Is getting the War over--or the threat of War--te key to econ recovery?

The subtext of this Financial Times piece explains how war fears have driven US confidence--and foreign confidence--to historically low levels. US growth and consumer confidence was clearly slacking in the 4th Quarter.
(http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1039524085845&p=1012571727088)

Therefore the key to a turnaround (first in the US, then the world, which is generally worse off--notable exception? Canada), is a short war or else a quick resolution to the unresolved conflict with Iraq. The problem is that the Hans Blix' UN Inspection regime is too incompetent to spur one.

I used to think a Bush war was inevitable. But seeing the continued restraint of Bush, the Jawboning of the White House Administration, I've been wondering if a different outcome through continued skillful brinskmanship--for Saddam is an expert player at this--might not simply produce his peaceful exile? (The way to it has been paved by S. as well as other countries.)

But Blix and company won't assist this needed (in terms of Ralpolitik) confrontation. It could be a long, depressing year, with no war OR resolution until next fall--Not the worst outcome, economically, but far from the best.

--Orson

 

One way or the other, Saddam Hussein is not going to be leader of Iraq for much longer. He's not a stupid man, and I think he's smart enough to take the exile and run. If he stays and forces a war with the US-led coalition, he almost certainly won't survive (by wearing a military uniform, he makes himself a fair target under the rules of war).


Bruce

 

Rules of War - is there such a thing? Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

Actually, the US Armed Forces have several sets of rules to follow. They include the Rules of Land Warfare, which rarely change (never target civilians for example), and the Rules of Engagement, which are tailored to each situation.

By wearing military uniforms, Hussein and Tariq Aziz have made themselves viable targets. I don't think there is a soldier, sailor, marine, or airman that would hesitate to take them out if the opportunity presented itself.


Bruce

 

Of course there are rules in war...
Did you ever see Justice at Nuremburg ?

clint

 

short or long term recovery...?

I think this is true, the "war with Iraq" may be the key to short term economic recovery.

However, I think this recovery would only be short term, personally. The religious and ideological tensions between the Americanized west and the Sharia of Islam will continue as long as Muslims believe one can only make peace under the Sharia (generalization).

This is my current musing on the political role of Islam for America today:

IMHO, and I don't have time to post on this extensively, the "war on terror" (for America) will only be won if Islam begins to see itself as more diverse ethnically, politically, and socially. Perhaps Islam will change some, especially with the current tension within the Muslim world between those who see America as infidels to be killed and those who see America as a mixed bag (good and bad) will open the eyes of Muslims to see the diversity within their own religion. That is, that they will see Islam as capable of generating peace through social means other than homogenization.

Chris

 

YES--Chris...

I agree, Islam was and is a long-term problem, but not just for the US--for the entire West as well.

There are thoes who believe that Wahabbism alone is the problem. This brief piece--or the works of Bat Yeor--by Arthur Bostom may correct those who disagree,
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bostom120602.asp


nor do I think that merely self-identifying as "ethnically diverse" will work--Arabs are a minority among Muslims, yet that fact doesn't alter their behavior!

No--as Tom Friedman and Salman Rushdie has written, they need
a Koranic Reformation, something to rewrite the notion "this is God last Wod and cannot be altered" doctrine. THIS is what keeps them ar war with modernism--and that's what this religious war is all about--secular modernity versus fidelity to God's word as revealed in the Koran.

Only such a REformation can pave the way for a necessary Enlightenment. Only with Enlightenment will modernism be seen as unthreatening.

--Orson

 

One implication...

of the foregoing analysis is that wars of religion are in Islam's future. REmember, apostates todaa get assassinated in Islam. Anyone who dare's to mess with the Truth of the Koran will inevitably be regarded as an enemy deserving an infidel's death!

(Remember: even before 9/11, over 20 years time, Muslims have killed more American's than any other enemy since the Vietnam war.)

To realize this, none of it makes me happy.

--Orson

 

yep

Orson~~~

Here are my best, probably most provocative thoughts on 9/11.

I truly think this holy war is based on a social universal, I call it "homogenization." One of the most age-old peacemaking strategies is to force people into a mold, a way of life that is "like" the other group. Forcing others to submit to the sharia or face death is, I think, part of the "high stakes" appeal of Islam. I think the reason Islam wages war like this is precisely because, as a religious group, they long for peace. Unfortunately, the only conceivable peacemaking strategy that this religious tradition seems to garner (I am making some huge generalizations) is to homogenize.

Honestly, I think we make peace in the west by allowing religious truth-statements to be relegated to a private sphere where, in effect, they no longer have public validity and are practically not true anymore. It's a practical athiesm, I think, and the Muslim world definitely sees it this way. I think they get frustrated with us for not recognizing this.

So there is an inevitable, huge showdown here between two forms of homogenization. But ours is a kind of religious war that thinks religion is "your business and not mine." That's another kind of homogenization, it seems to me, based on enlightenment rationality and individualism.

My hope for a stabilization is that the Muslim world will, in some ways, perceive the diversity within their own religion as a catalyst for reform. If they see that they are already and irreversably diversely structured, homogenization as a peacemaking strategy will have to adapt. But, as a practical matter, the conceptual resources made available through the Islamic system may not allow this recognition. If this is seen, and this happens soon in the Muslim world, there is a possibility IMHO for reform of the jihad.

In practice, this also has to be accompanied by an acute attitude in the west that we have a way of life that is homogenizing the world and that this act is inherently hostile to monotheism (at least, strict monotheism) by relegating it to a place it cannot be relegated to, a private sphere.



~~~Chris

 

Chris--

I agree with your analysis--except for your "hope," which I don't see coming even it it were possible.

The doctrine's of Dar El-Islam and Dar el-Harb, which mean the realm of peace and the realm of war, respectively, means that manicheaism is central to Islam. This combined with doctrine suchas Jihad--the duty of the Faithful to conquer the Infidel--innur Islam to violence with the rest of the world. (We sometimes forget how Gandhi envisioned one India for all Believers, but Muslims rejected that solution; and still they war.)

You write: "My hope for a stabilization is that the Muslim world will, in some ways, perceive the diversity within their own religion as a catalyst for reform. If they see that they are already and irreversably diversely structured, homogenization as a peacemaking strategy will have to adapt. But, as a practical matter, the conceptual resources made available through the Islamic system may not allow this recognition."

Questions: From where? and How? would they percieve it? MY impression is that Arabs, who speak the language that their Holy Book was written in, have more authority to speak religiously than non-Arabs--again, a hurdle for reform not faced by any other world religion. All others were founded in one region, but spread to another (save Judaism in our time--but it also lacks the universalism associated with "world faiths").

Your last sentence caveat is key. I agree with you. But for that reason, and not that reason alone, I believe the Muslims will be restless long after our grandchildren are gone. My only hope is that we--the West--are not drawn into the inevitable intra-civizational war to come! (And I hate pessimism.)

In fact, my pessimism, or the perceptions that give rise to it cause me to oppose a war with Iraq for anything more than just WME elimintation. It is futile just as Ralph Peters fears.

--Orson

 

Thanks, Orson, for your thoughts.

This is a good discussion. At this point, I just have to say that you certainly know more about Islam than I do.

I really come to this whole 9/11 thing as a Protestant Christian, evangelical, and somewhat ignorant about the tenets of Islam. I'm seeking to understand what I can do in this situation, as an American Christian, and pretty much the focus of hate in the Islamic world, practically speaking.

I have to admit that I agree. The whole muslim world, whether or not they reform, is not the place where I put my (distinctively Christian) hope. I don't know if that sounds like an answer or not to you because I don't know where you are coming from.

But, saying that, I do think that there is hope (no matter where one lives) wherever there are people choosing not to get caught in the cycle of violence that is incurring all over.

My personal vision for my theological studies is very practical. I'm a Christian pacifist. I want to study spirituality and help others apply it to life for reasons like this~~~especially so they won't get caught in the cycle of violence.

When it comes to Iraq, I'm really leaving God in charge. But this is my modest proposal for peace: What would happen if all of the Christians, all over the world, chose not to fight with other people (with each other, with others)???

Would God allow us to all be destroyed??? If so, it's not our responsibility to keep Christianity going. It's God's responsibility.

Anyway, these are my musings on these matters. I don't think any of this is easy stuff.

Shalom~~my friend Orson,

Chris