such as Russia and China an opportunity to play catchup in terms of their own power capacity building. Relations are not entirely competitive now, but how we choose to deal with these countries now will determine whether our relations will be cooperative or competitive. To the short-sighted this may not matter much now, but this may turn out to be very expensive indeed, especially if and when the Treaty of Moscow expires in 2012.

My apologies, Edward64, I wasn't referring specifically to your question but to the tendancy of our western world, whenever we perceive actions in the Islamic world that impinge negatively on ourselves, to argue that it is extreme Islam that is the problem. Often the problem is Islam itself and this will not be resolved until that is admitted and the real problem tackled. You cannot solve problems if you refuse to acknowledge the real cause.

As for solving that specific problem, I wouldn't care to say. I suspect the Islamic world would argue that a culture that elevates 'service to God" above "individual human rights" does not need 'solving".

But I would suggest that our reliance on oil is why the problem is so acute for us and I'm disappointed that too little effort is being made to reduce that quickly. Had we spent the 400 billion dollars spent on Afghanistan and Iraq on the development of alternative fuels we may well have been able to allow the Islamic world to develop at its own pace and have worried little about what the likes of bin laden, Iran etc thought about us.

It's not too late to do somthing about that even now particularly as the developments in China, India etc are making that reliance ever more acute each succeeding day, but I don't yet see it. Perhaps with a president less involved in the oil industry the move will eventually come :rolleyes:

But that's a long term solution and, as some have suggested elsewhere, the middle east may not be the worst problem for us in years to come.

Klingerware. I think your point is 'be also concerned about West relations vs Russia/China/India' and not just 'West relations vs Muslim countries'. As a IT professional, I am aware of the current and looming economic competition. I have resigned myself that this is a natural evolution of the competitive forces freed up with growing capitalism in China/India (and Russia).

I tend to believe though this relationship is more stable/rational/predicatable as it is driven primarily by economic forces. The US/West relationship with Muslim countries seems more unpredicatable and prone to escalation (I think its because Religion seems to play a major role). In my mind, this is the more dangerous of the two.

Dutch. I agree with you that our Iraq/Afghanistan war has potential for huge rewards (ex. no, not thinking about cheap oil). I believe we will succeed in giving Iraq their own 'flavor of democracry'. However, as in Palestine, I'm not liking the 'flavor of democracy' they have chosen so far. I am hoping my pessimism will prove wrong.

St Cronin. I do think making Iraq the envy of the Arab world was GB goal. It will be interesting to read the history books 20-30 years from now if this was accomplished.

I laughed at Sabotai's post as well. I also didn't think the original post was in any way, shape, or form trollish, but a reasonable attempt to start discussion.

A few years ago I would have laughed my head off at the absurdity of it, but I actually agree on many thigs with Pat Buchannan...

As far as democracy in Iraq is concerned, great. Thousands of Americans die so that we can build a democracy in the middle east. If we can ever harness the power of these sacrificed Americans spinning in their graves when Al-Qaeda is democratically elected to power we can finally kick our addiction to foreign oil!

I hope we do build excellent schools in Iraq too. And an excellent medical system so that all Iraqis have medical care. I wish we were able to discuss correcting these problems in our own nation without it being called socialism. Hell, maybe we can build a good, efficient public transit system there while we're at it.

...I agree 100% with Bubba.

Our government needs to do what's best for it's citizens. IMO, this administration has severly overstepped it's bounds.

Sidenote: Bubba, I thought you supported this (Iraq)? Just want some clarification.

C'mon, kids, play nice :D

The first poster- I don't know how he looked like a troll. Seemed like an honest post.

Bubba's had some very thoughtful posts

No need to get fussy- this is a good thread idea and good thread.

SI

It's sort of crazy to think about how this country only came to be because the settlers believed that they had the right and ability to handle things on their own. Now, we're trying to tell people on different wavelengths what to do and what to think.

Let Israel do it's thing. If it can handle itself, then that's cool. What if Israel gets demolished? That's cool, too. You can only be a parent for so long. You can't kill yourself trying to raise something that is old enough to think for itself.

The world of Islam isn't ready to drink Coke, eat McDonald's, and play baseball. Helping to designate borders is places we have nothing to do with is a mistake. If that piece of shit land is worth fighting for to them, then let them fight. Muslims will not buy what we're selling until we have something they are interested in. It's not a religion issue. Muslims don't say "Canada is the Great Satan", or "Australia's infidels must die"

I don't see why America is holding onto Israel. Let them duke it out.

The current Muslim-Non-Muslim tension can be rapidly solved like every other problem mankind has ever faced - with the overwhelming use of force. Dead men do NOT continue to terrorize their neighbors. The US has used nukes before and I have no doubt that we will use them again when it suits our geopolitical goals. When the Muslim threat reaches a critical point of irritation they will be dealt with in a swift and proper manner.

wow.

A critical point of irritation? You want to nuke an area because they irk you a little? Slightly piss you off? God help us if you get really annoyed... :rolleyes:

Mac Howard. I agree our reliance on oil is a big liability in how we act/react to events in oil regions/countries (many of them Muslim countries). As a side note from this topic, I saw some TV special that investigated the US and European car companies and what fuel efficient/alternative cars they had coming through the pipeline in the next 20 years ... I was somewhat relieved to see a concentrated push. Ex. I think the automotive industry sees the future market and they know they have to produce those alternatives soon.

Eaglesfan27, Sterlingice. Thank you.

Bubba Wheels, rexallllsc, M Go Blue. Duly noted as isolationists. GB ran on a platform of not being the world's policeman and failed on this issue ... do you believe the PB alternative is realistic considering real-world relationships and pressures? Ex. Rawanda, Somalia, Haiti. The execution may have been flawed but I think the intent was good.

RadioFriendlyUnitShifter. I suspect this issue is beyond Israel. Even if Israel and the Palestinians were to make peace, I think the US/West and Islam tensions will still be present as other 'big issues' will come to the forefront.

Kobeck, Jari. If the situation in Iran or N. Korea ever got to the point where we were threatened with Nukes and controntation seemed inevitable (my definition of a "critical point"), I would tend to side with Kobeck and lets do a first strike. Kobeck, your post seems to indicate you think this confrontation is the inevitable end result, is this correct?

I agree with this 100%. Israel is, roughly speaking, a western state located in the middle east, and the conflict there is a proxy conflict, but were Israel to go away, the conflict would still exist. There would just be fewer headlines to remind us.

When Bush ran initially he talked about not nation-building and using intervention only in the interests of the U.S. along with having a clear exit strategy BEFORE we went in.

Buchanan contends in his book Where the Right Went Wrong that after 9-11 the neo-cons have taken control of U.S. foreign policy. This does appear to me to be the case. As far as Iraq, it sure does look like the reasons that the U.S. used for intervening in the first place have changed dramatically. I don't fault Bush for the faulty intelligence he may have gotten and don't consider him a 'liar' (the left pushes this as a strategy to their own peril) but to me history and results so far seem to dictate a need for a change-in-course.

You are dealing with a religion that believes all must convert to Islam or die. The west must get beyond their PC ideology of saying everyone’s belief is equal and address that “or die” tenet. If there truly are Muslims that are peaceful, then they should separate from Islam into a separate division and denounce the extremists.

Today the so called peaceful Muslims and their religious leaders do not denounce the extremists and they often financially support them. Today some westerners believe the entire religion is bent upon the “convert or die” principle and whether it is true or not, perception becomes reality.

Again, until the control of Islam is diverted from the radical hate mongers that will kill no matter what, they are an enemy and should be treated like one. Don’t play games with the people who remain and say they are peaceful. If they are, they will separate themselves from the hate mongers.

How do you fix it? Don’t give aid or any other assistance to the Islamic countries (oil presents a problem here) and defend yourself against attaches of terrorism. Call all Muslims out who claim they are peaceful and force them to either act accordingly with their direct actions and support or treat them like the hate mongers. If they split and differentiate themselves from the extremist in a way that can be measured, then accept them into the fold. Edward, to your point above, you have to clearly separate the extremist from the moderate, so they cannot hide. Just be ready to address the many “moderates” that are silently helping the extremists. They too are extremists.

The result, peaceful Muslims create a new sect that is proven to be unassociated with the violent extremists. The others that continue terrorist attacks are defeated by military force.

RadioFriednlyUnitShifter, I seriously doubt improving education in the Mid East is going to do much to solve the problem. Many of the extremist leaders and terrorist are very well educated by western schools. Hmm, maybe western schools are part of the problem, see my point above about dumping the PC ideology about everyone’s belief is equal. I know we can do it because we rightfully don’t accept the belief’s of the KKK or Neo Nazi groups as equal.

Nuclear weapons are mainly seen as a deterrent weapon by policy and most military strategists. They are near-useless as an offensive weapon once your potential opponent develops 2nd strike capability or if they have allies who do.

My main point is that the US should take a macro, long-term view with regards to its foreign policy. I am not saying that the US relationship with the Middle East is unimportant, but I think the US can do a better job of assessing the long-term implications of its policy decisions. I am also not saying the current US policies are "right" or "wrong", but whatever decision is made there will be consequences. Policy-makers should be doing a cost-benefit analysis of policy consequences. For example, what are the implications of the military and political costs we are expending on the Iraq and Terror policies for our future political and economic competitiveness down the road? Maybe our current policies will be worth the costs, maybe not. Maybe there will be another 90s-style economic expansion that will render the economic stagnation worry moot, maybe not. It is of course difficult to peer into the future, but it is still useful to be more mindful of long-term consequences--it is something that with which we don't seem to do very well.

Do you have any links to that? I have never heard that Islam wanted all non-Muslims killed.

Many of the Western countries are dependant on foreign sources of energy.
Many of the Western countries' manufactured products are now foreign-made (e.g. China).

If they ever get together and start to squeeze the Western countries, they have a lot of leverage.

Dutch, I think this is the first time I've seen you lay out your position in such a clear and lucid manner from first principles. Of course, I do disagree with you conclusions and the assumptions/theories you conclusions rest upon, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate you posting this.

I'm kindof depressed that these days I find myself going "man, I miss the good ol' days of taxes/big govt Democrats vs no taxes/little govt Republicans" instead of the "extreme executive powers Republicans and we-don't-like-you-ninny's Democrats".

SI

There's a big problem with this plan, tho. You're going to need the moderates to be swayed over to the peaceful sect or else they aren't going to have any sort of political power. They'll be the small "radical" function in their country, known as being a bunch of "western puppets" while everyone else has been demonized by the west.

SI

If we all agree, all the time, the world would be a boring place.

We shall fix this problem by breeding with their women, and in time we will all become one.

Here's my thesis to bring the relationship between US/West and Islam back to neutral. I know its not perfect but I like to think its (somewhat) realistic.

The goal of these initiatives is to swing the US/West and Islam/Muslim relationship back to neutral in most Muslim countries and pro US/West in a few Muslim countries.

A. Establish sucessful advocate(s) in the region. Split up OPEC.
B. Think more Pax Americana
C. Create a sucessful propoganda machine
D. Direct a focused effort on tangible deeds/results in Muslim countries
E. Resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
F. Reduce dependence on oil
G. Take out the extremist elements with targeted precision

These intitiatives are meant to be pursued in a concurrent manner, with constant finetuning.


Item A.

From my readings, it seems that Kuwait and Qatar are the 2 most US/West leaning Middle East and Muslim countries in the region. Afghanistan may turn out to be a 3rd but probably too early to tell. Find out what it will take to align them to the US/West more closely.

Ex. Military protection, infusion of investment, (some) industry that they can depend on after their guaranteed reserves and world oil dependence is reduced in the future.


Item B.

Okay, I'm not saying invade countries and take land. However, I believe the US government is resigned to globalization and allowing globalization and the free (and sometimes unfair) market to take us where it goes.

This item pertains to the US government strategically leading globalization and having it follow us.

Ex. IT programming is dead (or will be in the next 20 years). The jobs have and will end up in India and China where they can do the job cheaper and better. The US government does not seem to care that our 'IT intellectual captial' has been traded for short-term profits.

Ex. Textile industry is dead. There is no way US companies using US labor can compete with other companies using labor from China.

I'm not saying I know the solution, all I'm saying is the US government makes little effort to veer globalization to the US long-term advantage.

Specific to Muslim countries in the Middle East, what other significant industries do they have other than for oil? Related to Item A, we need some globalization initiatives with Kuwait and Qatar (to start off with first).


Item C.

It has not been working so far. We need a steady infusion of pro (or at least neutral) US/Western and anti-radical Islam propoganda. I'm not sure how to do this but the answer is definitely not to hire a Washington/NY PR firm. Item C and Item D need to be closely aligned.


Item D.

Regardless of the Israeli/Palestinian issue, I can't help but believe that if the US was to trade a weapons program (ex. lets not build anymore Tridents) and allocate those budgeted funds to direct, tangible efforts in helping the most needy of Muslim population that significant goodwill will be created.

Ex. Spend $1B to reconstruct the hardest tsunami-hit Indonesian areas.

Ex. Spend another $1B to help the earthquake hit Pakistan villages etc.

Ex. Spend another $1B to setup significant employment opportunities in Pakistan where the madrases are (probably will have to hide the fact its coming from the US through a local company).

In these examples, the $3B is small change for the chance of a great upside in goodwill.


Item E.

Regardless of who was there first, who has a right to live there, whose promise land it is, whose fault it was for the missed the opportunities etc. I suspect all issues can be worked out other than for "right of return" and "Jerusalem".

My suggestion for "right of return" is to offer it, details and compensation can be worked out but the overriding concession by the Palestinians will be the inability to vote for the next 99 yers. Other than for voting, they will be protected by all the same laws that protects any other Israeli.

Ex. The US had a significant % of its population not voting for the majority of her existence.

The Israelis will have 99 years to increase their population and to ensure resident Palestinian goodwill. Can't work? The change of power in South Africa seems to have gone 'generally' well. If it can work there after years of apartheid, why not after 99 years of determine integration.

As for Jerusalem, bring it all under UN control, with non-aligned UN troops (ex. Chinese troops in Jerusalem would be a sight!). Alternatively, make the Holy sites embassies/consulates to ensure sovereignty (ala West Wing).


Item F.

The US private sector cannot do this themselves. It has to be mandated and forced onto us to reduce oil consumption. Not in 20 years as GB stated in the State of the Union (what a cop out), but in the next 5-10 years.

I believe we can reduce the oil consumption quickly, it depends on our will, the monetary cost and the price the US will have to pay in jobs/economy.

Our collective will is zilch. At $4/gallon, we'll be griping, blaming it on everyone else but we'll still continue to drive our SUVs. Government needs to impose its will.

I'm not sure how to calculate the monetary cost.

The price in jobs and economy would certainly hit the big automakers first as they will have to quickly retool and abandon currently productive factories. In addition, the profit margin and sales on the newer cars will be difficult to calculate. My best guess is in the short term there will be massive employment casulties in the automotive industry. However after a painful transition period, the opportunities for being the 'first to retool and be in a new market' will be enormous.

Ex. If I was head of the big 3, I would spin off (and own a majority) the hybird/alternate fuel division into its own separate company. Its charter would be to build fuel efficient cars and compete like any other car company

Ex. Like Kodak, its time to give up on film cameras.

For advocates for smaller government and intervention, my theory is there are certain times when government has to impose its will to get things done.

Ex. if not for the government, we would not be as integrated as we are now, not as bad as "separate but equal" but certainly less than the situation now.

The key to making this transition palatable is to provide a safety net for the displaced workers where they can be retrained and not have to worry about basic needs and healthcare. I think this will necessitate an increase in taxes and possibly a recession. However, short of a Depression, I think the costs are a fair price to pay.

Ex. I've been through 2 stock market crashes and 2 recessions. Nothing to laugh at but most people can rebound.


Item G.

Okay, lets call it an assasination. It doesn't need to be done by us, we can initiate, fund, encourage (whatever) but we should leave it as an option. I know its illegal and no, I don't think any of the Muslim government leaders qualify under this category right now. In my opinion, the clear example of where this is needed is in N. Korea.

As for terrorists, I like the idea of a Predator and a car full of terrorists on a desert road. I do not like the idea of a Predator and a civilian apartment building. There's been situations where we've probably killed many innocents (as well as terrorists) in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Can't we create a quick reaction force to encircle these elements and hold them trapped until a larger force comes? I know this won't work for an apartment building in a city but certainly can work for a smaller town/village.


Two other points to consider for this plan ...

I don't know how to weigh is the current state of our economy. I truly believe if our economy was robust (ala 90's) we would certainly be better able to absorb the increased cost/taxes/job loss than now (still fragile after emerging from our 'shallow' recession).

Political will. Even if GB signs on to this plan, I'm not sure our Congress could agree to follow. The optimal time to propose this plan would have been shortly after 9/11 when GB leadership was at its zenith.

Well, we could do what others want and convert to Islam. Which according to radical Islamists would end all the violence.

I've done some reading on the obstacles to significantly reducing our oil dependancy. It's pretty staggering stuff - I think our best hope is fission power, honestly.

Can anyone give some modern examples of Islamic countries stepping out of their borders and giving the "covert or die" option?

All those that attacked,and horribly humiliated Israel in 48,58,68,72-73.

Without a doubt. USA is 1-0 in neuclear exchanges.

Neuclear wars are winnable they are NOT lose-lose.

All wars, and neuclear wars in particular, should be away games.

that is the purpose of Boomers and SAC, of course SAC has been replaced by TAC - a HUGE mistake IMHO. Anyone who would/could strike back would be lumped in with the primary targets.