Rethinking Islamist Terrorism
Dan Yankelovich

Participant
This conference is about curbing Islamist terrorism, and one of the strategies of the administration in invading Iraq was to bring about the stability in the Middle East that was described as necessary to quell such violence. It was specifically designed to move the peace process forward in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Instead that most dangerous spot in the Middle East is in far worse condition than it was three years ago. Before then there had been almost two years of no suicide bombing. The peace process has completely disintegrated, and the US, the only nation that can reasonably referee that situation has walked away from it. Lines must be forming at the recruiting offices for Islamist terrorists.

I would like to know what this group thinks about my recommendation that we immediately begin to turn over the management of Iraq to the UN, remove our troops, aid as best we can with money and civilian workers, bring Iraqis and other nations into the rebuilding process instead of only American companies, and focus our attention on the real trouble spot, the Israeli/Palestinian situation. I fear that the longer we stay, the more difficult that move will become. I see no sign that this will be different from Viet Nam.

Participant
Your "recommendation" has many parts. I'll take a stab at it:

"that we immediately begin to turn over the management of Iraq to the UN". I agree, if they'll take it. By management of Iraq I assume you refer to civil administration. Perhaps more?

"remove our troops". No, not unilaterally. Yes to the extent that they can be replaced by other peacekeepers. I believe that the Iraqis are prone to tear each other apart -- a tendency that would be diminished in our absence, but not to a safe level.

"aid as best we can with money and civilian workers". Sure! But the details -- the "as best we can" -- will depend on success with all the other elements.

"bring Iraqis and other nations into the rebuilding process instead of only American companies". Yes, but . . . . Your reference to "companies" leaves me wondering if that is your principal point. I'm mostly concerned with civil administration, which is where the Iraqis are most importantly needed.

"and focus our attention on the real trouble spot, the Israeli/Palestinian situation." Well, yes, but . . . . Given our recent behavior in that place and elsewhere, I'm not sure we have the influence necessary to get the combatants to pay attention. This is not a situation we can control, although we could be much tougher than we have been with the Israelis.

I'm not comfortable with the Viet Nam comparison, although this could surely last as long as Viet Nam did if we don't smarten up.

Participant
We're not far apart, Ray. I meant full UN takeover, including peacekeeping troops, but not ours. We are occupiers. I think that as long as we insist on being the only nation involved in contracting for the rebuilding effort, and all the contracts going to US corporations, we will not win back either the Iraqis or the world community. That responsibility should be turned over to the UN.

I agree that we have behaved weakly in our current posture with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but we still have the clout if we would use it. The trouble is that I don't know any Republican or Democrat who would risk it right now. Both Bush I and Clinton were better at dealing with that situation and came close to a settlement.

That's what I meant about Viet Nam--we will fight a long and losing battle and find it increasingly difficult to extract ourselves.

Participant
There is a sizeable new move in Iraq to create an Islamic state. The Turkish army in coming in, much to the anger of the Kurds. Violent incidents lead daily to demonstrations against the US, even when committed by others. The administration, up against the wall, is making a concerted effort to justify its position, based on the old, and now largely discredited, arguments. Among the presidential candidates, only Kucinich thinks we should pull out. I'm afraid we are stuck there, worsening our financial condition, and our position in the world community.

What do you see as the scenario if there is a financial crash?

Participant
Fascinating conversation, yet most comments seem to me to assume an unspoken strategic frame and because unspoken, each comment seems like a lunge in a field of meaning rather than a clarification of the frame.

Here is my take. Slightly in jest, (but the jester ...)

Two immediate critical questions

1. should the US withdraw?

2. the fate of the US economy?

In the immediate background

1. Nuclear options by Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Iran, terrorists, US?

2. Social disadvantage is fertile ground (since the Christians joined up with the Roman Empire and abandoned the poor)for Islamic conversion, so all current policy is creating more anti-us, pro terrorist sentiment.

Longer future view

1. what does china do after the West Christian and Middle East Islam fight it out?

2. The fate of the democratization project under Chinese hegemony?

3. Rethinking the separation of religion and the state given that science is a religion (with its beliefs about the world, th origin of the universe, and has its priests and catechisms).

Given this the strategic question is the choice between

1. does Bush tough it out? The argument in favor is that any late empire is subject to being torn apart if it shows any sign of weakness, both from within and without, and that Bush must prevail. As part of this view, the reality is that Pakistan (secular power and Islamic fundamentalism - i.e, classical new empire) is he real threat, too big to take on, so Iraq was a foothold towards making that incursion into Pakistan (and with it the ex soviet mafia, the extended business interests through Turkey to Indonesia..). The Iraq alternative can be read as a reaction to realizing that Israel is a bad partner in dealing the larger issues. A new Eastern surrogate is necessary to take on the Islamic crescent. (note that without any Islamic problem, Latin America and interesting parts of Asia would present us with the same issues. Even parts of the US are becoming significantly alienated from the American mainstream.)

2. The war gets redefined as a police action (downgrade) and other issues, such as globalization rules for environment, indigenous cultures, equity, legitimate protection of national agricultures (with the US rethinking its mega farm approach with grotesque subsides), and we talk about the American values of democracy, participation, human development, and less about free market.

There is much to favor this. The question is, would American business allow this reorientation? It would be helpful to some, but not to others who are closer to power in both parties? Bush's lousy vision capacity, that if a man with no social vision whatsoever, makes this path even harder.

Half the progressives and half the conservatives like big business and free markets. Since that is the majority opinion it seems hard to go against current policy based on arguments either of peace and internationalism, the progressive side, or isolation in order to pursue a communitarian family value rural value agenda of the right.

If free market wins the political struggle, I think we get militarization and empire as part of the package.

Which to me argues that t the war on terror remains the center piece of policy and action. I think it is a disaster, but hard to see the political will (which always means in part harvesting current existing momentum already in motion),

A real alternative would need to

1. go against free market mega-corp globalization. this means undoing the law of incorporation and re-imposing state charter provisions.

2. rethinking the role of the state in relation to mainstream science (a tradition that is rooted in messianic thought and progressivism and individualism that come directly out of Christianity).

3. desires for local and regional semi autonomy and giving up on the idea of one coherent world system (which if it were to exist would be the main object of ownership and control..).

So it comes down to

1. exploring that alternative, hard as it is, or

2. learning Chinese and maybe Arabic.

Please take this in the semi serious semi playful intent that created it.

Participant
Doug, you're the best at contextualizing the issues. The options you outline are rather demanding, but the power seems to be, for the reasons you cite, with staying the course.

Participant
Physics background: the way to break through is with new and implausible hypotheses. Releases critical thinking so it can come into play. The application of this method to social issues is perhaps dangerous.

The little fruit-fly that is walking cross my screen is free to go up or down, side-wise or fly off. But it is not free to stop being a fruit-fly. So the issue that draws me is what are the deeper constraints that are causing current realities around "terrorism"?

Certainly using old methods of organization with increasingly larger numbers of people is major piece.

But if we ask

why is the average sentence in the NYT half of what it was forty years ago?

Why do we get presidents like the last five rather than like the first five?

Why does tech, that was to create leisure, create wage dependency and private wealth?

Why is the world organized by religions, including science.

In this sense, what is going on, and what are the possibilities? Where are the leverage points against entropic decline? Why are there individuals who are deeply frustrated unto death who have access to money and technology who become terrorists in the minds of those who govern?

Now to be quiet for a while.

Participant
An interesting excerpt from the Parable of the Tribes. The author suggests that the history of civilization may have been largely shaped by the raw struggle for power between societies.

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC07/Schmoklr.htm

Hmmm, that fruit fly can't cease being a fruit fly, but you can cause the cessation of its existence as such.

So much of what we see today seems to be purely about power, the power to impose on others how things will be. Religion and science even go so far as to dictate how things will be perceived. Have we, as a world, become less tolerant than 500 years ago? Or are we generally more tolerant?

Participant
Refreshing! Thank you, Doug!

Participant
I hope I'm not going too far back in the discussion, but I feel the need to clarify something I mentioned earlier. Way back in Comment 26 I mentioned that I strongly believe in secular government but that I sympathized with concerns about moral laxity. Then I suggested that perhaps taking a look at the "concepts" from all religions would be useful. Ray was right that Dick misunderstood me regarding my position when he mentioned the morality of atheists (some of my best friends are atheists :-)) and Harlan and Don seemed to agree with me in 63 and 106.

What I meant to say is that the heuristics of world religions (as opposed to the rules) could be very useful in helping to solve problems that are strongly rooted in religious conflicts. My friend David Snowden gives the example of the distinction between heuristics and rules as the difference between the Sermon on the Mount versus Catholic Dogma.

My feeling after my admittedly shallow study of world religions is that the heuristics that form the basis of "organized" religions share a number of similarities. What I'm suggesting is the development of a set of heuristics common to all major religious and spiritual beliefs -- a kind of Esperanto that would help people who hold a variety of religious and spiritual beliefs to agree on a basic moral code. And perhaps even some highly moral Atheists could participate as well, Dick!

Participant
Participant's #185 challenged me to look back on our exchange on the complex roles of religion and government. Every now and then a hot topic gets a brief but enlightening burst of attention, and then dies away. In this case, as Dick has suggested, maybe religion here is as taboo as it allegedly is in the mess of a Navy vessel. But in this case, it just might have blossomed into something of importance. I have a strong belief that the clash of religions is not a prime obstacle to the Israel/Palestine dead lock, but rather the impossibility of a favorable solution without increasing both space and resources for the needs of both parties. For both parties, religion is a convenient tool for turning down agreements on suggested solutions that are obviously beyond realistic fulfillment within the territory and resources available. Suppose, as suggested above by Dick, the US had offered to both parties 184 billion dollars worth of resources and the purchase of neighboring land if both sides would agree on how to put that treasure to work. But this could happen only if religion were muted by both sides long enough to consider it.

On rereading the above, I was about to delete it -- and then decided not to. It is "half baked", but where else can one launch a half-baked idea in such fertile waters. The chances of someone picking up and "baking" the other half are better here than anywhere else I can think of.

Participant
Mary, I'm sure you're right about the idea that there are basic similarities among religions, especially if you deal only with the heuristic segments in their writings. (Running a stop light in Rome, my Italian driver explained that the signal is only meant to be suggestive--heuristic.)

Our interview with Rush Kidder gave evidence of such agreement on basics among different cultures. We might not even need to turn to the organized religious to get such agreement, if indeed the similarities are deep in the cultures. But I'm nervous about searching religious beliefs for morality. I'm afraid that Harlan is right in 63, that the great differences are within religions, not between them. Our current administration, for example, prides itself on moral clarity. I'm sure Saddam justified his actions similarly. Ditto Stalin, Hitler, and Pinochet.

I am a bit skeptical of the idea that the religious differences cause 9/11. More likely the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and our continued one-sided support of Israel against the Palestinians.

The News Hour tonight reported a grass roots movement, so far involving 120,000 Israelis and Palestinians, for a settlement that draws a specific vision of the goal--a two state solution, back to the pre 1967 borders, Jerusalem as the capital of both nations, no right of return for the Palestinians, and the Israeli settlers vacate the settlements. The leaders of the movement are here in the US trying to convince our leaders to support such a plan.

Don, I think if I had a trillion dollars, or maybe even a paltry 184 billion, I could solve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. We just aren't spending our money wisely. I don't think your ideas are half-baked, just quixotic.

Participant
Dick: WEBSTER: QUIXOTIC: idealistic and utterly impractical, marked by rash lofty romantic ideas, doomed to fail.

I would have accepted your designation of my # 186 as "quixotic" almost completely before the Bush administration. But the amount of money is being seriously considered, my suggested use of money to increase land and resources is surely not utterly impractical. If someone like George Kennon or Participant were given those tools and freedom to use them, even "utterly impractical" might not be accurate.

I only take up space with the above because of a strong feeling that what was "quixotic" in the 20th century may not deserve that description in the 21st century. Again I refer to Harlan: "Nobody in charge" seemed quixotic to me before reading his book. Nor do I presume to suggest that my "quixoticisms" are in the same league, but rather to suggest that our times are rapidly outdating many conventional perspectives.

Participant
Don, I realized later that I should have should have qualified that term, but forgot to do it. I use it in accordance with its association with Cervante's Don Quixote de la Mancha, who is really the hero of that novel, not just a romantic fool. He not only dreams the impossible dream, which is of course the only way society progresses, but places honor, and romantic and noble causes above all else, and to the best of his ability, acts in ways that are entirely faithful to that commitment. It is only the unwashed who view him as fundamentally foolish.

Ultimately, there is nothing more practical than the impossible dream. That's what the ILF is, surely.

In using that term to describe your approach (which happens to be mine as well) I not only didn't mean to insult you, but to embrace you. To me, quixotic is not a pejorative term. But my interpretation needs to be spelled out, and I'm sorry for giving you the wrong impression.

Participant
Dick: I never felt "insulted" -- you and I have exchanged ideas here too long for either of us feeling "insulted".

But I WAS trying to make a point by using your "quixotic", a word which I also agree is not pejorative, to stress an idea . My last paragraph attempted to spell this out and I ask you to reread it again.

If we could learn how to use our wealth with humanity and wisdom rather than with misperceptions and anger I would feel less gloomy over the proposed 180 billion dollar expenditure.

You also have been expressing similar thoughts. It is hard to come up with ideas that make sense under the conditions that our recent actions have put us in.

I guess what I really was trying to do in my # 186 and 188 was to advance some ideas that at first might seem quixotic but might be re-stated by others with more constructive and practical suggestions for further debate. With more skill and deeper experience, this seems to me proper grist for this space. You already have said you agree with this.

Participant
Don, you're certainly right in pointing out that conventional perspectives are being undermined rapidly in this new century. We desperately need raw creativity and wild imagination in addressing the issues of this conference.

Participant
Dick: are individuals aware of when they are thinking with "wild imagination" (WI) and when they believe they are offering what they believe are "realistic ideas" (RI)?

Would it add to our exchanges to identify proposals with these ILF labels? In effect a WI would be an invitation for others to improvise on the suggestion with realistic revisions if they think it worth while, and RI an invitation to critique a suggestion with realistic improvements.

The above is a poor example of a WI :)

Participant
I don't think people generally regard their own ideas as wild. Maybe as unconventional, but not unrealistic. So I don't think people could effectively label their own ideas, and certainly no one else should. Evaluation has no place in stimulating creativity. I like to think that we can continue to push the envelope of "rationality" in this conference. In human affairs rationality takes second place to paradox. We often need to go in opposite directions at once, which seems irrational. I only wish more of the Fellows would venture creative approaches, as you do. Frankly, I can't understand why, when we are quite willing to spend many billions to bribe support for our wars from countries like Turkey, we won't spend such funds on making peaceful arrangements of the kind you suggest.

Participant
I like Don's suggestion. I do, however, think that implementation of any solution will have to take into account the fact that a great deal of terrorism is fueled by fanatical religious intolerance -- despite a host of other contributing factors. I see it as more than just a convenient excuse to fight over resources.

If you don't get the people negotiating to see each other as people and get them to respect each other's positions then you can throw $500 trillion at the problem and still not solve it.

So, yes, Dick, I agree with you that the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and the U.S. position on Palestine are probably more significant factors and I also agree with Don that religion must be "muted", but I also believe in reminding people of the fundamental tenets and beliefs that they purport to so adamantly support.

I've personally had great success in reminding some Christians (especially born again Christians) that my understanding of the faith is that we're supposed to love God and each other and forgive each other. I'm positive that Christianity is not the only faith that believes this and I think reminding people in a dialog of the basic principles they all share would be a useful way to start another dialog about how to share resources.

Perhaps I'm just hopelessly idealistic. Or quixotic.

Participant
Mary says: "I see fanatical religious intolerance as more than just a convenient excuse to fight over resources."

She may well be right, but wouldn't it be useful to examine that assumption carefully? I think that it may be close to 50-50

Previous Page        Next Page

top