Subject:
|
Re: To David T Johnson, Acting ambassador, US Embassy, London
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Dec 2004 02:38:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
845 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> Which goes part and parcel with this paper--
>
> http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf
121 pages is a lot to slog through but there is some really great stuff in
there. Whoever chaired that commission seems to actually be clued in...
- start -
If there is one overarching goal they share, it is the overthrow of what
Islamists call the“apostate” regimes: the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, Jordan, and the Gulf states. They are the main target of the broader
Islamist movement, as well as the actual fighter groups. The United States finds
itself in the strategically awkward — and potentially dangerous — situation of
being the longstanding prop and alliance partner of
these authoritarian regimes. Without the U.S. these regimes could not survive.
Thus the U.S. has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle that is both
broadly cast for all Muslims and country-specific.
This is the larger strategic context, and it is acutely uncomfortable: U.S.
policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of
Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself. Three recent polls of
Muslims show an overwhelming conviction that the U.S. seeks to “dominate” and
“weaken” the Muslim World.
Not only is every American initiative and commitment in the Muslim World
enmeshed in the larger dynamic of intra-Islamic hostilities — but Americans have
inserted themselves into this intra-Islamic struggle in ways that have made us
an enemy to most Muslims.
- end excerpt - (Thats from page 44ish) Wow. Spot on!
What's funny is that I agree with the "overwhelming majority of Muslims"...
Those apostate regimes DO have to go. Also I find it ironic that the
authoritarian regimes we seem to be allied with (Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan, etc...)
aren't much different when it comes to secret police, repressing freedom,
stifling dissent, etc, than the authoritarian regimes we seem to oppose (Syria,
Iran, etc...)
The problem I personally have is that it seems to me that when one of these
authoritarian secular regimes falls and gets replaced, it gets replaced with a
fundamenntalist regime that is as bad, or worse. The canonical example for me,
anyway, being Iran. It always seems to happen.
I've alluded to this in the past here, and I think I might even have posted a
link to something that touched on it... IIRC they had titles that were easily
dismissed as racistly dismissive... But I wonder, what is up with wanting to
freely choose to elect people that are going to repress you in the name of their
religion? That question applies in more places than just Iran.
> but if ya don't feel like slugging thru that, see a journalistic synopsis--
>
> http://www.sundayherald.com/46389
When I tried that link just now it didn't work...
>
> Starts off great--
>
> "THE Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and
> occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims
> hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the
> “self-serving hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East.
> "
>
> No! Say it ain't so!! No one saw that one coming--what, Muslims hate Americans
> more since the war started?? Who knew???
>
> Oh wait--everyone but the US Administration stated that this was the most
> probable outcome. And isn't it wonderful that in the supposed 'freeest nation
> on the planet', this little Rumsfeldian document, which was "released" in
> September, wasn't actually released until after Nov 2nd.
>
> Nothing to see here--move along.
>
> Bush, you're pathetic.
>
> Dave K
> -who is not even commenting on the sheer audacity of Dubya's flagrant disregard
> of protocol when he made his trip to Canada.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
3 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
