The New Cold War
 

During the Old Cold War, the United States saw itself in a life and death battle against the worldwide, godless Communist menace. Almost every problem in the world was laid at the feet of the Soviet Union. Local issues and history were often ignored, and that led to a lot of disappointment later on when those factors caused results that we hadn't anticipated. Vietnam is certainly the most notable example.

In the current political debate in the media, it appears to me we are in a New Cold War. The enemy this time is terror and/or the Islamo-Facists. I heard one radio talk show host say that all the problems--in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Iran, in North Korea, in India, in Russia--are one in the same. It's all one war. World War III, according to Newt Gingrich.

If we approach problems with this attitude, we are bound to experience similar disappointments. Assuming, for example, that the actions of Hezbollah are all a result of what Syria and Iran wants done, is a mistake. Hezbollah has achieved its political success in Lebanon by transforming itself form an agent of those countries into an agent for domestic reform. This doesn't mean that Syria and Iran do not provide military and economic aid to Hezbollah, or that they have no influence. But to ignore local politics in Lebanon in planning our policies is to invite disaster.

Re: The New Cold War
 

In general your point is right on. However I would say that Iran and esp Syria are strong forces in local Lebanese politics.

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
But to ignore local politics in Lebanon in planning our policies is to invite disaster.


[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, can you elaborate on what specific local politics in Lebanon, you consider relevant enough to impact policy decisions by the US?

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
During the Old Cold War, the United States saw itself in a life and death battle against the worldwide, godless Communist menace. Almost every problem in the world was laid at the feet of the Soviet Union. Local issues and history were often ignored, and that led to a lot of disappointment later on when those factors caused results that we hadn't anticipated. Vietnam is certainly the most notable example.

In the current political debate in the media, it appears to me we are in a New Cold War. The enemy this time is terror and/or the Islamo-Facists. I heard one radio talk show host say that all the problems--in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Iran, in North Korea, in India, in Russia--are one in the same. It's all one war. World War III, according to Newt Gingrich.

If we approach problems with this attitude, we are bound to experience similar disappointments. Assuming, for example, that the actions of Hezbollah are all a result of what Syria and Iran wants done, is a mistake. Hezbollah has achieved its political success in Lebanon by transforming itself form an agent of those countries into an agent for domestic reform. This doesn't mean that Syria and Iran do not provide military and economic aid to Hezbollah, or that they have no influence. But to ignore local politics in Lebanon in planning our policies is to invite disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand "cold" in the context of "cold war"? There is nothing cold about the war on terrorism, and I have 217 colleague's families who will attest to that.

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand "cold" in the context of "cold war"? There is nothing cold about the war on terrorism, and I have 217 colleague's families who will attest to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this mean, and how does it advance the discussion?

Re: The New Cold War
 

There was plenty of hot war during the Old Cold War too. It was "cold" in the sense that the two protagonists did not directly engage each other and did not use their ultimate weapons.

But my point was that the Cold War manichean world outlook seems to be quite similar to the way many of our leaders are looking at today's situation.

Re: The New Cold War
 

I'm not expert on Lebanon. But, for example, according to an article in today's L.A. Times by Reza Aslan of USC, when Syria was forced out of Lebanon after the assassination of former Prime Minsiter Hariri, Hezbollah rallied in support of Syria. This is how it was seen by our leaders. But the rally also involved a display of Lebanese nationalism. The half a million Hezbollah supporters who were in Beirut in March 2005 were clothed in the colors of Lebanon, not Syria. And since Syria's withdrawal, Hezbollah has continued to advocate protecting Lebanese territory and working across religious and sectarian lines to promote Lebanese unity, even forming a political partnership with Christian leader Michael Aoun.

As Lyndon Johson once said, all politics is local. To ignore that dimension is to see only part of the picture and it's often the part one doesn't see, either by choice or by myopia, that comes back to bite one in the ass.

Re: The New Cold War
 

Link

Re: The New Cold War
 

I thought you were going to mention the growing rift between Russia and the United States. Regardless, Islam is going to beat out liberal democracy in the long run because it has the moral imperative and unity to do so. Liberal societies tend to split into factions and weaken, and without a united front will not withstand Islam in the decades to come. I prefer a society of shawarmas and subjected women to that of Big Macs and fat feminists anyway.

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you were going to mention the growing rift between Russia and the United States. Regardless, Islam is going to beat out liberal democracy in the long run because it has the moral imperative and unity to do so. Liberal societies tend to split into factions and weaken, and without a united front will not withstand Islam in the decades to come. I prefer a society of shawarmas and subjected women to that of Big Macs and fat feminists anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bit extreme, eh Peter?

Anyway, Islam is not going to beat liberal democracy (is Islam even fighting liberal democracy, i dont think so). However, Islam is not going away, regardless of how many bombs are dropped. For one thing the long term demographics act against its demise.

If Judaism can survive brutal oppression and hounding by the powers of those time, Islam too can survive the same that they are being subjected to.

So, for those who are fighting Islam, that is a losing battle. Fighting terrorism is fighting a political battle and that is where the victories and peace will come from -- if at all.

Incidentally, nothing quite like a Falafel in Jerusalem, with a bit of hummus, some eggplant, and all the fixings.

Re: The New Cold War
 

"Islam is going to beat out liberal democracy in the long run because it has the moral imperative and unity to do so."

Haven't the Sunnis and Shiiites been at each others' throats since the death of Muhammad?

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you were going to mention the growing rift between Russia and the United States. Regardless, Islam is going to beat out liberal democracy in the long run because it has the moral imperative and unity to do so. Liberal societies tend to split into factions and weaken, and without a united front will not withstand Islam in the decades to come. I prefer a society of shawarmas and subjected women to that of Big Macs and fat feminists anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very unlikely Islam will beat out liberal democracy in the long run. How can a society that insists on half of its population remaining in the shadows ever prosper?

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought you were going to mention the growing rift between Russia and the United States. Regardless, Islam is going to beat out liberal democracy in the long run because it has the moral imperative and unity to do so. Liberal societies tend to split into factions and weaken, and without a united front will not withstand Islam in the decades to come. I prefer a society of shawarmas and subjected women to that of Big Macs and fat feminists anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bit extreme, eh Peter?

Anyway, Islam is not going to beat liberal democracy (is Islam even fighting liberal democracy, i dont think so). However, Islam is not going away, regardless of how many bombs are dropped. For one thing the long term demographics act against its demise.

If Judaism can survive brutal oppression and hounding by the powers of those time, Islam too can survive the same that they are being subjected to.

So, for those who are fighting Islam, that is a losing battle. Fighting terrorism is fighting a political battle and that is where the victories and peace will come from -- if at all.

Incidentally, nothing quite like a Falafel in Jerusalem, with a bit of hummus, some eggplant, and all the fixings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Islam will go away. It's a matter of time (and not too long IMO). Technology and Knowledge will kill it along with Christianity, Hinduism, and other religions. Judaism is an example of what is to come of religion. Most "Jews" are secular and view Judaism as more of a philiosophy on life than a religion. The liberal Christian denominations are going in that direction too. Eventually, I think the whole paradigm of religion will just die out.

Re: The New Cold War
 

But Andy don't you know? We've *always* been at war with Oceana.

natedogg

Re: The New Cold War
 

I'll take the older gentler judaism. It survived because of its gentle philosophy, its strongly knit community.

The present activits Zionism is, IMO, abhorrent.

Actually, on second thought, I'll stay in the Athiest corner, thank you.

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you were going to mention the growing rift between Russia and the United States. Regardless, Islam is going to beat out liberal democracy in the long run because it has the moral imperative and unity to do so. Liberal societies tend to split into factions and weaken, and without a united front will not withstand Islam in the decades to come. I prefer a society of shawarmas and subjected women to that of Big Macs and fat feminists anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was exactly what I was thinking, about the growing tension between Russia and the US. If you guys hadn't noticed realtions with Russia have grown increasingly sour as they help our enemies develop nuclear technology and their "democracy" shifts towards autocracy. If you know anything about why the Nazis took power and the german preference at the time for a strong government you will see striking similarities to the current situation in russia. There is a lot of poverty and corruption in russia and a lot of people are very unhappy with democracy. The moves by Putin to increase his power have met with vey little resistance from the masses.

As for the comments about radical islam winning over the west, that is absurd. They are the most backwards culture in the world. There is not a single culture in the world not in conflict with radical islam: the west, china, Israel, Russia, East Africa, and India. I'm sure I missed a bunch. Do you think a culture that creates so many enemies and oppresses so many people has a chance over the long run?

Re: The New Cold War
 

"Haven't the Sunnis and Shiiites been at each others' throats since the death of Muhammad?"

Yes, and they have still been around for 1300 years versus less than 300 for the major liberal democracies. I don't think extremist Islam will last for a long time, but something in a more moderate form will.

Frankly, liberal democracies are not producing enough children to outpace other cultures.

Re: The New Cold War
 

While in western culture religion may be dying out and be supplanted by technology, so is the population. It is the religous cultures that are producing all the children.

Re: The New Cold War
 

"The moves by Putin to increase his power have met with vey little resistance from the masses."

Not only little resistance, but popular support! People actually like a strong figure head representing their country. That's something America should take note of when attempting to spread democracy throughout the world.

Re: The New Cold War
 

That is what I mean when I say the demographics are on the side of Islam.

What needs to be remoived is not Islam, it is no better or worse than any other religion. What needs to be removed are the conditions for extremist Islam (or any other extremist religion for that matter).

Re: The New Cold War
 

And those conditions are.... encroachment on their territory. They hate Israel and America because those two entities have a direct influence on their back yard.

If left alone, Muslim countries tend to moderate themselves with their own secular authorities, like Turkey. But put a visible enemy on their property, and here comes Allah's revenge.

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll take the older gentler judaism. It survived because of its gentle philosophy, its strongly knit community.

The present activits Zionism is, IMO, abhorrent.

Actually, on second thought, I'll stay in the Athiest corner, thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking more along the lines of American and Israeli Jews who don't believe in God but respect the morality that underlies Judaism. The ones you are talking about are the ones I see dying out. I'm talking about people like Ed Miller's mom ( See this post ).

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you were going to mention the growing rift between Russia and the United States. Regardless, Islam is going to beat out liberal democracy in the long run because it has the moral imperative and unity to do so. Liberal societies tend to split into factions and weaken, and without a united front will not withstand Islam in the decades to come. I prefer a society of shawarmas and subjected women to that of Big Macs and fat feminists anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excepting the fact that shias and shiets(?) blow each other up all the time.

Re: The New Cold War
 

Good post. I actually agree with your points. How do you think that this kind of analysis would go over politically? For instance say one of the leading Democratic candidates for President made these same points.

Re: The New Cold War
 

Good post. I'll toss a few more bones into the pot.

I found Rice's comment that it is time for a 'new middle east' to be more than just interesting. I hope it isn't empty rhetoric.

Local politics is important but can be steered and driven by more comprehensive moments, both national and international. A Zeitgeist grips human societies at times and moves them along toward ends that are difficult to predict. The rise of irrationalism (or Fascism) has been growing steadily forward for many years. Bertrand Russell identified this long ago and put it back in the 1800's.

The religious element to the present situation lends analogy to the last Cold War somewhat slippery in my opinion. But that is an entirely different thread.

It is unfortunate but not much will be resolved in my opinion without massive and systemic violence and the attendant slaughter of tens or possibly hundreds of millions of people. What I find so surprising is people don’t realize this. To me it is almost a set fact for our future history and it is best to just get on with it now, the longer we wait the more people will eventually be slaughtered. The continual band-aid approach only puts off the predestined day.

-Zeno

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Islam is going to beat out liberal democracy in the long run because it has the moral imperative and unity to do so."

Haven't the Sunnis and Shiiites been at each others' throats since the death of Muhammad?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not really.

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]

But my point was that the Cold War manichean world outlook seems to be quite similar to the way many of our leaders are looking at today's situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did that world outlook eventually lead to victory despite some pain along the way?

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
And those conditions are.... encroachment on their territory. They hate Israel and America because those two entities have a direct influence on their back yard.

If left alone, Muslim countries tend to moderate themselves with their own secular authorities, like Turkey. But put a visible enemy on their property, and here comes Allah's revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Youre back on ignore with this one.

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought you were going to mention the growing rift between Russia and the United States. Regardless, Islam is going to beat out liberal democracy in the long run because it has the moral imperative and unity to do so. Liberal societies tend to split into factions and weaken, and without a united front will not withstand Islam in the decades to come. I prefer a society of shawarmas and subjected women to that of Big Macs and fat feminists anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excepting the fact that shias and shiets(?) blow each other up all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt a tourist attraction on the beaches of Tunisia.

Re: The New Cold War
 

"The religious element to the present situation lends analogy to the last Cold War somewhat slippery in my opinion."

The Godlessness of Communism was an element in our opposition to it, although I think it may have been more to keep the population stirred up than a real element affecting our actions. It was the geopolitical ambitions of the Communists, or what we saw as their geopolitical ambitions, that guided us and I have my doubts that their apparent atheism determined Soviet or other Communist behavior. There is no question in my mind, though, that religious ideology does indeed motivate many in the Islamic world.

"not much will be resolved in my opinion without massive and systemic violence and the attendant slaughter of tens or possibly hundreds of millions of people. What I find so surprising is people don’t realize this."

I think this is exactly what a lot of people fear, rather than "realize." Some fear that unless the Islamo-facists are stopped, this will happen. Others fear that unless the neocons are stopped, this will happen. There is rampant talk of World War III and the Clash of Civilizations. My own feeling is that such talk is overblown and the threat of terrorism is exaggerated.

Re: The New Cold War
 

Not sure, but probably not well. Talk of how we made errors in judgment during the Cold War will come off as more negativism and criticism of something most American's think we did well. Democrats fell all over themselves, when Reagan died, to say how much they loved the Man Who Won the Cold War. Comumnist Walter Lippman made this exact criticism of containment at the beginning of the Cold War, and was a lone voice in the wildernesss, despite his exalted reputation.

Americans seems to prefer simplicity to anything else. "The terrorists" are now the new "the communists." This doesn't mean that there isn't a real threat. It does mean that we will be prone to design a one-size-fits-all policy.

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
"The religious element to the present situation lends analogy to the last Cold War somewhat slippery in my opinion."

The Godlessness of Communism was an element in our opposition to it, although I think it may have been more to keep the population stirred up than a real element affecting our actions. It was the geopolitical ambitions of the Communists, or what we saw as their geopolitical ambitions, that guided us and I have my doubts that their apparent atheism determined Soviet or other Communist behavior. There is no question in my mind, though, that religious ideology does indeed motivate many in the Islamic world.

"not much will be resolved in my opinion without massive and systemic violence and the attendant slaughter of tens or possibly hundreds of millions of people. What I find so surprising is people don’t realize this."

I think this is exactly what a lot of people fear, rather than "realize." Some fear that unless the Islamo-facists are stopped, this will happen. Others fear that unless the neocons are stopped, this will happen. There is rampant talk of World War III and the Clash of Civilizations. My own feeling is that such talk is overblown and the threat of terrorism is exaggerated.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, Ive heard the right wing pundits accuse the liberals of being this dense, but until now I really didnt believe it.

Re: The New Cold War
 

The Soviet Union collapsed, but was it because of what we did, or because of internal problems? Maybe a combination?

And even if we assume, for the sake of discussion, that it collapsed because of our efforts alone, that still doesn't mean we couldn't have fought the battles better and picked our battles more wisely. For example, we still would have won, and the people fo Guatemala would have been far better off, had we not overthrown their government in 1954. That is to say, there were some battles that should have been fought because they directly effected our security--such as (IMO) missiles in Cuba in 1962. But others caused tremendous suffering for the people we were supposed to be helping. Painting everyone left of center with the broad Communist brush caused a lot of pain. One could argue that the manichean outlook was not just wrong but also counterproductive.

Re: The New Cold War
 

Expert analysis, thanks.

Anyway, don't attribute my denseness to "the liberals." More famous liberals, such as Kerry and Hillary, have been vociferous in their calls for sterner action against Iran and North Korea and to beef up homeland security.

Re: The New Cold War
 

I agree with your assessment of the geopolitical goals of the communists. The religious aspect was overblown for propaganda reasons and was really a minor component. This is simply not the case for the present situation in my opinion.. Although I think that some may exaggerate the religious element (again for propaganda purposes) in today’s conflict and overlook some root economical factors, the religious element is still much more fundamental to the overall conflict than the previous cold war.


I admit that my own cynical outlook colors my worldview and I honestly hope I am wrong but many do not understand or discount the religious fervor that can impel people to undertake dastardly deeds and/or have long term goals of suppression, subjugation of not only the people that they lead but any perceived enemies. The religious history of Europe is a good example. There is also the disingenuous use of religious fervor to further political and/or economic goals. This is also a factor in the equation.

My main point is not to underestimate the use of and/or the influence of religious fervor in the ongoing conflict. And also all the tacit support of many that may not actually adhere to the extreme positions postulated by leaders but will not impede there implementation. The underpinings for this go back thousands of years in human history.

-Zeno

Re: The New Cold War
 

Andy, I think there are two separate issues here.

First, is that our leaders should have a detailed understanding of the culture and local politics of the areas we deal in. That I don't think anyone can argue with. If Condi Rice is over there trying to negotiate with various heads of state without grasping the difference between a group like Hezbollah and a group like al-Qaeda, there's no way she'll be able to accomplish much.

The second issue is the vague imprecision of public discourse. The Cold War analogy is insightful, but I think the basic problem is much more endemic. People just don't have the capacity or the time or the inclination to develop a nuanced understanding of world (or domestic) affairs. Politicians and commentators could be as nuanced as they like, but they have to cater to their audience. If you sample any of the discourse on complex issues like immigration reform ("It's ILLEGAL!"; "What about our JOBS!"), the DPW imbroglio ("They're ARABS!"), or the trade deficit ("FOREIGNERS are taking all of our money!"; "Is that like the budget deficit?"), the ideas that get the most traction are the simplistic ones that have the strongest emotional appeal. Complex ideas, even if they have much more value, can't compete. I'd like to believe that the cause is just a present deficit in our current crop of politicians, and that a great leader could engage with the public about complex and confused topics, but I don't really believe that's so. I think it's part of the nature of our form of government.

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
And those conditions are.... encroachment on their territory. They hate Israel and America because those two entities have a direct influence on their back yard.

If left alone, Muslim countries tend to moderate themselves with their own secular authorities, like Turkey. But put a visible enemy on their property, and here comes Allah's revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lol'ed. History of Turkey

Ataturk (who secularized turkey) was from a revolutionary non islamist group. He was supported by the west and tried to emulate various practices. Turkey still does today. Turkey has encouraged western influence more then any other Islamic Nation.

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
Expert analysis, thanks.

Anyway, don't attribute my denseness to "the liberals." More famous liberals, such as Kerry and Hillary, have been vociferous in their calls for sterner action against Iran and North Korea and to beef up homeland security.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, and "the war on terror is exaggerated" is astute analysis? gmafb

Re: The New Cold War
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And those conditions are.... encroachment on their territory. They hate Israel and America because those two entities have a direct influence on their back yard.

If left alone, Muslim countries tend to moderate themselves with their own secular authorities, like Turkey. But put a visible enemy on their property, and here comes Allah's revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lol'ed. History of Turkey

Ataturk (who secularized turkey) was from a revolutionary non islamist group. He was supported by the west and tried to emulate various practices. Turkey still does today. Turkey has encouraged western influence more then any other Islamic Nation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That hardly contradicts Peter's point that Turkey was one of the only Middle Eastern countries to not experience some form of Western occupation or colonialism last century and has had substantially less mdeeling in its affaris since than most. Not that I think that Turkey's model is in all respects ideal.

Re: The New Cold War
 

andy,

It seems pretty simple to me: the more allusions the right can drop about World Wars and 'fascists', the less introspection is needed to justify our foreign policy. It's hard to get people in a democracy to consent to fight in wars -- that consent must be constantly negotiated and renegotiated. As public support for the Iraq war has waned over the past three years, the rhetoric and insinuation of a constant threat has to be ratcheted up to compensate, as you note in your OP -- which results in the the right wing noise machine resorting to a near constant level of hand-waving justifications, which are essentially various re-worded pleas similar to: "Don't stop supporting this war now! Don't you realize this is a World War?! We're fighting fascists here!", i.e., as natedogg notes, it's alot easier to demand the masses just focus on Goldstein and buzz-words then to continously try to justify a war that looks more and more unjustifiable. That it's election season, and that some on the right want to take the war in Iraq and extend it to Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc. just furthers the need to ensure the demagoguery continues.