America vs. The Narrative

JihadJane said:
:confused:
Click to expand...
Book blurbs are advertising deals.

Have you read any of Mead's work? As your statement stands, you have sneered at Mead (perhaps without realizing it) by positing his compliment to Friedman as wrong. You understand why someone might trash Friedman, but you are groping for why somebody would pay him a compliment.

It is possible that Friedman's writings are now and again palatable. It is also possible that Mead is an old friend/associate, who was helping a friend out, as friends do.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
Book blurbs are advertising deals.

Have you read any of Mead's work? As your statement stands, you have sneered at Mead (perhaps without realizing it) by positing his compliment to Friedman as wrong.

DR
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that Mead only wrote that because he was payed to?

I am puzzled that Friedman is apparently so respected when he appears to be such a buffoon.


I'm interested to know why Mead or anyone would call him "the most important columnist in America today". Is there something else that Mead had written that sheds light on that?

Mead's words are from one of the articles that Praktik linked to. The article's author imlpies that the fact that he is a colleague of Friedman at the New York Times may shed some light on the mystery.

'It's impossible to divorce The World Is Flat from its rhetorical approach. It's not for nothing that Thomas Friedman is called "the most important columnist in America today." That it's Friedman's own colleague at the New York Times (Walter Russell Mead) calling him this, on the back of Friedman's own book, is immaterial. Friedman is an important American. He is the perfect symbol of our culture of emboldened stupidity. Like George Bush, he's in the reality-making business. In the new flat world, argument is no longer a two-way street for people like the president and the country's most important columnist. You no longer have to worry about actually convincing anyone; the process ends when you make the case.'


Darth Rotor said:
It is possible that Friedman's writings are now and again palatable. It is also possible that Mead is an old friend/associate, who was helping a friend out, as friends do.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really explain why Mead would call Friedman "the most important columnist in America today." Mead wouldn't write that if he thought it was beyond the bounds of reason.
 
Last edited:
Sporanox said:
We do have our reasons for being involved there, besides PR to the greater Muslim community. Of course, one of the primary goals is tracking and killing terrorists.
Click to expand...

And I guess I'm arguing that tracking and killing terrorists will be enhanced by a greater sensitivity to the muslim street. Its all about humint at the end of the day, isn't it?

Otherwise where do we tell the Predator to go?

And in pursuing this aim, winning the war on terror, is it not wise to be cognizant of the drivers towards recruitment? After all, it will be won when young muslims can be convinced not to join the jihadist movement. Often, I think these concerns are caricatured as saying implicitly: "oh well you dont want america to do anything violent in the middle east and for it to become isolationist". You can't obviously remove every driver to the cause. But if you take care with the application of violence, and work towards developing strategies to minimize irritants to muslim society in the ME, then you can maybe get to the point where the jihadist movement is much more insignificant than it is today.

And thats when victory can be declared.
 
Last edited:
Praktik said:
And I guess I'm arguing that tracking and killing terrorists will be enhanced by a greater sensitivity to the muslim street. Its all about humint at the end of the day, isn't it?

Otherwise where do we tell the Predator to go?
Click to expand...

Greater sensitivity, yes, but how much do you want to pay for that?

ETA

And in pursuing this aim, winning the war on terror, is it not wise to be cognizant of the drivers towards recruitment? After all, it will be won when young muslims can be convinced not to join the jihadist movement. Often, I think these concerns are caricatured as saying implicitly: "oh well you dont want america to do anything violent in the middle east and for it to become isolationist". You can't obviously remove every driver to the cause. But if you take care with the application of violence, and work towards developing strategies to minimize irritants to muslim society in the ME, then you can maybe get to the point where the jihadist movement is much more insignificant than it is today.

And thats when victory can be declared.
Click to expand...

Again, the cost. If we give up effective, ethical techniques (not EITs) to avoid inflaming the Muslim community, but then some Danish guy publishes a sketch and prompts another wave of terrorism, then we have wasted a lot.
 
Last edited:
Im not sure that its more expensive, in fact, in the ways in which America has exacerbated the terrorist problem I think that course is the one with the higher price.

Not just in dollars, but also in lives.
 
Praktik said:
Im not sure that its more expensive, in fact, in the ways in which America has exacerbated the terrorist problem I think that course is the one with the higher price.

Not just in dollars, but also in lives.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that we exacerbated the terrorist problem simply by being in two wars in the ME? Or the incompetent actions committed in the course of those wars, like Abu Ghraib?
 
Praktik said:
Im not sure that its more expensive, in fact, in the ways in which America has exacerbated the terrorist problem I think that course is the one with the higher price.

Not just in dollars, but also in lives.
Click to expand...

Any response to the 9/11 attacks would have fueled terrorism, anything the US is enough for them to get radicalized. What should they have done, not topple the Taliban? Let Hussein in power and continue abusing his people?

What would have been the Left's response to 9/11? Turn the other cheek?
 
Sporanox said:
Do you mean that we exacerbated the terrorist problem simply by being in two wars in the ME? Or the incompetent actions committed in the course of those wars, like Abu Ghraib?
Click to expand...

Both!

Afghanistan had potential early on. But adding in the "reaction to occupier" dynamic was not going to be a very useful way to stop terrorism. I think it could have been contained better if Afghanistan was the only example of it.

In any event, I think driving any increase to islamic recruitment through avoidable ways (not all is avoidable, your point is well taken) is going to be counterproductive and costly - especially since these things have a way of reverberating down the years and so the true cost can't be known for some time.

I guess I'm saying that America has made plenty of these kinds of mistakes - not that its possible to make no mistakes, or prevent all drivers to recruitment. I do admit that there is an irrationality underneath it all that can't be stopped completely.

But it definitely could be more contained and less of a threat than it is now.
 
Pardalis said:
Any response to the 9/11 attacks would have fueled terrorism, anything the US is enough for them to get radicalized. What should they have done, not topple the Taliban?
Click to expand...
No.
Let Hussein in power and continue abusing his people?
Click to expand...
Yes.

One of those actions is connected to 9/11; the other isn't.
 
Pardalis said:
But invading Afghanistan did radicalize quite a few Muslims, did it not? Aren't we hearing all the time them saying "Leave Afghanistan you evil occupiers!" and similar nonesense?
Click to expand...

As you said, any military action against any part of the Muslim world by the US would generate some radicalization. Realistically, I don't see how they could have avoided Afghanistan. But that doesn't mean they (and we) have to occupy the place indefinitely. Diminishing returns.
 
Last edited:
Praktik said:
Both!

Afghanistan had potential early on. But adding in the "reaction to occupier" dynamic was not going to be a very useful way to stop terrorism. I think it could have been contained better if Afghanistan was the only example of it.

In any event, I think driving any increase to islamic recruitment through avoidable ways (not all is avoidable, your point is well taken) is going to be counterproductive and costly - especially since these things have a way of reverberating down the years and so the true cost can't be known for some time.

I guess I'm saying that America has made plenty of these kinds of mistakes - not that its possible to make no mistakes, or prevent all drivers to recruitment. I do admit that there is an irrationality underneath it all that can't be stopped completely.

But it definitely could be more contained and less of a threat than it is now.
Click to expand...

It's interesting (and you saw this too, of course) that you supported the war in Afghanistan, yet state that nation-building won't stop terrorism. So in the end, your position is that the Iraq War drove recruitment up substantially simply by being started.

I disagree, partly. Whether it's one nation or two, the message seems to be the same to those who will feel threatened enough to join radical Islam due to occupiers. (9/11 was motivated in part by the presence of an American base in Saudi Arabia...talk about a hair trigger.) Now, yes, I could be wrong, but considering what provokes victimhood in ME Muslims today, that seems to be the more likely explanation.

Where I believe we go wrong is that we don't properly finish what we start. Take Afghanistan, for example, in an earlier time period. We armed the resistance against the Soviets, then forgot about taking the time to help the country. They radicalized. We may see a repeat of that in Afghanistan if we withdraw without crushing the Taliban and properly training the security. In Iraq, we've tripped over ourselves so many times that it's a wonder it improved to its present state.

If we break it, we fix it.
 
JihadJane said:
I've read it several times, gtc.

Friedman's fairy tale narrative is as bad as the one he criticizes.
Click to expand...
Is this a "fairy tale narrative" in the same way that 19 hijackers working under the umbrella of al Qaeda were the perpetrators of 9/11 is a "fairy tale narrative"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom