US 'alienating' world's Muslims

[PTH]

An interesting little tidbit about American policy..... seems like someone in the Pentagon has been reading up on HabsRUs to understand the effects of US policies in the Middle East.

----

The US is losing "the war of ideas" in the Islamic world, a Pentagon advisory panel has warned.

A report by the Defence Science Board says America's public talks of bringing democracy to Muslim nations is seen as "self-serving hypocrisy".

It says if the US wants Muslims to move towards its understanding of tolerance, it must reassure them this does not mean submitting to "the American way".

The report urges Washington to change its approach urgently.


In the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering
The Defence Science Board's report

However, it says that improving public relations is not enough.

"Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies," the report says.

"The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

"Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy," the report says.

It adds that the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has actually raised the stature of radical enemies of America.

"US actions appear... to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination," the report says.

'Information campaign'

It describes US public diplomacy as being in crisis and urges the creation of a strategic communications apparatus within the White House.

"The information campaign - or as some still would have it, 'the war of ideas' or the struggle for 'hearts and minds' - is important to every war effort," the report says, referring to the US-led war on terror.

The BBC's Nick Childs at the Pentagon says the report may not be official policy, but it does highlight many concerns in official circles in Washington about how the US government can communicate its messages abroad.

The Defence Science Board is made of civilian experts appointed by the Pentagon, and offers the department advice on scientific, technical and other issues.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4040543.stm

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Sadly one thing I, among others, could easily foresee due to the US's recent history of myopic foreign policy.

*

« Reply #8 on: Mar 21st, 2003, 9:29pm »

To build something takes time, to blow something up takes no time at all.

The aftermath is bound to be infinitely more difficult, and could quite possibly plunge the entire region into crisis. Old claims will be brought up. Scores will be settled. Ambitions will be tested. I shudder to imagine the possible magnitude of all this. Especially if the Infidel occupies a Muslim country on whatever pretext.

The restructuring of Iraq is best left to the UN. The Americans are a useful tool with their technology in the first stage of the process, but their Coca Cola foreign policy should be kept on this side of the Atlantic after that.

« Reply #16 on: Mar 22nd, 2003, 05:38am »

Increasingly lost in the hysteria and testosterone rush of wanting and seeing big explosions is the fact that very few have advocated keeping Saddam in power. His removal has been called for by almost all. It is the question of methods and motives (or M&Ms as I'm sure the Cheerleader News Network would quickly get around to calling it) that is eyed with suspicion.

The Americans are far from holier than thou: In fact, employing rhetoric slung about in recent years, this can be described as a battle between The Great Satan and The Axis of Evil (there's a working title for a Sunday morning cartoon show for some enterprising young American). This mortal coil is, after all, the domain that was granted to the Fallen One.

As for the Shocking and Aweful photos: so what? Such photos can be dredged up daily from the four corners of the world. Might as well show photos of homeless people dead on heating grates and in alley ways, subway suicide victims; and make the claim that a nation that can't guarantee the safety and well-being of its own population has no business policing the world.

It is ironic to see the Americans using the two things that they have more of than anyone else in the world to destroy one of their own creations. What remains to be seen is what the embryo they will seek to nourish with their money and weapons will look like as it grows. Recent past history has not been flattering in this regard.

« Reply #18 on: Mar 22nd, 2003, 1:48pm »

What really sucks is that the American government created and sustained Saddam in the first place.

Reality doesn't suck. It just is. The American government (especially its foreign policy) is what sucks.

The Americans are not the only ones who could remove Saddam. They are the ones who have chosen to do it in their own unpopular fashion. Though in a sense it's fitting that they clean up the mess they created in the first place. Of course, that they leave a greater mess behind them due to their shortsightedness won't be surprising, given their lack of understanding of the greater reality beyond their insular boundaries.

- habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&action=display&n=1&thread=12089

***

« Thread started on: Mar 23rd, 2003, 2:01pm »

What's good for the goose is good for the gander:

- launching a missile into southwestern Iran is always an attention getter
- having 10,000 armed Iraqi Muslim fundamentalists lined up on the Iranian side of the border, wating for their chance adds spice
- allowing Turkish troops to cross the border and mingle with their close buddies, the Kurds, couldn't possibly be a bad idea
- vehement anti-American demonstrations in the region, where public protest is generally good for an automatic go to jail card at best
- shooting down an RAF jet
- underestimating armed resistance
- more self-inflicted casualties than those caused by the enemy

And it's just early days, the fun's barely begun.

The actual occupation, if and when it occurs, ought to be a morass to rival Vietnam. But hey, in the Nintendoland (courtesy Japan Inc) of North America, who thinks ahead that far realistically (and then decides on what course of action to take)?

The silver bullet is a myth.

America now is not what America was (despite the unconscious and sometimes legal absorption of past experience). The question is: "What are you doing to me now (and how will it affect *my* [insert appropriate region of the world] future)?"

It is fascinating, and frightening, to see the Oedipal saga of father and son Bush played out on the world stage. Beware ancient Greek playwrights .

And, oh yeah, God Bless America, and may Allah protect all Muslims.

***

« Reply #21 on: Mar 24th, 2003, 09:39am »

Actually the point I made was contained in my summary paragraph, and is as follows:

"I stand by my original assertion that the war won't be the worst of what is to come for this region. Though the war will have served to provoke the impending crisis. The United States with its typically ignorant "my-way-or-the highway" blundering in far corners of the world will be stirring up a hornet's nest."

As for the assertion that I have ignored the present or past: that is laughable. The articles themselves are a synopsis of past and present conditions in the area. I used them as a basis for making my prediction that the region will be far more unstable once Saddam is gone, thanks to the Bush Power Vacuum.

Yugoslavia - Tito = Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Muslim, Christian.

Iraq - Saddam = Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Baath party supporters, religious fundamentalists, clans, and possibly outsiders (Turks and Iranians).

Rebuilding will be a long, painful process.

« Reply #23 on: Mar 24th, 2003, 12:13pm »<br>
Saddam is a strong man, not a good man. Perversely he is a better short term guarantor of regional stability than the vacuum his absence would create will be. Long term, one hopes that Iraq will be better off without him, of course.

It would be absurd of me to say that there is no possibility that American intervention could bring good. I just think that, given the numerous volatile factors and factions in the area, the probability is low. That plus the flair for diplomatic ham-fistedness American administration are prone to displaying abroad, makes for an explosive roostertail, IMO. The US's strengths are guns and money, not bringing people together.

Iraq is a balkanized state, cobbled out of disparate demographic elements by a colonial administration. Heterogenous states have historically been far more prone to internal instability than homogenous states. Sad but true.

- habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&thread=1048382316&action=display&start=15

[MC Habber]

That's funny stuff.

[franko]

I find all of the anti-US rhetoric funny (not that I'm a big supporter -- or for that matter a small supporter) of their policies.

France's Muslim women/girls have been forbidden to wear the foulard to school, but France is not alienating Muslims.

France invades their African satellite states but the US is the aggressor that must be sanctioned. Inconsistency and hypocrisy is what gets to me (of which the US has their fair share, but they are not the only ones). I guess it is easy to pick on the big guys and overlook the others.

[MC Habber]

franko said:

I find all of the anti-US rhetoric funny (not that I'm a big supporter -- or for that matter a small supporter) of their policies.

France's Muslim women/girls have been forbidden to wear the foulard to school, but France is not alienating Muslims.

France invades their African satellite states but the US is the aggressor that must be sanctioned. Inconsistency and hypocrisy is what gets to me (of which the US has their fair share, but they are not the only ones). I guess it is easy to pick on the big guys and overlook the others.

Why does it always turn into USA vs. France?

This is a report by the US government, about the US government, and it's saying exactly the same thing that most of the rest of the world has been saying all along.

Why do people assume that anyone who opposes the policies of the US government is pro-France, pro-Saddam, and pro-cancer?

[franko]

MC said:

Why does it always turn into USA vs. France?

This is a report by the US government, about the US government, and it's saying exactly the same thing that most of the rest of the world has been saying all along.

Why do people assume that anyone who opposes the policies of the US government is pro-France, pro-Saddam, and pro-cancer?

Is this a rhetorical question, or does it beg a reply?

I'm sure the "USA vrs France" comment is tongue in cheek . . . but my comment was meant only to reply to the many discussions against the current US administration (that we are allowed to have freely in this country), in that with everything going on in the world today people focus on the US's policies and forget there are atrocities around the world:

Iraqis were killing Iraqis before the US stepped into the situation.
Sudan is in crisis.
The situation in the DRC (Congo) is "marked by extreme brutality".
Indonesian Muslims persecute, torture, and brutally murder those not of the faith.
And on and on and on . . .

The US (which was headed back to an isolationist policy before 9-11 from being interventionist) is far from ideal but lets not forget that there are problems elsewhere.

[seventeen]

franko said:

France invades their African satellite states but the US is the aggressor that must be sanctioned. Inconsistency and hypocrisy is what gets to me (of which the US has their fair share, but they are not the only ones). I guess it is easy to pick on the big guys and overlook the others.

Election fraud in the Ukraine, but not in the US?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

There is no hypocrisy or ignorance involved in turning a critical eye on the most powerful, and therefore potentially the most dangerous, nation on the planet. In fact, something would be gravely amiss if this were not the case. In this timeline in this universe that nation just happens to be the United States of America.

[MC Habber]

franko said:

I'm sure the "USA vrs France" comment is tongue in cheek . . .

Not exactly. Honestly, it seems to me that too often, if someone criticises the US government, the response is to point out how bad France is and then ignore the criticism as though it had no basis. I just find it annoying, the implication that France is the only country we should be criticizing, or that their faults somehow make it ok for the US to do the same things. It probably wouldn't bother me as much if it weren't France, every single time. Noone ever says anything about China, or Russia, it's always France, and I assume it stems from the anti-French rhetoric that was flying around when they didn't support the invasion of Iraq (notice that that rhetoric was actually used to justify the invasion).

The US ... was headed back to an isolationist policy before 9-11 from being interventionist

I'm not sure that's true - they continued to bomb Iraq through much of Clinton's presidency, and they continued to have forces deployed around the world. They would certainly have needed to get oil somehow [this is not a comment on Iraq], and that means exerting influence in the Middle East. Many in the Bush administration believe(d) that America should improve it's military in preparation to fight multiple simultaneous major wars. Perhaps it would have depended on how you define isolationist, and on the success of various endeavours, but it's not clear to me that isolationism would have taken over.

I think the future *may* see a stronger, more unified Euorpean Union, and a possible return to the 2 superpower polarization. If that happens, the US will find it hard not to continue to be involved all over the place.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I think the USA/France relationship has been rocky for more than just a few years. I think when the US-led coalition went into Iraq, it went to another level. Several European communities expressed reluctance in the war and France and Germany were two of them.

However, it was probably because of the French/German lobby that prevented the USA from going to the UN Security Council in the first place. Both European countries were/are members of the council and were going to veto any attempt the USA made in tabling an aggression on Iraq. Yet, both countries also had strong financial interests in Iraq as well. I'm sure that came into play when the USA went in without UN support. I'm not saying it was right or wrong, but does give an appreciation on the whole picture.

As for distancing Muslims, well, I think they may have more than the Islamic countries to worry about if they stick to their present foreign policy. Here's a piece from Gwynne Dyer.

"If the US does not change course, the other great powers will
eventually give up on the waiting game and move to counterbalance and
contain American power. That would mean alliances, arms build-ups, all the
lethal nonsense we thought that we had left behind us. Nobody wants to go
down that road, but they inevitably will if US policy doesn't change. We
probably have a few years before that starts, but we don't have a long
time.

www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Waiting%20for%20Iraq.txt

Cheers.

[franko]

seventeen said:

Election fraud in the Ukraine, but not in the US?

I’m still wondering where the US pro-Kerry media is in this – they haven’t said a word (or much of one). There may have been fraud (or it may be just another conspiracy theory, I don’t know) but when the media is silent, nothing will be done.

I have a much bigger problem with the elitist electoral system in the US: you hicks vote, we’ll decide for you what that means. Though in this election it seems that Bush would have won with a pure majority (50% plus 1) even after a Floridian change.

Of course, in Canada we don’t have to worry about election fraud. For some reason we keep electing the same hacks – the ones who promise the moon and deliver little, the ones who are still talking about implementing policies from the 1993 Red Book, the ones who when it looks as if they will go down to defeat bring out the don’t elect them – they have a hidden agenda and continue their policies of cronyism (which I’m sure wouldn’t end if there were a change in government anyway). I don’t get it. But that’s another matter.

[franko]

M. said:

There is no hypocrisy or ignorance involved in turning a critical eye on the most powerful, and therefore potentially the most dangerous, nation on the planet. In fact, something would be gravely amiss if this were not the case. In this timeline in this universe that nation just happens to be the United States of America.

Agree. Scrutiny is important and necessary. As long as we don’t become too smug in ourselves. Our record has not been the best either on many issues. See: Anti-Smugness Article

[franko]

MC said:

Not exactly. Honestly, it seems to me that too often, if someone criticises the US government, the response is to point out how bad France is and then ignore the criticism as though it had no basis. I just find it annoying, the implication that France is the only country we should be criticizing, or that their faults somehow make it ok for the US to do the same things. It probably wouldn't bother me as much if it weren't France, every single time. Noone ever says anything about China, or Russia, it's always France, and I assume it stems from the anti-French rhetoric that was flying around when they didn't support the invasion of Iraq (notice that that rhetoric was actually used to justify the invasion).

Then I apologize – it was pure laziness on my part to choose France, as it is in the forefront of news with the problems in Africa. I could easily have chosen China and its policy with Taiwan. Didn’t matter to me that France didn’t join in the fun in Iraq – a sovereign nation made a choice, much like Canada did (or was it just that by default we didn’t – now WMD in Iraq; no military in Canada other than the over-worked crew in Afghanistan).

MC said:

I'm not sure that's true - they continued to bomb Iraq through much of Clinton's presidency, and they continued to have forces deployed around the world. They would certainly have needed to get oil somehow [this is not a comment on Iraq], and that means exerting influence in the Middle East. Many in the Bush administration believe(d) that America should improve it's military in preparation to fight multiple simultaneous major wars. Perhaps it would have depended on how you define isolationist, and on the success of various endeavours, but it's not clear to me that isolationism would have taken over.

I think the future *may* see a stronger, more unified Euorpean Union, and a possible return to the 2 superpower polarization. If that happens, the US will find it hard not to continue to be involved all over the place.

I was referring to the Bush administration and the initial plan of protectionism through isolation rather than aggression and expansion (let the world work out its own problems while we take care of “us”). And I can’t find the link to the article(s) suggesting this as policy, so slap me silly and censure me for not providing documentation, but . . .

Of course, with the massive influence of armament makers that particular policy wouldn’t have lasted very long anyway.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

franko said:

Agree. Scrutiny is important and necessary. As long as we don’t become too smug in ourselves. Our record has not been the best either on many issues. See: Anti-Smugness Article

Oh, I wouldn't describe myself as being smug or waving a Canadian flag when I make my "political" comments. I call 'em as I seize 'em.

The greater the number of my days of this mortal coil the greater the sense I have of how common it is for people to want to screw each other over (quite often for the most banal of reasons). Language, culture, ethnicity, ideology or flag make no difference. Same as it ever was in the Devil's playground.

Thank God that are always at least a handful of enlightened beings on the planet at any given time.

[franko]

M. said:

Oh, I wouldn't describe myself as being smug . . . I call 'em as I seize 'em.

Smug? haughty? Arrogant? Biased? Partial? Opinionated? You? Never! ;D

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Muslims alienating world's Americans?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

franko said:

Smug? haughty? Arrogant? Biased? Partial? Opinionated? You? Never! ;D

Oh come on, just because I post loudly and carry a big schtick...