Radicalism: What to do?

[Rambo1125]

We all know that radical anything is usually bad. Every religion has gone through a time period of radicalism, just as Islam is doing so lately. I propose that we put our heads together to combat militant Islam. I have a solution that I think many would agree with as the biggest answer.

Educate people. Look at Pakistan, an Islamic country. Most families cannot afford to educate their children because the country has a terrible educational system. The answer then is to send their children to Maddrassah's (forgive me if I spelled wrong.) Im not sure exactly what they teach but im pretty sure its radical Islam the Taliban recruit students from these religious schools. Instead of hunting down these Taliban, hit them at the source. We can keep the war going, but we should attack from a different angle. Help the Islamic countries build themselves, help their educational systems. If we educate the children and help their countries, it'll be a lot harder for them to view us as warmongers. As it is im pretty sure the drone attacks blowing up places doesn't help our image.

What do ya'll think? Is education the key tactic we should use?

[Wyvern]

And the US is faring so much better?

Obama is a socialist so why be surprised.

Obama may be many things but a socialist is not one of them, otherwise the health care reforms he proposed would have been very much different than they were. Don't listen to the propaganda from the right, everyone they don't like they try to demonize by calling them socialists or worse.

1. They wont view us as enemies. Those children hear hate filled talk then walk out side and something explodes because of a drone missile.

If we did the job right and killed the taliban the children would hate us less.

Hard to do the job "right" when the enemy dresses the same as the general population and live among them as well. Afghanistan is uniquely suited to support and protect large groups of insurgents/freedom fighters(now we call them insurgents, when the soviets were the invaders we called them freedom fighters and funded them)and unless we are willing to spend a lot more money, send in a lot more troops and of course invade the tribal regions of Pakistan the chances of doing it "right" is not that good.

Stand firm of course. Let me say it this way. Look at the following pictures.
Instead of blowing up every thing, use our precision and technology to kill only those we have to. Then we dont just bail, no then help rebuild their economies. Help them produce more than oil.

Let them develop their own industries. Industry represents a desire to serve others. They aren't babies.

Prior to the American invasion of Afghanistan their main export was opium and some derivatives thereof, afterwards the poppy growers were convinced to severely curtail production.

If by help you mean encourage foreign investment then of course that would be wonderful.

What is there to invest in and for that matter what would make Afghanistan attractive to foreign investors? They have virtually no natural resources or infrastructure to support industry and to top it off they have a low population density and are landlocked in an area of Asia that is equally underdeveloped.

[Kuan]

And the US is faring so much better?

Obama is a socialist so why be surprised.

Still, the US is not close at all to being as socialist as Europe. I blame the depression for all the financial trouble.

1. They wont view us as enemies. Those children hear hate filled talk then walk out side and something explodes because of a drone missile.

If we did the job right and killed the taliban the children would hate us less.

Im advocating that we help those we claim to help. Problem is that its hard to tell the difference between Taliban and Civilian.

Which one is Taliban?

I dont think so, I think they dont understand anythign that is going on so they stick to what their radical leaders are doing. A lot probably dont understand why the US is over there and view us as intruders and invaders. (Which we could debate as to whether we are or not.)

I don't want to confuse the Taliban and the Afghanistan people. Most of the Afghanistan people welcome freedom from the tyranny of the Taliban.

Freedom, probably but we shouldnt impose our own style of government on them. Let them create their own.

Stand firm of course. Let me say it this way. Look at the following pictures.
Instead of blowing up every thing, use our precision and technology to kill only those we have to. Then we dont just bail, no then help rebuild their economies. Help them produce more than oil.

Let them develop their own industries. Industry represents a desire to serve others. They aren't babies.

Why? After we destroyed all the little industry they had, we shouldnt help rebuild?

If by help you mean encourage foreign investment then of course that would be wonderful.

Yes, but its not going to happen....sadly...

Freedom of speech is important but I think education is key.

There are far too many educated radicals in all walks of life to believe education is the key. Freedom of speech at least keeps their voices quieter amongst the noise.

True but education can decrease the amount of radicals.

[Vince]

Education is key to any free people, but thinking that education will lead them away from radicalization is an assumption with no basis.

The main problem is the tribal culture that has ruled the land since before Islam even existed, and in the aftermath of the US invasion the Taliban are the only one's providing any kind of security for many of the people there. Karzai is practically powerless outside of Kabul, and there are deep ethnic tensions between Turks Uzbeks and Tajiks in the north and Pakistan supports the Taliban because once the US finally pulls out they are the only one's with the power capable of bringing stability to the nation.

Michael O'Hanlon wrote a nice piece called staying power that is enlightening about the issue, and covers much of the social conflicts in Afghanistan.

As to the solution to the problem of radicalization education is a small step in the right direction, but only the first step. We must show them that democracy works; Read Sources of Soviet Conduct by Kennen. Just like with defeating communism to enact any lasting changes we must make our government be the best possible choice. When our law makers use a government shutdown as leverage to further their political agenda's, and our economy is in serious trouble we have no right to be telling anyone how to govern. Much less overturning a social structure in place for longer than most western countries have existed.

It is a very arrogant assumption that education will lead them to our way of life, our values, or our morality. As if we found out that ours was the 'right' one through education; it is just the one we are used to. Much of the world thinks of democracy in the same way that people are throwing around the term socialism, as an evil to be avoided at all costs.

We could start by not giving them any more reasons to hate us. We used and abused the middle east in our seriously misguided 'containment policy' in our McCarthyistic fear of communism. We routinely support violent dictators who oppress their own people. We have stopped free elections when we thought that anti-american politicians would win.

How do we stop the radicalization, stop giving them such an easy target to rally against.

[Wootah]

How do we stop the radicalization, stop giving them such an easy target to rally against.

Hi Vince,

I agreed with all that bar this last part. We will lose the war if we ever choose to behave differently just because they will be violent if we don't. It's akin to blaming the victim for a crime occurring. We stop radicalization by freeing the people from the radicals.

[Vince]

I agreed with all that bar this last part. We will lose the war if we ever choose to behave differently just because they will be violent if we don't. It's akin to blaming the victim for a crime occurring. We stop radicalization by freeing the people from the radicals.

I do not want us to change the way we deal with other countries because of our fear of their violence, not at all. However, we must accept the fault that is ours. We can look through the all of the propaganda spouted for our actions, and we must, if we are to come to any kind of solution.

J.W. Smith an independent political economist said

The desperation of the West to maintain control stems from the potential for those two regions to join. If that had happened, the Middle East would have had the weapons to protect their resources. The resources of the Soviet Union and the Middle East together would have been comparable to those of the West, and, by virtue of most of the world's reserves of oil being within the borders of those two empires, and thus the potential for high oil prices, a good part of the West's wealth could have been claimed by the East. Hence the West's large military expenditures to maintain control in that volatile region.

taken from: http://www.globalissues.org/article/260 ... -terrorism.

1948: Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.
1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.
1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically-elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter-century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.
1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.
1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S. does not support invasion, but the involvement of its NATO allies severely diminishes Washington's reputation in the region.
1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve “stability�.
early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.
1963: U.S. reported to give Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.
1967-: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.
1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. prepare to intervene on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.
1972: U.S. blocks Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel.
1973: Airlifted U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.
1973-75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that “covert action should not be confused with missionary work.�
1975: U.S. vetoes Security Council resolution condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.
1978-79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him “without reservation� and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.
1979-88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979. Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid.
1980-88: Iran-Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly-aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.
1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and two Libyan planes shot down. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing two Americans, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.
1982: U.S. gives “green light� to Israeli invasion of Lebanon, killing some 17 thousand civilians. U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self-defense. U.S. vetoes several Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion.
1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war, including bombardment by USS New Jersey. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine barracks.
1984: U.S.-backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.
1987-92: U.S. arms used by Israel to repress first Palestinian Intifada. U.S. vetoes five Security Council resolution condemning Israeli repression.
1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.
1988: U.S. vetoes 3 Security Council resolutions condemning continuing Israeli occupation of and repression in Lebanon.
1990-91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted. To promote “stability� U.S. refuses to aid post-war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.
1991-: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S. ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of State) declares that “the price is worth it.�
1993-: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self-defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.
1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.
1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. U.S. later acknowledges lack of evidence for the chemical warfare charge.
2000-: Israel uses U.S. arms in attempt to crush Palestinian uprising, killing hundreds of civilians.

Emphasis added to highlight some of the more atrocious acts we have committed on relative countries.

When we act violently without clear purpose, and from ignorance of the goings on of the area we must accept our part of the blame. And we have acted violently several times in the middle east to 'protect our interests' the people in the middle east have a very clear understanding of what they are to us; people who are only valuable because of the tactical and economic worth to the US. (If you dispute this I'm sure I can find a similar list of atrocities, genocides, and acts of terrorism that the US did not even respond to)

To extend your metaphor: It's like saying the rape victim can't be blamed, then find out she was dressed like a prostitute, invited the guy to her bedroom, made out with him, performed oral sexual acts, and shortly after penetration decided she didn't want to. Should the guy have stopped? yes he is to blame, is there any blame for the girl? Yes as well.

The same with U.S. foreign policy, did we deserve the attacks we've suffered? No, no one deserves it. Is the US completely without blame? No, not just no, but hell no. It is time for our foreign policy to reflect our ideals as a society, instead of Athens in the Melian Dialogue. We can do better. America is better than we are showing the world.

No Wootah, I do not want us to change the way we act because of fear of retaliation. I want us to change the way we act because it is often immoral. The fact that the majority of Americans are not even aware of these wounds that are fresh in the minds of many in the middle east is just sad. The democratic political process works because the government is always held accountable to the people, and it seems that in our foreign policy we have allowed a bunch of politicians to do whatever they want and swallowed every line of bs they fed us.

Possibly, if we started acting in the middle east like the America we all know and love here at home, we could convince them that our western democracies are not evil, but we have much to convince the world, and middle-east in particular, that we will no longer tolerate before that can happen.