The New Cold War

[andyfox]

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.

[Copernicus]

[ 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.

[andyfox]

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.

[andyfox]

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.

[Zeno]

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

[bobman0330]

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.

[toor]

[ 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.

[Copernicus]

[ 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

[nicky g]

[ 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.

[DVaut1]

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.