[Split] (Ed) 9/11 in perspective

[RandFan]

Define "war". How many such incursions were the Soviets involved in during the same time period?

Damn I hate being ignored. Do you have an answer?

 

[TobiasTheViking]

So, about those small innocent kittens, dogs and chicken that get murdered slaughtered and tortured everyday nothing? nothign at all brumsen?

 

[peptoabysmal]

I'm afraid that, if we keep with this article, I must say that you're distorting what it says.

Perhaps. I'm not the one who cited the article as evidence for a claim of cause and effect. If we drop the article, then we drop the claim, correct? Let me restate that I've seen it here and elsewhere where posters claim that the war is responsible for the rise in extremism. This is what I am challenging. I would accept that it is one of many factors, but that isn't as exciting as being able to say things like "the war in Iraq is causing extremism/terrorism/acid indigestion/dandruff/whatever" is it?

Not really; look at the two quotes you gave side by side. The disillusionment is caused by the double standard in foreign policy.


No. By disregarding the paragraph just preceding it, you alter the meaning of the article. It is argued that because passive oppression has changed into active oppression, youths are turning to extremism.

Good point, let's put it in perspective:

...
The Iraq war is identified by the dossier as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis says: “It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived ‘double standard’ in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US.

“The perception is that passive ‘oppression’, as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to ‘active oppression’. The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.”
...

It does not say that there is a "double standard" in foreign policy, it says there is a perceived double standard. But you have a good point, I should not take for granted what the article says in such a literal fashion.

Can you explain better than the article what exactly is meant by "non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya." I am left to presume that this means the diplomatic effort of the UN and they are upset that there was no military help forthcoming from Britain?

Fair enough. But I didn't say it wasn't on the rise before 9/11 and all that. I was implying that it had been on the rise more strongly. That certainly is what the British report seems to be saying.

Yes, I agree that is what the article is saying. But it cannot be cause and effect as it was asserted that the article was evidence of, because the effect existed before the cause. In other words, I would agree that the war is a factor among other factors in the rise in extremism. I cannot agree that the war is the only factor or the cause.

 

[brumsen]

In other words, I would agree that the war is a factor among other factors in the rise in extremism. I cannot agree that the war is the only factor or the cause.

Seems that we agree! (I never said it was the only cause.) Phew.

Let me restate that I've seen it here and elsewhere where posters claim that the war is responsible for the rise in extremism. This is what I am challenging. I would accept that it is one of many factors, but that isn't as exciting as being able to say things like "the war in Iraq is causing extremism/terrorism/[...]" is it?

I see no difference between those claims. "is causing" is not the same as "is the (only) cause of", but rather means "is one of the causes of".

Having established this limited agreement... it would surely be of interest to make an assessment of the extent to which it contributes, among the other causes. I have no idea how to do that.

Can you explain better than the article what exactly is meant by "non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya." I am left to presume that this means the diplomatic effort of the UN and they are upset that there was no military help forthcoming from Britain?

What I assume is meant, is that despite diplomatic efforts there has been no military intervention in these areas in aid of embattled muslims. I do not think that these disillusioned young muslims believed that such military intervention should have come from Britain, but from the international community at large - the UN, more specifically.
So what they see is this. When non-muslims are attacked by muslims, the UN acts fairly swiftly to intervene - or at least (Afghanistan) does not condemn such intervention even if it is not on behalf of the UN. However, when muslims are attacked by non-muslims, the conflict is allowed to fester on for years or even decades.
To my mind this is a fairly accurate assessment. Please note however that I'm not saying that religious extremism and terrorism are the appropriate reaction to that assessment.

 

[brumsen]

Damn I hate being ignored. Do you have an answer?

Keep your cool, please.

If you DON'T agree with that definition then you need to propose an alternative standard, and explain why this standard (which counts wars which started before US troops arrived) doesn't involve the Korean War, Bosnia/Kosovo, etc.

How about this:
Starting a war = engaging in a military conflict with a party;
1) without being attacked by that party first;
2) not under the aegis (because of a resolution) of the UNSC;
3) without being asked for assistance by an internationally recognised ally state which is itself being attacked.

Vietnam is slightly dodgy because of (1), however it is hard to see the Tonkin incident as justification for the war that followed, and neither was it unprovoked, given US military build-up before it. (3) is satisfied because South-Vietnam was not an internationally recognised sovereign state. In essence it was a civil war in which the US got involved.

Korea happened under UNSC mandate, even if only because of exclusion of China and boycot by the USSR. So I find that it fails criterium 2, but only so-so.

Bosnia/Kosovo fails because of 2.

Grenada satisfies all conditions.
So does Afghanistan. The US were not attacked by the Taleban, and there was no UN resolution authorising the use of force.
(The Taleban essentially did nothing, thereby not satisfying the US ultimatum).

So yes, that gives us 5.

Now what about "the Soviets during the same period"?

Three come to mind:
1) Hungary 1956
2) Czechoslovakia 1968
3) Afghanistan 1979

Accounting is a bit difficult because of the collapse of the USSR, and the fighting for independence in the Baltic states which had always been recognised as sovereign by a substantial number of countries on the one hand, and Chechnya which has received no such recognition except by the Taleban, on the other hand.
I'd be inclined to count these events as civil war for these reasons (which is not to say that I approve of them, just for the record).

3<5, QED.

Have I forgotten anything?

 

[Darth Rotor]

OK;

Vietnam war (I realise it's open to debate as to who started)
Bay of Pigs invasion
Grenada invasion
Panama invasion
Afghanistan / Enduring Freedom
Iraq 2003-

Viet Nam war was already in progress, based on the French war's resolution and Geneva. US hardly started it, but sure contributed.

Afghanistan? Started by whom? The counterattack versus Taliban (who sponsored/harbored) Al Qaeda is "starting a war?" Hmmm.

Grenada and Panama certainly were initiatives from Washington.

Bay of Pigs invasion was a war? What US military assets were in that war? IIRC, US Air Force planes were ordered NOT to support the operation by President Kennedy.

If you play that card, every single "war of national liberation" from 1917 to 1989 was started by the Soviet Union, who gave under the table support to dozens of wars throughout the Americas, Africa, Asia and even Europe.

I think your conceptual model has some serious flaws.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

How about this:
Starting a war = engaging in a military conflict with a party;
1) without being attacked by that party first;
2) not under the aegis (because of a resolution) of the UNSC;
3) without being asked for assistance by an internationally recognised ally state which is itself being attacked.

1) and 3) make some sense, but 2) does not. Under your definition, we could start a war and not have it count as starting a war because we got UNSC approval to do so. But that's illogical. I understand the position that UNSC authorization can legitimize starting a war (though I don't agree with that either - the UN has no special moral authority), but where is the logic that says it doesn't count as starting a war if we start one with their approval?

Bosnia/Kosovo fails because of 2.

Wrong. We did NOT have UN authorization to go to war in the former Yugoslavia. We got UN authorization, AFTER the fact, to engage in peacekeeping. But we never had UN authorization to go to war in the first place. The UNSC has only ever authorized two wars in its entire history, and Yugoslavia wasn't one of them.

So does Afghanistan. The US were not attacked by the Taleban, and there was no UN resolution authorising the use of force.

This reveals another problem with your definition: it makes it impossible to respond to attacks by non-state actors being harbored BY states without it being labeled as us starting the war. That doesn't make any sense. And it would label Israel the agressor, for example, if Hezballah starts a war by launching thousands of rockets into Israel because, after all, Israel would be "attacking" Lebanon, which didn't attack Israel. But of course, no nation would ever put up with that, even nations which constitutionally forbid agressive wars.

Your definition has serious problems, and the fact that you can find a high number of wars "started" by the US under it tells us little about whether or not the US is really an agressive nation.

 

[brumsen]

Viet Nam war was already in progress, based on the French war's resolution and Geneva. US hardly started it, but sure contributed.

Please give a reason to think of this conflict as anything else than a civil war, at the point where the US became involved.

Afghanistan? Started by whom? The counterattack versus Taliban (who sponsored/harbored) Al Qaeda is "starting a war?" Hmmm.

Again you give no principled reason against my conceptualisation of "starting a war", other than not liking how it classifies conflicts.

Bay of Pigs invasion was a war? What US military assets were in that war? IIRC, US Air Force planes were ordered NOT to support the operation by President Kennedy.

I stand corrected.

If you play that card, every single "war of national liberation" from 1917 to 1989 was started by the Soviet Union, who gave under the table support to dozens of wars throughout the Americas, Africa, Asia and even Europe.

Which card? In any case - we were discussing the period from WWII until now.

I think your conceptual model has some serious flaws.

But you have not given principled reasons for thinking this.

 

[brumsen]

1) and 3) make some sense, but 2) does not. Under your definition, we could start a war and not have it count as starting a war because we got UNSC approval to do so. But that's illogical. I understand the position that UNSC authorization can legitimize starting a war (though I don't agree with that either - the UN has no special moral authority), but where is the logic that says it doesn't count as starting a war if we start one with their approval?

The logic is that if the UNSC authorizes the use of force, it is not (only) the US which takes the initiative to use force. The decision to use force lies then with the UNSC, not the US government. Why is this not logical?

Wrong. We did NOT have UN authorization to go to war in the former Yugoslavia. We got UN authorization, AFTER the fact, to engage in peacekeeping. But we never had UN authorization to go to war in the first place. The UNSC has only ever authorized two wars in its entire history, and Yugoslavia wasn't one of them.

I stand corrected. 6 wars started by the US then, not 5.

This reveals another problem with your definition: it makes it impossible to respond to attacks by non-state actors being harbored BY states without it being labeled as us starting the war. That doesn't make any sense. And it would label Israel the agressor, for example, if Hezballah starts a war by launching thousands of rockets into Israel because, after all, Israel would be "attacking" Lebanon, which didn't attack Israel. But of course, no nation would ever put up with that, even nations which constitutionally forbid agressive wars.

Where is your argument that it is a problem for my definition that such response is then always labeled as starting a war? Seems to me you're begging the question.
Remember, by the way, that Enduring Freedom was not only about bombing al Qaeda camps etc; it was about removing the Taleban regime. Why would that not be to start a war?

The case of Israel / Hezbollah / Lebanon: I would be inclined to think of Israel as the agressor in this case. However, Israel's aim was not the remove the regime or gain control over the whole of Lebanon. That makes it rather different from the Afghanistan case. Moreover: Hezbollah has (had?) substantial military presence in Lebanon, and was also part of the government. It was thus both more intricately connected with (the government of) Lebanon, and Israel did make more of an effort to only attack only Hezbollah (even though, unfortunately, at the cost of many civilians in South Lebanon).

Your definition has serious problems, and the fact that you can find a high number of wars "started" by the US under it tells us little about whether or not the US is really an agressive nation.

Please suggest improvements to my definition.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Evil Double Post

 

[Darth Rotor]

Please give a reason to think of this conflict as anything else than a civil war, at the point where the US became involved.

You are the one who asserted US started it. French first interfered with Viet Minh move to establish post colonial sovereignty when Japan left after armistice. I will argue that HO and his lads STARTED the war by rising up in a revolution against the colonial occupation of France, and be on firm ground. The war, with a short armistice around 1954/Geneva, lasted from 1945-1975. The US played in parts of it.

Again you give no principled reason against my conceptualisation of "starting a war", other than not liking how it classifies conflicts.

Attack on US (9-11 or African embassies, you pick) was the first shot of the war. The US counterattacked. Who started it? AQ. Who counter attacked? US. See also. Germans began attacks in Belgium and Fance in 1914. French didn't "Start" that war, though they certainly fought in it. US didn't START Viet Nam, though they certainly fought in it. One can argue that Osama's declaration of war in 1998 was the beginning of the war, and we were in a Phony War (like France Germany 1939 to Spring 1940) stage with AQ until Sept 11.

Which card? In any case - we were discussing the period from WWII until now.

The card you are playing is who "starts" various wars, which during the Cold War amounted in numerous cases to sets of clients being supported and supplied by larger powers. Who started the civil war in Nicaragua?

But you have not given principled reasons for thinking this.

And you do. Not hardly. You don't even have a principle to start with. You made a bald assertion, not supported in each example by facts, other than "US is involved." Your conceptual model is absent, or flawed, and is at best poorly spelled out. I don't feel a need to do your homework for you.

Principle: War is a political act of (armed) force by one politial entity(or coalition) versus another political entity (or coalition).

Good Day.

DR

 

[brumsen]

You don't even have a principle to start with. You made a bald assertion, not supported in each example by facts, other than "US is involved." So, you conetptual model is absent. I don't feel a need to do your homework for you.

You know that that is unfair, given my post #145. But if you stick to it, I guess our 'discussion' is over.

 

[Ziggurat]

The logic is that if the UNSC authorizes the use of force, it is not (only) the US which takes the initiative to use force.

So? If the US and Britain get together and decide to invade Iraq, doesn't that still count as BOTH the US and Britain starting a war? I'm pretty sure you do. So why would it not count if this particular group of countries, just because they're called the UNSC, started a war?

The decision to use force lies then with the UNSC, not the US government. Why is this not logical?

The UNSC can only authorize a war. It cannot compel a state to engage in war. And given that the US has veto power on the UNSC, the UNSC cannot make such a decision without the US's agreement.

Where is your argument that it is a problem for my definition that such response is then always labeled as starting a war? Seems to me you're begging the question.
Remember, by the way, that Enduring Freedom was not only about bombing al Qaeda camps etc; it was about removing the Taleban regime. Why would that not be to start a war?

Because the Taliban joined in Al Qaeda's war against us by aiding and harboring Al Qaeda. Exactly the same logic by which you (correctly) stated that if an allied country of ours was attacked and we joined in the war, it would not count as us starting the war.

The case of Israel / Hezbollah / Lebanon: I would be inclined to think of Israel as the agressor in this case.

Then I have no use for your definition, because it mislabels the victims and the agressors in the conflict.

Please suggest improvements to my definition.

Two quick ones:

Get rid of any UN requirements, as they are irrelevant. You can maintain the position that the UN can provide JUSTIFICATION for war, but it makes absolutely no sense that their decisions should affect the fundamental definitions in any way.

And abandon the attempts to distinguish non-state actors from their state sponsors.

Beyond that we're probably stuck with differences of opinion that I don't think we can agree on (for example, I don't think intervening in a civil war counts as us starting a war, you do).

 

[Darth Rotor]

You know that that is unfair, given my post #145. But if you stick to it, I guess our 'discussion' is over.

OK, went back and saw 145.

This is not correct.

not under the aegis (because of a resolution) of the UNSC

It need not be under UNSC aegis to be a war. The UNSC is irrelevant to characterization of an interaction as war, but it may be used to characterize a war as "legal" or "Legitimate" or any number of other things. No one in Eritrea, as I recall, went to the UNSC to have their war with Ethiopia, but they had a war nonetheless. Angola likewise.

The Taliban did plenty, by the way. They provided land, facilities, and political cover to AQ from which to stage their various attacks. Note that Pres Clinton Tomahawked camps in Afghanistan, AQ camps, in the sovereign territory of Afghanistan for a similar reason: accomplice before and after the fact. Your statement of "innocence" is not supported by the political facts, nor the political interactions between US, Taliban and AQ. Again, war is a Political act. Taliban were a direct supporter of AQ, logistically and politically. You want another data point? AQ, as a political favor to Taliban, assassinated Massoud, Taliban's political opponent.

I will reconsider your points if you can point to UN articles or resolutions that explicitly endorse any nation state harboring or supporting international criminal syndicates (Al Q as criminals) mercenaries, or armed political factions not under their control who commit aggression (aggression is defined in UN articles) against member states of the UN. With that language, we may have some room for further discussion of your assertion that the US "started" the war in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and their political ally and host the Taliban regime.

This comment was made with no ref to your and zig's discussion, and so poisoned our interchange. In future, I'll use a bit more care.

And you do. Not hardly. You don't even have a principle to start with. You made a bald assertion, not supported in each example by facts, other than "US is involved." Your conceptual model is absent, or flawed, and is at best poorly spelled out. I don't feel a need to do your homework for you.

DR

 

[RandFan]

3<5, QED.

"QED"? Hardly. I'll defer to Darth Rotor and Ziggurat who are doing an admirable job of dispelling your notion.

 

[brumsen]

"QED"? Hardly. I'll defer to Darth Rotor and Ziggurat who are doing an admirable job of dispelling your notion.

Oh? Well, if that's the standard of argument...

 

[peptoabysmal]

Seems that we agree! (I never said it was the only cause.) Phew.

What you originally said was:

Point taken - although Bush's belligerent rhetoric may sometimes make it seem otherwise. And this aim, by the way, is not really being achieved - quite the contrary - , since the wars that were started have only served to increase religious extremism in different places, resulting (among others) in terrorist attacks in London and Madrid.

I asked for proof of cause and effect between the war and the rise and extremism and you provided a link to the article as support for your position.

What you said was a bit different than "war is one of the causes..." your statement was to the effect that "war has only caused..." Technically, you were not originally expressing a cause and effect relationship, but you imply that this is the only thing that the wars have achieved.

What I assume is meant, is that despite diplomatic efforts there has been no military intervention in these areas in aid of embattled muslims. I do not think that these disillusioned young muslims believed that such military intervention should have come from Britain, but from the international community at large - the UN, more specifically.
So what they see is this. When non-muslims are attacked by muslims, the UN acts fairly swiftly to intervene - or at least (Afghanistan) does not condemn such intervention even if it is not on behalf of the UN. However, when muslims are attacked by non-muslims, the conflict is allowed to fester on for years or even decades.
To my mind this is a fairly accurate assessment. Please note however that I'm not saying that religious extremism and terrorism are the appropriate reaction to that assessment.

UN intervention is not always a good thing:

Accepting a measure of blame for the deaths of thousands of Bosnian Muslims, the United Nations Monday issued a long-awaited report that says U.N. officials appeased and unwittingly abetted Serb forces who overran the town of Srebrenica and massacred many of its residents in July 1995.

The extraordinary admission results from an internal investigation, based on U.N. archives and interviews with more than 100 officials, into the fall of Srebrenica, which the United Nations had declared a “safe area” and placed under the protection of 150 Dutch peacekeeping troops.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N59/nations_59.59w.html

 

[brumsen]

I asked for proof of cause and effect between the war and the rise and extremism and you provided a link to the article as support for your position.

What you said was a bit different than "war is one of the causes..." your statement was to the effect that "war has only caused..." Technically, you were not originally expressing a cause and effect relationship, but you imply that this is the only thing that the wars have achieved.

OK. But even if I implied that, it is not the same thing as "war has been the only cause of...". Which is the statement you seemed to ascribe to me earlier.
And if we now agree that there are perhaps more factors contributing to the rise of terrorism, that has nothing to say about whether those wars have achieved anything else than increasing religious extremism.
(Which, probably, they have. So I'll give it to you that my original statement was too strong on that count.)

UN intervention is not always a good thing:

Tell me about it. That's my government, which fell over Srebrenica.
The problem however was the mandate, and the lack of air support. Sure; when something is done badly or half-heartedly, it is likely not a good thing.

Similar problem in Afghanistan (Uruzgan), where Dutch bluehelmets have been sent to do "peacekeeping" in an area where there's fighting. However, when Dutch parliament tried to apply its lesson learnt over Srebrenica to that mission, big pressure was exerted by the US and the almost-decision was reversed.

However, this strikes me as a bit of a dodge. The point for those muslims is presumably: how is it that a "grand coalition" can be (and is!) formed to intervene in Afghanistan, to prevent further attack of non-muslims by muslims, but not for intervention in Kashmir or Chechnya, to prevent further attack of muslims by non-muslims?

 

[brumsen]

Hmmm. US intelligence seems also to have caught on to the Iraq war's role in rising terrorism.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hmmm. US intelligence seems also to have caught on to the Iraq war's role in rising terrorism.

The report "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," said one U.S. intelligence official.

More than a dozen U.S. government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified document.

That's the great thing about talking about classified documents: the public can't read them to tell if you're giving an accurate and balanced description of the document. Given the NYT, which intelligence officials do you think want to talk to the Times, and which officials accounts do you think the Times will choose to highlight? How useful is this story in evaluating the contents of the report? Not very.

"New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-Western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge," said Gen. Michael V. Hayden, during a speech in San Antonio in April, when the new estimate was completed.

"If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse, and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide," said the general, who was then Negroponte's top deputy and is now director of the CIA.

Logically, however, if these new cells are sprouting up without connection to established terrorist networks, they also won't have access to the sort of funding and expertise such networks can provide. So while the number of attacks might increase, the severity of a typical attack might also decrease. But that possibility would never be mentioned by the NYT, because that goes against the narrative, man. Wouldn't want to confuse the plebes.