• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is The BIG Mideast War Coming?

BPSCG

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
17,539
I haven't had time to be around much lately, and won't be able to contribute much to this discussion in the next few weeks (should it survive that long), but I've been mulling over some troubling ideas the last several days.

Let's take a few items as self-evident, even even axiomatic:
  1. Whether violent Islamists represent a majority of Muslims worldwide, or whether they are a minority, no one doubts they represent a powerful force within Islam.
  2. The governments of most Muslim nations, especially in the middle east, are either unable or unwilling (or both) to control the Islamists in their midst, particularly when the Islamists' rage is directed at the west. In many cases, those governments actively support Islamist terrorist groups.
  3. By contrast, any voices of moderation in those middle eastern Muslim countries are suppressed, either by Islamist violence, or by the governments, or both.
  4. Since the Muslim moderates in those countries have virtually no chance of coming to power, facing as they do the dual obstacles of repressive government and murderous Islamists, there is no hope of peaceful and democratic change to the status quo in those countries.
  5. There is nothing the west can do to change any of this by any peaceful means. Whatever democracy now existing in the Muslim middle east is fragile, and has been imposed by force of foreign arms.
  6. Violent Islam, even if a numeric minority, has cowed the populations of its Muslim nations, in much the same way a few thousand Bolsheviks cowed the population of all of Russia almost a hundred years ago. It has been attempting to do the same in Europe, and is making significant inroads, often with the connivance of its Muslim sponsor governments.
  7. Violent Islam's fury, never far below the surface, erupts at the slightest provocation (viz. the cartoons eruption), which reminds one of Voltaire's observation that, "To the wicked, everything is pretext." This fury is not amenable to compromise, and it appears western institutions are more willing to compromise on free speech than the Islamists are on cartoons (no major US newspapers have printed the cartoons).
  8. Nothing so far seems to be discouraging violent Islam from trying to spread its influence throughout the world. People observe that there has been no attack on US soil since September 11, 2001, but that is because of US vigilance, not because of Islamist lack of will. Whether the response to violent Islam and its government sponsors has been timid (a la Europe) or stronger (a la the US), the threat remains. Violent Islam has considered the west the enemy to be overcome, long before the west recognized the threat. This attitude long predates Gulf War II, September 11, 2001, or Gulf War I, and will survive even if Iraq succeeds in overcoming the Islamist insurrection in its midst.
Conclusion: We are destined to live with violent Islam snarling at the gates (and occasionally breaking in) until either a) fundamentalist Islam has conquered the world, or b) fundamentalist Islam and its government sponsors have been destroyed. I see a much wider, much more destructive war against Islam and/or its sponsor states coming. Ten years, maybe? Unhappy conclusion, but I see no other likely resolution.

Thoughts?
 
Or the populations at large become fed up and experience some sort of enlightenment that takes them out of the 14th century. Which, since they kill anyone who tries that, will not happen soon.
 
Mark said:
Or the populations at large become fed up and experience some sort of enlightenment that takes them out of the 14th century. Which, since they kill anyone who tries that, will not happen soon.
Click to expand...
Correct; see points 3) and 4) in the OP.
 
As faith and science diverge more, it's seems like it forces the faithful to become more fundamentalist to maintain their beliefs. The more evidence is against you the harder you have to keep your eyes closed. I don't know if this would really lead to war. But it seems like a terrifying possibility.
 
In this context the Iranian nuke program becomes even more ominous.

As I have stated, it is not clear to me that there has never been a state of peace between the west and islam, only less activity. Put another, more comprehensible way, the west has been at war with islam since it's founding.

Unfortuntely, it will take a nuke or something equally awful dropped on Berlin or Paris before the europeans get the message. Unfortunately, again, it appears that strong stands are not europes strong suit. I note France's noises about Hamas despite them being a terrorist organization and that as such they should be eschewed by the EU.

The difficulty is that Europe, as their population ages, are going to be faced with some very unplesent financial decisions. I recall having read that the long term debt owed by Germany to it's citizens is something on the order of 4 times their GNP. The unfortunate reliance of Europe on the US military has given them licence to gut their forces to the point that Chirac has no alternative to retaliate with a nuke (as he stated) if an enormity is perpetrated upon France. This was far less a statement on Chirac's part about France's "determination" than it was about the lousey state of their military.

I sorta see the ghost of Chamberlin laughing.
 
Ed said:
....words....Europe are wusses....USA, USA, number 1....
Click to expand...
Remember, not agreeing with everything the US does is not necessarily an indication of:

- weakness
- terrorist appeasement
 
I see an endless array of small to midsize wars in the Middle East as oil starts to dry up. There is no way in hell that America will allow itself to be held hostage through oil embargos. We'll find plenty of reasons to "liberate" the people in the Middle East to ensure the flow of oil continues. Just like spice on Arrakis.

Lurker
 
The Don said:
Remember, not agreeing with everything the US does is not necessarily an indication of:

- weakness
- terrorist appeasement
Click to expand...

Not exactly what I said. The question will be whether europeans will be willing to give up various entitlements for their security.

I think that we will see the level of appeasement as the Hamas and Iran thing unfolds. Right now, it looks like France is willing to play with a terrorist regime.
 
I'm not sure this is so much a Muslim thing as a racial thing on the order of Ayranism, with Islamism being a pretense the way Christianity is a pretense of nazism/racism even today.

Islamo-facism.

I could be way off.
 
Lurker said:
We'll find plenty of reasons to "liberate" the people in the Middle East to ensure the flow of oil continues.
Click to expand...
Do you really think we'll invade Iran one year, Syria another, Saudi Arabia another, Pakistan another, topple the governments, and occupy those countries? Not possible, unless we do to those countries what we did to Germany and Japan in WW II - wreak such devastation that the survivors would be willing to accept peace on any terms rather than face utter destruction. Do you see us doing that?
Just like spice on Arrakis.
Click to expand...
Been many years since I checked in on Leto Atreides...
 
I am not at all sure that I accept all your conclusions as "self-evident, even axiomatic". But I am having towork today for once and have limited time to compose a full reply, so I'll check in later today and if the thread has imploded I'll see what I can do.
 
More and more, I'm looking at Iraq as another Viet Nam.

In WWII, we made war against the people of Germany and Japan- we bombed cities. They quit. We even imprisoned our own citizens as potential co-conspirators- without evidence.

In Viet Nam, we fought only against the visible insurgents, and lost.

Which way is it going in Iraq? Our own people even cry about imprisoning known enemy combatants.

Which strategy will work better in Iran, Syria, Lebanon...or France?
 
casebro said:
In WWII, we made war against the people of Germany and Japan- we bombed cities. They quit.
Click to expand...
And that's one of the big problems I have with "the war on terrorism." It misidentifies the enemy.

In this case, the enemy's army is spread throughout the world, and we've chosen to fight only that army, not the countries that nourish it.
 
casebro said:
More and more, I'm looking at Iraq as another Viet Nam.

In WWII, we made war against the people of Germany and Japan- we bombed cities. They quit. We even imprisoned our own citizens as potential co-conspirators- without evidence.

In Viet Nam, we fought only against the visible insurgents, and lost.
Click to expand...
We also bombed their cities.
Which way is it going in Iraq? Our own people even cry about imprisoning known enemy combatants.

Which strategy will work better in Iran, Syria, Lebanon...or France?
Click to expand...

It's not yet clear, the reason we "lost" Viet Nam is not so clear it has more to do with politics than military.

PS: France...hahahaha.
 
I have trouble figuring out how much of the mid east troubles are due to plain old Arab nationalism(s), and how much of it is due to fundamentalist Islam. I think the two are inextricably linked, unfortunately. About point 8: what do you mean by "spreading influence"? Terrorism doesn't help to "spread influence", on the contrary. You can argue that it "influences" by the negative, though. But if we talk specifically about political power, I don't think violent fundamentalist Islam can be an important political force outside of the middle east: some mid eastern countries have adopted Sharia law, but I think we can say with a fair amount of certitude that a western country never will. It is the particularities of the Middle East (widespread poverty, lack of democracy, repressive governments, real or perceived Western intervention) that favour violent Islamism.
 
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
Do you really think we'll invade Iran one year, Syria another, Saudi Arabia another, Pakistan another, topple the governments, and occupy those countries? Not possible, unless we do to those countries what we did to Germany and Japan in WW II - wreak such devastation that the survivors would be willing to accept peace on any terms rather than face utter destruction. Do you see us doing that?

Been many years since I checked in on Leto Atreides...
Click to expand...

No, I don't see us doing all those wars in succession. But over a period of 80 years I do. As the spice, I mean oil, becomes scarce, we will do what it takes to ensure it flows. Whatever it takes. It does not mean we have to invade all the time. After all, we are doing a pretty good job of ensuring the flow right now with little conflict.

Lurker
 
I think some other peopel are really missing the big picture. If oil did not sit under those Islamic countries, the US would not care and would not be invovled. Thus no Islamic terrorism against us. That's how I see it.

Lurker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom