Editor's Note: This is the first in a six-part series by Mr. Polk exploring the full range of American foreign policy issues. As he points out, "the comprehensiveness is crucial because merely dickering with aspects of the American approach to the world won't work; what we need is a coherent policy." Click here to read the other articles in this series.

Æsop was one of the first commentators who sought to guide rulers toward the understanding that real power did not always arise from force and violence. Living in a time known as “The Age of the Tyrants,” when rulers regarded anyone who questioned their dominance as a subversive, Æsop reproved them indirectly with a fable. The Sun and The Wind , he said, were disputing over which was the more powerful. To settle their argument, they agreed on a contest -- which could make a tiny human down on Earth take off his cloak. Going first, Wind hurled himself on the luckless fellow with hurricane force. But the harder the gale buffeted him, the more tightly did the man wrap himself in his cloak. When his “shock and awe” did not work, Wind finally gave up. Then came the turn of Sun. He did not frighten the man as Wind had done but beguiled him. Warmed by his rays, the man threw off his heavy cloak. From a necessary protector against Wind, he found that it had become an uncomfortable burden.

No more than in Æsop’s time are rulers today happy to receive admonitions, but now we assert our right as citizens to reprove them. Here I will put aside issues of law or morality to focus simply on effectiveness. I will argue that, in Æsop’s terms, creating an environment of mutual interest works better than threat. Some people will dismiss as naïve the notion that leadership can replace force in a world of great danger where evil is seen to be lurking in all the continents. In part, of course, they are right because this approach to the world is self-fulfilling. Treating others as evil and threatening them with destruction, as I showed in the previous essay, causes them to fear America’s power and threat. Buffeted or fearing to be buffeted by the modern military equivalent of Æsop’s Wind, at least some of them will wrap themselves more tightly in the “cloak” of nuclear power. Others will seek different but also dangerous means to protect themselves while they grudgingly and temporarily do as they are compelled or bribed to do. Æsop’s Sun was certainly not less powerful than Wind. Æsop was not arguing for weakness or passivity. Certainly not for isolationism. Rather he realized that Sun could use its immense power in ways that were effective because they did not terrify but created conditions in which Æsop’s man was led to see that his own best interest was to do what Sun wanted. Here I will outline the dimensions and attributes of a “warm leadership” that is more likely than threat and violence to create the peace and security for which we all yearn.

* * *

The precondition for the formulation of a successful policy is the recognition that “Wind” has not worked. “Improving” on Wind, increasing the power, the reach and the level of military threat, that America can direct toward others will almost certainly be self-defeating. But, despite our national proclivity to shortcuts, there are no gimmicks or “quick fixes” for America‘s dilemma. Therefore, it is time for a general reassessment of where we are today and of the direction in which we are heading.

As I have argued in the previous essay, despite America’s vast resources and immense power, America is not safer today than a decade or even a generation ago.. We are losing the war in Iraq,1 are certainly not winning the war in Afghanistan,2 have embarked upon a campaign against terrorism that is not working,3 all at enormous cost to ourselves and future generations.4 More of the same, respected business and government statesmen believe, will bankrupt us. But that is what we are told we must do. Indeed, we are told that we must do so in ways that terrify even America’s few remaining allies. The latest official statement of American policy indicates that we are not heeding these warnings but are heading in the opposite direction.

The 2005 “National Defense Strategy of the United States of America”5 makes the United States appear to be a rogue state. It asserts that America will do anything it deems to be in its interest anywhere and anytime it chooses regardless of the interests of others and even in violation of its treaty obligations. In this document, the Bush administration has adopted the role of the lone “gun slinger,” a figure who may stand tall in American mythology, and so caters to the John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movie image so popular among us, but whom even the real, rather than the silver screen, communities in the Wild West refused to tolerate. The world community is likely to do on a larger scale just what the real communities of the Wild West did: seek to curb or break our frightening power. In extreme cases, states like North Korea will seek the ultimate protection, nuclear weapons; national non-states cannot – yet -- compete on the nuclear level but they can and will use the weapon of the weak, terrorism. Or, to put it in terms of the Westerns, shoot us in the back.

Ideally, America would seek to recapture the universal respect, indeed the love and admiration, from which it derived its influence, its real power, for so long. To those who question whether respect, a belief in American legitimacy and benign leadership, constitutes real power, consider the contrast between a city where the government is respected as legitimate and one where it is not: Dallas can live in reasonable security with a small police force while Baghdad cannot be controlled by a whole army. Historical example after example provides ample proof that even overwhelming force does not produce the level of security that comes when societies believe they are being treated with an acceptable degree of fairness and attention to their well-being.

It is not only ”ideally” that America must seek to recapture respect for its role in world affairs. It is essential. Without the sense that a state or a government is legitimate in the exercise of its power, it is seen as tyranny. That is the downward trend on which we are embarked. Every recent public opinion poll taken -- even among traditional friends and allies -- indicates that the reservoir of goodwill which for long gave America its unique strength is now well drained.6 Refilling that reservoir with what President Eisenhower, drawing on Thomas Jefferson, called “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” will be a long-term process.

1 In the last year, the number of daily attacks by insurgents have roughly doubled; US casualties have doubled; over 50 American-appointed Iraqi senior officials have been murdered; Iraqi police casualties are up a third; oil production is down; and from their belief that Iraqis would greet American soldiers with flowers in hand, senior American officials are now admitting that the war may be un-winnable and will likely last for a decade or more. A senior US general presciently said over a year ago that we are “already on the road to defeat.” (Thomas Ricks in The Washington Post, May 9, 2004.)

2 Reports based on US government intelligence indicate that there is a resurgence of the feared and widely hated Taliban and that the writ of Afghan government we sponsor hardly runs outside the capital, Kabul. The social situation is dire: after three years of American occupation, Afghanistan ranks 173 rd of 178 countries in the UN Human Development index. (Carlotta Gall, International Herald Tribune, February 23, 2005.)

3 As I write, an obviously well-orchestrated and large-scale campaign of terrorist bombings has wracked London. cUsama bin Ladin, who may or may not have been involved, has not been caught. Even if he were caught, his capture would probably not diminish the capacity of any of the now-several groups we lump into al-Qa cida. Moreover, as the CIA has acknowledged, the Iraq war is proving an excellent training ground for a new generation of terrorists. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin on the British policy in Colonial America, we did not find a war of terrorism in Iraq but we created one.

4 As reported in the Harper’s Magazine Forum of June 2005, “A respected credit agency recently noted that by 2026, baring a change in our fiscal policy, US Treasury bills – once the world’s de facto gold standard – will be classified as junk bonds.”

5www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/dod/nds-usa_mar2005.htm

6 A poll of public opinion in 21 countries of some 22,000 people conducted by the B.B.C. indicated that 58% expected the Bush administration to have a negative impact on peace and security and that, for the first time, “dislike of Mr. Bush is translating into dislike of Americans in general.” (The Guardian, January 20, 2005).

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
Once more ; again and again you evade the main point and revert to your ridiculous theory of a "malignant ideology" by avoiding to address my conclusion which ran as follows:
"Zionism in the past, Israel/AIPAC now, managed to draw the USA into its anti-Arab anti- Islam crusade by slowly manoeuvring the USA into the forefront of(what) was ,is essentially and objectively an Arab-Moslem/Zionist-Israel conflict totally unrelated to America's long term interests.
This ,unfortunate, development which obviously runs contrary to Arab, Moslem and American interests and serves Israel extremely well was , is, the output of the un-American, Zionist inspired theories that has been developed in Zionist circles for quite some time but emerged outright only lately in posts such as yours.
With the escalating cost , in blood and treasure, of this anti Arab/Moslem Zionist inspired campaign paid for solely by the USA to the exclusive benefit of Israel, America is bound, sooner or later, to find out who is serving America's interests and who is serving Israel's to the detriment of America's ...a day of reckoning will come !
Things will look very, very different then!"

To which I add:

You will not like what you will confront on that day of reckoning!

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Clarke
Not being an Islamist myself, in the political sense though a pro Jihad in the original sense, I would rather, out of fairness to these decent thinkers and out of respect for the general reader ,not speak for them.

The best I can do is ask the interested reader to look them up on the web where ,I hope, they will speak for themselves , in English or in French, on the subjects of interest to you and the general Western reader.


My transliteration of their names from Arabic into English seems to have been inaccurate.

Their respective names would propably appear best as:

-Tarek El Bichri ( for my Tarik Al Bushari)
- Mohammed El Aauwa (for my Mohammed Al Awa),
-Fahmi Houeidi,

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr. Friedman
It is only to be expected that Zionism and Zionists should consciously under estimate the magnitude of Arab-Moslem/American present and potential common interests and overestimate American/Israeli common interests!
Any other evaluation would quickly lead to a very different appraisal of international alignments and alliances: the Zionist nightmare coming true.
I have no doubt that you know that what is at stake is much more than oil; a finite ,replaceable and exhaustible commodity.
Equally self-evident is the blatant fallacy of "Democracy", which neither the USA genuinely espouses nor the Arab-Moslem world intractably rejects, as THE major incentive/disincentive to international rapprochement and cooperation as the case of Chinese/US relations amply demonstrate!
The first premise is a naïve shortsighted evaluation while the second is a demonstrably transient PR ploy!
The real, history making, issue is the future relations between two major human blocks, two principal cultural constituents of human kind: the Arab-Moslem world and the Christian and secular West led by the USA, and the political, economic, cultural and human ramifications of their mutual enmity or friendship on all of humankind in a speedily globalizing world.

That goes, in historical importance, far beyond oil, wheat and technology.

The future of Arab-Moslem/American relations will shape the face of the globe for generations to come and determine whether it would be a belligerently polarized environment or a depolarized, multicultural set up in which TWO major cultural /confessional entities coexist in mutual respect and cooperation.

Your often-repeated claim, made under a different form in each new post, that Islam, through Jihadism and Jihadists, is out to conquer the world, starting with the Western world, is not credible enough to warrant serious refutation.
Where as there is a patently obvious vital Zionist interest in the continuation and prolongation of the present state of hostility and mutual rejection between the Arab-Moslem world and the USA, standing for the Christian West, and an interrupted Zionist drive to exacerbate and escalate it.
That drive is the inevitable byproduct of the establishment of a Jewish/Zionist Israel in the heartland of the Arab-Moslem World.
With the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine through which Israel replaced the West as the main depository of Judaism and consequently of Jewish influence and power an important development, possibly unforeseen by Zionism at the time, emerged: the general decline of Jewish influence in the West that is gradually reemerging as the Christian Secular West instead of the old Judeo Christian West.

Zionism's plan to make up its subsequent loss of direct influence and power in the West was to make Israel the West's, starting with the USA, sole ally in the Middle with a common shared mortal enemy: the Arab-Moslem world!

Hence the intentional underestimate of Arab-Moslem/American present and potential common interests and the over estimate of American/Israeli interests and Zionism/Israel's crucial interest in ever worsening relations between the Arab-Moslem world and the West.!
The Christian Secular West, starting with Europe, has seen through this Zionist plan to automatically make Israel's enemy the West's.
The USA, after the eminent collapse of the Neocon/Zionist common front, will join it!
Things will look different then…you will NOT like what you will see!

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
If it makes you feel better to say what you just said that is OK with me!
However knowing you I guess your real reaction was left unsaid.
If you fail to understand and accept that this ALIEN,AGGRESSIVE,RACIST and RETROGRESSIVE entity that is Israel that DISLOCATED, DISPOSSESSED and DISFRANCHISED the Palestinian ARAB,both Moslem and Christian,people in their homeland Palestine and supplanted them with ALIENS has absolutely no future as a Zionist body; you really, then, do not know what is going on.
Happy fdreams for you and your Lebanese(?)friend.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
If you believe that ALL, or any thing, that is written in a site, newspaper or book by whoever happens to be the author speaks for Islam and Moslems then you would be way off the truth!
Any thing, actually everything ,is being said somewhere some time here or there by some one !Do they all speak for Islam? You can not be serious !
As for all BIG SUBJECTS you have all kinds of people addressing them constantly; these range from the responsible , serious and influential contributors to the lunatic fringe.

Your exceptional skill at finding and high lighting the latter is much more of an indicator of your mind set and presumed objective search than their representative value of Islam.
Have you ever heard of, or read, Fahmi Hueidi,Tarik Al Bushari or Al Awa?

I bet if you did you will never refer to nor quote them; they will not assist you in your blind campaign to demonize Islam!

Not everbody who is a Moslem, or pretends to be one, speaks for Islam ...you know that but prefer to ignore it.

Be serious and show some respect for the general reader!

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

"We just want to be loved (#65607)
by Edward Siegler on July 27, 2005 at 2:18 PM
When was this golden age when America was widely respected around the world? "

America, the USA, was held in great esteem and respect throughout the noncolonialist/nonimperialist world for its declared anti colonialist policies up the aftermath the of WWI particularly in the Arab/Moslem World.

We started moving away from each other at the unveiling ,by the nascent Soviet Union, the hitherto secret Sykes (British)/Picot(French) Agreement that divided the ,to be liberated , from Ottoman domination , Middle East .
Britain was to retain unopposed, by France, its influence, read domination, of Egypt and impose it on Iraq, Transjordan and Palestine while France was allocated both Syria and Lebanon.
America's non-opposition, its de facto recognition, of this colonialist carve up was the first blow to its anti colonialist and anti imperialist reputation..
In spite of this unexpected development, the Arabs retained a great deal of respect, esteem and hope in the USA as an anti colonialist power and a true friend .!

This was very clearly expressed to the US KING-KRANE commission in its survey of the post Ottoman situation through an extensive and in depth fact finding mission.
The Major findings and recommendations of its mission were:
1- The overwhelming majority of the people of the newly liberated, from Ottoman domination, countries i.e.Iraq,Syria , Lebanon and Palestine rejected the Sykes/Picot carve up and adamantly refused any form of British or French mandate over them.
2- Should the international community insist on subjecting them to a, temporary, UN mandatory administration they overwhelmingly CHOSE the USA for that role.
3- The overwhelming majority of the peoples in question, virtually all except the minute Jewish communities that dwelled among them, rejected the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of a "Jewish Homeland" in Palestine.
The KING-CRANE commission report to President Wilson unequivocally recommended that US policy should faithfully reflect these findings by:
1-Non recognition of the Sykes/Picot carve up.
2-Opposition of British or French mandates over these countries.
3-A radical review, practically a negation and opposition, of the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of a "Jewish Homeland" in Palestine.

America's failure to respect the findings, which reflected the will of the people in question, and to act by the recommendations, which truly aimed at protecting and furthering the long term interests of the USA, of this Presidential commission started the walk away between our two nations that has gradually escalated into the undeniable state of bitter enmity that dominate our relations today..

The USA, under the excessive influence of the Zionist/Jewish international community, chose instead not only to IGNORE the will of the people but equally and perversely to ACT consciously against it by acquiescing to the Sykes/Picot Agreement and furthering the establishment of the rapacious, racist state of Israel.

That is WHEN the USA was respected and esteemed by the Arab/Moslem World and that is WHY it lost that respect and esteem and is presently deemed its principal enemy .

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
Much like the CNN and other media, mainly and grossly so in the Murdoch stable, it is the SENSATIONAL news and VIEWS that you are looking for and HIGHLIGHTING; always with the subtle, and quite often the less subtle, implication that these belong to mainstream Islam or, when subtle, a major stream.
From your response above I gather that you have never read, not to say never heard of, Houeidi, Al Bushari or Al Awa (did you?), to name only a few modern Islamic thinkers.

In that case out of self respect, and some respect for the general reader, you better stay away from the subject of modern Islam.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
Your reply has nothing to do with neither the question nor my answer to it!
As is usual with your posts you evade the main issue by striking in a remotely linked direction for better to obfuscate the main issue.
My answer to the simple question "When was this golden age when America was widely respected around the world? " was:
- "America, the USA, was held in great esteem and respect throughout the noncolonialist/nonimperialist world for its declared anti colonialist policies up the aftermath the of WWI particularly in the Arab/Moslem World.".

This respect and esteem for America was amply demonstrated by :
"2- Should the international community insist on subjecting them to a, temporary, UN mandatory administration they (the Arabs)overwhelmingly CHOSE the USA for that role."
The parting of ways started with:
-"America's non-opposition, its de facto recognition, of this colonialist carve up( Sykes/Picot) was the first blow to its anti colonialist and anti imperialist reputation."
It was intensified by:
-"America's failure to respect the findings, which reflected the will of the people in question, and to act by the recommendations, which truly aimed at protecting and furthering the long term interests of the USA, of this Presidential commission started the walk away between our two nations that has gradually escalated into the undeniable state of bitter enmity that dominate our relations today.."
Then it developed into the present state of implacable hostility because of:
-"The USA, under the excessive influence of the Zionist/Jewish international community, chose instead not only to IGNORE the will of the people but equally and perversely to ACT consciously against it by acquiescing to the Sykes/Picot Agreement and furthering the establishment of the rapacious, racist state of Israel."

You have consistently attempted in all your posts to draw away the attention of the American non specialist reader from the real causes of Arab-Moslem/American alienation , principally Zionism/Israel, that has turned into the present bitter enmity by developing your own theories of an unprovoked, unjustified ,inevitable (theologically preordained) Islam based/inspired seminal hostility to the West in general and the USA in particular.

Your bottom claim being: "Israel has nothing to do with it!"

Historical facts belie this Zionist serving and inspired malicious contention :
"2- Should the international community insist on subjecting them to a, temporary, UN mandatory administration they (the Arabs)overwhelmingly CHOSE the USA for that role."

Zionism in the past, Israel/AIPAC now, managed to draw the USA into its anti-Arab anti- Islam crusade by slowly manoeuvring the USA into the forefront of was is essentially and objectively an Arab-Moslem/Zionist-Israel conflict totally unrelated to America's long term interests.
This ,unfortunate, development which obviously runs contrary to Arab, Moslem and American interests and serves Israel extremely well was , is, the output of the un-American, Zionist inspired theories that has been developed in Zionist circles for quite some time but emerged outright only lately in posts such as yours.
With the escalating cost , in blood and treasure, of this anti Arab/Moslem Zionist inspired campaign paid for solely by the USA to the exclusive benefit of Israel, America is bound, sooner or later, to find out who is serving America's interests and who is serving Israel's to the detriment of America's ...a day of reckoning will come !
Things will look very, very different then!

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Why is it so difficult for you to admit your mistakes ? At least once in a while ?

Because you often forget what you wrote one or two posts ago and are too lazy to double-check it, you think I will do the same ?

Of course, in a wide-ranging essay like that of professor Ferguson, you and almost anyone else will find some points of agreement, but your first quote from him (in #65751) - which does NOT contain the new bit you just snuck in ( in #65859) about "pernicious ideology"- says nothing about Moslems dominating Europe, let alone about Europe choosing "the path of suicide". Nor does the new bit endorse your paranoid fantasies about Moslem domination of Europe or Europe's suicide (#65678).

You said (see my #65781 for details, just two short posts above this one, not that hard to go back and look at) that Ferguson had "repeatedly" predicted that Europe would "within the next few decades, be dominated by Muslims". He did no such thing in any quote of his you have found or likely will ever find.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Of course, we are all -you, me, Niall Ferguson, and most of the planet- saying SOME of the "same things": terrorism is bad, Islamic terrorism is one particularly dangerous strain thereof, there are problems with Islam that contribute to Islamic terrorism, the Moslem population is growing in Europe and likely to keep growing, etc. etc.. What you cannot and will not find is serious top-quality historical scholarship to back up your extreme and paranoid prejudices about the entirety of Moslem people, or your specific ill-informed and silly fantasies about Europe.

I don't know what your cognitive disabilities are, but if you can manage, for once, to go back up to your post

Re: We just want to be loved (#65678)

and scroll from there back to here, and READ what is written in between,
you might manage to discover the obvious:

1. You claim, in this section of this thread, that Europe has CHOSEN to commit suicide by ALLOWING Moslems to migrate to it, and thus within a FEW DECADES, DOMINATE it.

2. Prolific professor Niall Ferguson says, in the same series of posts of this thread, just about precisely the opposite of you. Please note if you can, that "just about precisely the opposite" is very much NOT equal to "nearly the same thing". What Niall writes, in the quotes above, is that Europe has LIMITED CHOICES - the Moslems will find a way to keep coming in regardless, that prophesizing about Moslems becoming a majority in Europe a CENTURY from now goes "too far", and that, far from being suicidal, this trend is actually not an "invariable bad thing".

Bye

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

You go from one extreme to the other, Mr. Siegler. The term "Yankee", used derogatorily, has a very long and rich history, but there is a lot more to American foreign policy history that that. Take just one example: in 1991 we had the support of Germany, France, Egypt, Japan, Turkey, and Syria and the UN in invading Iraq, it cost us almost nothing, and the mission was accomplished swiftly and efficiently. In 2003 none of those foreigners supported us, we have had to foot almost the whole (far from fully impacted) bill ourselves, and the "cakewalk to Baghad" has been a colossal, blunder-ridden failure that we are far from the end of.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Mr. S, I am afraid you are flailing. I never said that there weren’t screw-ups aplenty vis-a-vis Saddam and Iraq under Daddy Bush and Clinton, and your forceful (I won’t assume “hatred” based) remarks to that effect (which I basically agree with) are off-point.

You asked, in your original post, when was America “widely respected around the world”, implying never. I gave a counter-example. There are many others, from T. Roosevelt getting the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japan war in 1905 to JFK’s face going on postage stamps all around the globe in 1964, and many other instances before 1904 and after 1964 and in between.

There have been discussions on HNN before regarding anti-Americanism, most of them rather foolish as I recall. Certainly it is a matter on which reasonable observers may differ, but the extreme formulation of your first post - that “widespread admiration for America” has never been anything more than “mythical” does not hold historical water.

PKC

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

You are out to lunch again, N., lumping as you invariably do in your prejudical way, dozens of countries and nationalities and languages under the monolithic European umbrella. Does Lula follow the same policy as Bush because Brazilians and Americans are all "Western Hemispherians" ?

First you say that Europeans want to unify ,then that France wants to extend FRENCH power. You ought to at least make up your mind which of these two contradictory views you'd like to espouse before going further to display your ignorance of Europe, its history, and its diverse peoples.

And, by the way, your whole comment is irrelevant to the thread which discusses whether foreigners ever had widespread admiration for the U.S.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Europeans have been around longer than the Moslem bogeymen who are coming to get you personally in the night with their jackboots on, N.
If you think Europeans are committing "suicide", because of migration into the European continent from outside it, you are falling into the same fallacy as xenophobic nativists in the USA a hundred years ago who wanted to send "unasssimilable" Italians, Poles and Russian Jews back to where those "scum" came from, lest they destroy America. Consult your dictionary on "change" and "suicide".

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Whatever she may be in reality, your idol Bat Yeor is not a foremost historian of Europe. Do you have a clue what percentage of Europe (outside of Turkey) is Moslem ? How does this compare to Israel ? Is Israel dead now of suicide ? DId you pass 5th grade arithmetic ? Can you cite any EU "agreement" that has any demonstrable binding effect on member countries' assimiliation policies ? Do your homework, N. This is not an issue where being able to spout some Islamic mumbo jumbo will get you very far.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

This article is based mainly on common sense. But, as is all too typical of such commentaries, it wimps out when it comes to implementation. Unless those in government who have arrogantly and willfully abandoned reason and pragmatic efficiency (often out of very selfish and short-sighted motives) are brought to account (e.g. identified, investigated, prosecuted, and punished), America will have difficulty regaining the international credibility that has been so foolishly squandered over the past four years, and is briefly, though accurately, referred to here.

Maybe this deficiency will be redressed in subsequent articles in this author’s series (or has been already in previous installments ? This is either the first in the series or not; the text is ambiguous), but it is hard to be optimistic. The spineless repetition here of the term "war in Iraq", intended by its concocters to put a deliberate deceptively glorious martial and patriotic spin on what it fact is a bloody, hypocritical, and massively bungled attempt at occupation, NOT a war (and certainly not A war) in any normal definition of the word, gives the reader faint hope of later reading anything going seriously beyond well-meaning and well-constructed piety.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Your ignorance of Europe and utter inability to do basic arithmetic ratios continues unabated, N. You could not manage a single one of the basic background checks I outlined in my last post, and they would shoot down your paranoid characterization of Europe "committing suicide" if you did.

I am quite confident that you will find no corroborating quote from Niall Ferguson (or however you want to mispell his name -what DO you correct in these endless double posts ?) concerning Europe being "dominated by Muslims" in any normal English dictionary sense of the word "dominate" (control the government, or society, be a majority of the population, etc.).
Accordingly to my recollection, he said pretty much the opposite in his Atlantic Monthly article. But your imagined quote is yours to not find.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

My my, so you can actually find and post a relevant article. Credit where due.

Ferguson is brilliant (though human and thus not always right). And this is basically what I remember reading from him in Atlantic Monthly (even the superhumanly prolific sometimes repeat themselves). Too bad you are evidently not able to understand him:

"Nor [is Moslem immigration to Europe] invariably a bad thing" [Ferguson]

does not equal

“Our friends in Europe are worse. They have chosen the path of suicide.”
[Friedman in #65678 ]

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Mr. Baker,

Since Mr. Friedman, after who knows how many hundreds of HNN posts denying this, has finally admitted (in his landmark post (#66244) above) that his tireless campaign to save the world from Jihadism applies to a MINORITY, not the majority of Moslems, how about that majority ? What is their attitude towards Al Qaeda, towards freedom of religion, separation of religion from the state (e.g. the U.S. constitution's first amendment), towards the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine which almost the whole non-Islamic world (even including Ariel Sharon) at least profess to support ?

It would be helpful (to me and perhaps any other lost souls still visiting this page) if you were to devote a fraction of the time already invested trying -with more success than I would have thought possible- to ram a few ounces of sense into your counterpart's copiously lined cranium, in the direction instead of a bit of enlightment as to the attitude of the silent majority of Moslems about all of this.

To keep the task reasonable in scope, a few words about each of the three spokespeople you mentioned (Houeidi, Al Bushari and Al Awa) would be appreciated (I am not optimistic about much informative regarding them coming from Mr. Friedman's side).

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

N, Nobody could possibly read all of your posts, but what I do read, I tend to follow despite your often unclear prose. The bigger difficulty to an conversation with you is that you have quite a bit of trouble remembering things generally, including what you yourself have written.

Just now you stated, and I guess really deludingly believed ,that "I said basically the same thing the good professor said."

No, not even close. Here is what you said:

Friedman (#65730):

"...it is a fact of nature that Europe will, within the next few decades, be dominated by Muslims. Nials Fergusson has said the same thing repeatedly (including recently in the London Telegraph).

And here is what Ferguson says (quoted in #65751):

"Bernard Lewis's recent prophecy - that Muslims would be a majority in Europe by the end of the 21st century - surely goes too far."

Ferguson's point, at least in your posted excerpt, is the Moslem "settlement" in Europe is "an irreversible phenomenon". He says nothing at all about assimilation (your big point), except to assert that Moslems assimilate quickly (not slowly as you claim ) when it comes to family size.

WIth this sort of 180 degree delusion going on in your mind between what you write in one post here and the next, how can you expect me or anyone else to take your word for it that you know what you are talking about when it comes to arcane details from a book written hundreds of years ago in a squiggely alphabet ?

N. Friedman - 8/7/2005

Omar,

Khalifa Magazine is, so far as I know, a product of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Great Britain.

I am well aware of modern Islamic thinkers. But, the Muslims who are engaged in the Jihad follow the model set in the article.

N. Friedman - 8/7/2005

Omar,

I did not say they speak for all Muslims. I never said all Muslims have any particular view. I said instead that Muslims - not all Muslims or even most but, nonetheless, a large number - are engaged in a global Jihad and such people tend to hold opinions akin to those set out in the article.

And I know all about the publishers of Khalifa. They have been in the news recently - even early this morning - in Great Britain. In fact their spokesperson was on CNN International early this morning.

While I accuse that group of nothing, the ideology they assert is the ideology of those among Muslims who, in fact, follow the classical view that Jihad or Dawa is to be employed until the entire world is ruled by Muslims.

And people who hold such views are, if the polling in Great Britain is to be believed, a very large group - more than 100,000 people in that country alone -.

And, I might add, such view appears even in well known books by Muslim apologists such as Reza Aslam who calls the doctrine the "classical Jihad theory."

N. Friedman - 8/6/2005

Omar,

In a prior post, you wrote: "Your often-repeated claim, made under a different form in each new post, that Islam, through Jihadism and Jihadists, is out to conquer the world, starting with the Western world, is not credible enough to warrant serious refutation."

Here is a bit of evidence from an Islamist website which quite exactly contradicts your above assertion:

"Jihad: The Highest Peak of Islam," by Rashad Ali, Khilafah Magazine, December 2001 Edition, at http://www.khilafah.com/home/lographics/category.php?DocumentID=2817&TagID=2

I suggest you read the article as it is quite a good one. Here are a few extracts from the article:

The discussion concerning Jihad is taking place throughout the Ummah and indeed many misunderstandings and distortions, some deliberate, have come forth. Some of these have been propagated by the likes of the government scholars both in the West and in the Muslim World, such as Jihad an-Nafs, Jihad against oneself and Jihad as a defensive war only.

**************

Myth: Jihad is only defensive

Another distortion that is promoted is the idea that Jihad is only defensive. The protagonists of this idea again utilise certain misinterpretations to justify their positions.

***************

Before a land is opened up to Islam the inhabitants must be invited to Islam. Without this call the fight is not allowed.

***************

The reality is that any nation that has a doctrine, which deals comprehensively with the universe, man and life, must be a nation with the need to spread this doctrine. Islam is not simply a doctrine of thoughts and ideas. Islam is also a practical system and way of life. Faith in Islam is not based only on its thoughts and concepts. A Muslim must also have belief in its actual implementation as a comprehensive way of life. Belief in this must then be followed by action.

It is obligatory for the Islamic nation to invite people to Islam, to propagate it and to subjugate other nations to the Islamic system of ruling.

*****************

Conclusion

Jihad is the removal of obstacles, by force if necessary, that stand between people and Islam. It is the practical method of spreading Islam. The call to Islam is compulsory on Muslims. Jihad is included within this compulsory action. Like the call, Jihad is to be performed by the nation (Ummah).

Jihad is continuous and will always be so. This is an obligation imposed on Muslims by Shari’ah. However, this is not the Jihad that is carried by the nation whose intention is to open land to the justice of Islam. Practically speaking this is not going to take place until the Ummah can perform this Jihad and make the Call to Islam as a nation, and that nation must have a state that implements Islam i.e. Dar al Islam. Once this State has been established we can (Inshallah) carry on the work commenced by the Companions of our Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam), which is, to spread the Deen of Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) to all corners of the earth. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) stated, "This Deen will never cease to exist. A party of the Muslims shall always fight for it until the Hour comes to pass" [Al Jami us Sahih of Imam Muslim].



Omar, it seems to me that the above article, written by someone quite knowledgeable in what is writing, is advocating the conquest of the world by Muslims. Do you have a better explanation?

I might add, lastly, that such article is hardly unique in its position among groups advocating Jihad.

N. Friedman - 8/5/2005

Omar,

Alien? Most Israelis are from the region.

Aggressive? That is not a sin.

Racist? Prove it. Were it not for the racist war by the Arabs, there would be peace and prosperity and equality, as most Jews sought.

Retrogressive? That is idiotic.

Dislocated? No. Palestinians were displaced in a war they started. Them are the facts of life. Next time, do not start stupid wars.

It goes on and on.

N. Friedman - 8/5/2005

Omar,

The US sees its issues differently from Europe because the two regions have different histories, different concerns and different political ideologies.

Israel is not out to control the West. That is a paranoid theory. Israel is out to solve its own problems, which are many, including the fact that it lives in a region that is intolerant, prone to war and hostile to non-Muslim rule.

I say that the Islamic Jihadis seek to spread the realm of the world that is part of the dar al-Islam or which is in that sphere of influence. Having a billion people makes that a possibility. Have 6 million people in Israel makes your argument regarding Israel's plans stupid as it assumes the Israelis are all idiots.

Again, Israel's appeal to the US is one of shared values. Israel's appeal to countries like India and Turkey and China is that Israel has something to offer which outweighs the hostility of the Israel's enemies.

The US shares no values at all with the Muslim regions. The Muslim regions produce nothing at all other than the oil which people from the West discovered and have dug up, giving a piece of the action to corrupt dictators as a payoff. That is the extent of the values.

In Europe, there is a recent wake up to the facts of the world, namely, that the cost in political turmoil of what the Arab Muslim regions demand is too steep. For a while, the hostility was directed at Israel. That theory, however, is being literally blown up by political turmoil being directed at Europeans in places like Spain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Britain.

What the Europeans largely want from Israel is that it settle with the Palestinians. The European take is that a more generous settlement with the Palestinians - meaning one based on the 1948 Armistice line - will pacify the Jihadis. That theory, however, is going under a revision as the facts show that the Jihad has other issues and plans.

I had a recent conversation with an Arab from Lebanon. He does not share your assessment. His view is that Israel is the bright light of the Middle East, one which the Arabs would, if they woke up, would emulate and want to be closer with in order to become part of the world.

In large measure he is correct. So long as the Arab regions define their politics as hostility to Israel, they will not be part of the world. Instead, the Arabs will be at odds with the world.

At this point, the world is not big enough for the Arab approach. Which is to say, there is no longer room in the world for separate regions, such as an Arab Muslim world. When the Arabs and Muslims wake up and smell the coffee - like the Indian in India have done -, the Arabs will see that their approach is outdated and counterproductive. And, frankly, hostility to Israel - not Israel's existence - is surely part of why the Arab Muslim regions are backward, intolerant and warlike with nothing of value - other than oil dug up by the West - to offer.

N. Friedman - 8/4/2005

Omar,

I do not see how the US's support of Israel is unrelated to America's interest. America's interest - since the nearly day of its founding - and notwithstanding whether the US has always acted as such, has been to be the friend of democracy everywhere (but, as the saying goes, the custodian only at home). The best of the Arab regimes are loathsome repressive non-democratic states. America's interest in democracy could never be to stand with the Arabs against Israel.

Moreover, so far as economics are concerned, while the Arabs have oil, they have not much else, thus far, to offer - unless, of course, you are interested in finding people with experience committing acts of terror -. Such, you will note, is why countries such as India and China have stopped siding so strongly with the Arab side and have come to balance their need for oil with what Israel offers. The calculation is that Israel's economic contribution and it technical prowess are a match, economically and every other way, to the entire Muslim world - i.e. 5 million people contribute basically as much, if not more, (economically and technically) than over a billion Muslims -.

Politically, there are many serious disputes between the Muslim regions and those regions which are not Muslim. That dispute is not limited to Israel. Otherwise, there would not be terror against Christians in Indonesia, against non-Muslims in Russia, against Christians and others in Sudan and elsewhere in Africa, against Copts in Egypt, against Christians and Bahaai in Iran, against Christians and various groups declared heretical in Pakistan and by Pakistanis against Hindus in India, etc., etc.

Has terror been directed against the US because it supports Israel? Some surely has. But, the terror against the US that has involved large losses of life does not have much of anything to do with Israel.

The Jihadis involved are engaged in Jihad fi sabil Allah in order to spread the portion of the world ruled by Muslims under Islamic law. That goal appears, at least for now, to be directed against Europe where there is at least some prospect for causing Europe to behave in the interests of the Muslim regions - somewhat akin to becoming dhimmmi -.

Another goal of the Jihadis is to re-create the Caliphate. The US, which is seen as having a connection to some of the regimes in the Middle East - but hardly only Israel - is seen as being in the way of that objective. But note: the issue here is a group of Jihadis seeking to otherthrow the world's established order, not because it is objectively evil by criteria which could appeal to all people of reason - which may or may not be the case and is certainly a question to be debated - but instead because, in the Islamic understanding of right and wrong, the entire dar al-harb is something to be overcome.

Now your personal concern may be with Israel's dispute with the Palestinians. That, however, does not make Israel the prime cause of the Jihad against the US. After all, Turkey also substantially supports Israel - supplying the country with a good percentage of its water - yet I doubt that the terror in Turkey can be ascribed to its relationship with Israel.

Instead, I think you confuse cause and effect. Israel may be a useful vehicle by which to unify Muslims, as was stated by the former Prime Minister of Malaysia. It is something on which Muslims tend to agree. But, that is a different thing from saying that the Jihad declared against the US is caused by Israel. That, I think, is a nonsense claim asserted by people who do seek to advance a specific cause, as you do.

Now, since you are a really bright guy, I would think you might consider just how irrational the position of the Muslim regions really is. Israel has not done a thing which the Muslims have not done repeatedly (and on a far grander and more loathsome scale) in the history of the various groups which make up the Muslim regions. Even after Israel's creation, Arabs, in the name of Islam, have done things a thousand times worse than any assertion that might be made against Israel. So, on the scale of justice on this Earth, Israel, even by your accusations, is a small time offender.

I ask you: in the last 20 years, Muslims in Sudan have managed to kill off 2 million Christian Sudanese and animists and displaced millions of others. In the scheme of things, Arabs and Muslims should focus their attention first on their egregious wrongdoing long before they spend their time on the minor misdeeds of the Israelis. And, objectively, the misdeeds of the Israelis you assert, even if true, are rather minor and small compared to those by a great many of the Arab states during the time of Israel's existence.

I note: those seeking equity must do equity. In other words, the Arab side in the dispute does not come to the dispute with pure hands but, instead, comes with hands soaked with blood they have caused others to spill.

N. Friedman - 8/3/2005

Omar,

Were you to post more clearly - and this is not a criticism of your writing, which is fine, but the manner in which you set out your posts (and you might try better setting out pre-existing material in italics or in quotes so it is obvious what you are say) -, it would be easier to find your points. At present, it is a job in itself.

As for Israel being the problem, whether or not Arabs and Muslims say otherwise, I do not believe such to be the case. Instead, I think the objection to Israel is a symptom of what is wrong in the Muslim regions.

And note: that does not place Israel beyond criticism. It does, however, place it beyond the mindless criticism which makes Israel into the role of Satan to Muslims. Israel birth, ideology, etc., are not unusual except that, like the US, Israel is a democracy. However, Israel has treated its Arab population better than, for example, any of the Europeans who migrated to North or South America treated the indigenous population and, moreover, better than the Muslim armies treated those they conquered. And, it has not displaced more people than is typical in the birth of a country.

What is unusual is the unwillingness of the Arabs to move on, alleging injustice that, at the very same time, they meted out to the Jews and Christians who live in the Arab Muslim regions. Which is to say, the Arabs who claim Israel to have done something unique might recall the nearly million Jews they expelled from their countries and the misery the Arab Muslims have brought to Arab Christians, 75% of which have now fled to the US and the rest who, as we speak, are oppressed and attacked for being Christian.

So, I assume that Arab ideology which makes Israel the bogey man is a problem rather than Israel.

And I think I previously have well explained why the Muslim regions behave badly and, as I have said, very little of it has to do with Israel. Instead, what we have are countries with populations and leaders whom have, in large respect, turned to pan-type solutions. The latest, after the prior ideas of pan-Arabism and the like, failed miserably. Now, the new cop offerred to save the day, so to speak, is the revival of the political aspects of Islam - a political ideology which is imperial in its very essence, as 1,400 years of history has shown. And, as also stated, there is the deflection of the depraved Arab governments of the region of their misgovernment and corruption onto Israel and the West including the US.

[Note: what I say is not an attack on Islam. I am, in my view, stating fact regarding the ideology which divides the world between the House of Islam and the House of War and postulates the need of the House of Islam to bring the rule of Islam, by war if need be, to the lands now part of the House of War.]

In any event, the destruction of Israel would almost surely fuel, not undermine, what drives the Islamic revival. In fact, the rhetoric about Israel is, as it was with the Nazis, symptom of a malignant ideology.

N. Friedman - 8/2/2005

Correction:

In the last sentence, the word is "note" and not "not" the second time "not" appears. As such, the sentence should read:

As a result, those who are not Muslim are treated like dirt - and note the mass exodus of Christians from the Muslim regions - and the Jihad made against everyone else.

N. Friedman - 8/2/2005

Omar,

At the time of the Sykes/Picot deal, the opinion of the US on the matter was not so very important. It is nice to project a non-player into the mix but facts are facts. The deal you refer to is between the French and the British.

Note: if your theory were true, why is it that those who fight the West, for the reasons you cite, come essentially only from Muslims worldwide - including people born in Britain and the Netherland, etc., who do not even suffer from the problems that plague the Muslim regions -? And, why are the Christians of the Muslim regions not also joining the Muslims in their war against the West and the US? The Christians must somehow not see the matter the same way you do.

A far better theory is the following: with the retreat of the Western countries from the Muslim regions, the issue of political theory came to the forefront. Early on, there was the idea of pan-Arab nationalism, a set of policies, including Ba'athism, Nassarism, etc., championed by both Christians and by Muslims but which, in due course, became pan-Islamism, as Michel Aflaq discovered. With the failure of such approach came the idea of Islam itself being the answer. That idea is all the rage in the Arab regions and has spread to the remaining Muslim regions as well.

The revival of Islam came in the package of restoring Islam as it was when the Muslims dominated much of the world. Such a radical transformation could only come as a result of terrible violence, rabid hatred and oppression of others and the creation of an ideology that demonozing others. And that itself led to the revival of Jihad. Which is the problem facing the world today, not the fact that the British and French divided up the Muslim regions.

The Muslim regions will actually revive and not continue their descent into darkness dominated by hatred when they adopt a regime of tolerance, something which none at present have done or even begun to pursue. Instead, the Muslim regions are governed by regimes which permit the suppression of all, attempt to displace anger at the regions onto non-Muslim among them - as is the case in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Indonesia, etc., etc. -, blame Israel, not themselves, for their economic and social failures and blame the US, not themselves, for everything including Sykes/Picot, an agreement that involves the French and British, not the Americans. As a result, those who are not Muslim are treated like dirt - and not the mass exodus of Christians from the Muslim regions - and the Jihad made against everyone else.

N. Friedman - 8/1/2005

Peter,

I understood what the good professor said. Again, the issue is whether or not the immigrants will be integrated or whether they will define themselves, as a large percentage now does, as Europeans of Muslim background or as Muslims. And that is a consequential question whether or not the good professor sees the matter that way. Frankly, I think he does.

N. Friedman - 8/1/2005

Peter,

My objection is not to the immigration but to the immigration without efforts to integrate the immigrants. And, if you look above, I have said that rather clearly.

Enough of this nonsense, Peter.

N. Friedman - 7/31/2005

Peter,

Did you not notice that I said that I had a partial mistatement and, more particularly, on the point you accuse me of mistating I said: "And you are correct, his argument is slightly, but not much, different from what I said." http://hnn.us/comments/65751.html. And, in fact, I did include the bit quoted above although not the second quote.

In any event, you are being ridiculous. What he said I said are nearly the same thing.

N. Friedman - 7/30/2005

Peter,

I said that (a) that I had slightly mispoken but (b) the good professor an I basically agreed.

Here is what the professor said: Fouad Ajami is more realistic when he anticipates that Muslim "colonisation" will continue to be concentrated in certain regions of Europe, just as it was when the Moors ruled southern Spain (which they did, don't forget, from the 8th to the 15th century), or when the Ottomans ruled the Balkans (from the 14th to the 19th). It's just that this time Yorkshire may end up being part of "Eurabia".

Here is what else the professor said, about which I agree: No, the problem today is not immigration per se; it is the fact that a pernicious ideology has been allowed to infiltrate Europe's immigrant communities.

Now: here is what I said previously: And you are correct, his argument is slightly, but not much, different from what I said. He said that there will be pockets of Eurabia, not that the entire continent will be Eurabia - as he, not I, call it. But he agrees with me that the issue of how the immigrants come to see themselves is very, very real.

It would appear that you are mistaken.

N. Friedman - 7/29/2005

Peter,

Too bad you will not read what I write. I said basically the same thing the good professor said.

The issue I raise - and I think the good professor would agree - is whether or not Muslims decide in sufficient numbers to integrate. If they do not, that is a disaster.

Thus far, the evidence suggests that they are not doing quite so well. And, as I said, there are real reasons why. Most of them are the fault of the various European countries and the EU. But, a good number have to do with the Muslim doctrine regarding living under infidel rule.

Arnold Shcherban - 7/29/2005

Mr. Friedman,

Already every sixth man in the world(!) is Chinese, and the number of Chinese here in the US exceeds the number of deeply religious Muslims tenfold. However, it did not, and would not lead neither the world, nor this country to
the domination of the Buddism, or Mandarin's culture, or
Chinese traditions.
As far as the Islamic assimilation is concerned it's going on as we speak, and given time by people of reality (since the conspiracy or nationalistic buffs won't give it) it will accelerate tremendously, provided, of course, this country together with its British leiutenant won't screw up Muslim countries completely, conseqently generating hundreds of thousands of terrorists and leaving no hope for the rest, except for the elite corrupted by the big buck.

N. Friedman - 7/29/2005

Peter,

This, from the good Professor Ferguson at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/17/do1703.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/17/ixopinion.html . And you are correct, his argument is slightly, but not much, different from what I said. He said that there will be pockets of Eurabia, not that the entire continent will be Eurabia - as he, not I, call it. But he agrees with me that the issue of how the immigrants come to see themselves is very, very real. According to him:

The settlement of Western Europe by Muslims is now an irreversible phenomenon; moreover, it seems bound to continue more or less inexorably, whether legally or illegally.

Consider the colossal demographic forces at work. Since the 1950s, according to UN figures, the crude birth rate in the eight Muslim countries to the south and east of the Mediterranean - Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Turkey - has been two or three times the European average. The gap between Pakistan and Britain has been even wider. Total fertility per woman in Britain today is around 1.7. The latest figure for Pakistan is 4.3.

West European societies have emancipated women, allowing them to work and to limit family size. Muslim societies have been much slower to do this, especially where fundamentalism has taken hold. At the same time, Europe has achieved much higher economic growth than most Muslim countries, attracting economic migrants in droves. And now, as European societies age, we continue to attract immigrants from the more youthful Muslim periphery because big employers, such as our Health Service, apparently cannot do without them.

That is why today around 15 million Muslims make their home in the European Union. And that is why that number is certain to rise, even if Bernard Lewis's recent prophecy - that Muslims would be a majority in Europe by the end of the 21st century - surely goes too far. (In fact, Muslim immigrants tend quite quickly to switch to European-sized families.)

Fouad Ajami is more realistic when he anticipates that Muslim "colonisation" will continue to be concentrated in certain regions of Europe, just as it was when the Moors ruled southern Spain (which they did, don't forget, from the 8th to the 15th century), or when the Ottomans ruled the Balkans (from the 14th to the 19th). It's just that this time Yorkshire may end up being part of "Eurabia".

Such demographic shifts and processes of colonisation are the tides of history; mere laws and fences can no more halt them than Canute could stop the sea coming in. Nor are they invariably a bad thing. Moorish rule was hardly a disaster for Andalucia, as anyone who visits the Alhambra can see. It was contact with the more numerate and scientific Muslim world that helped propel Western Europe out of the Dark Ages.

The Boston Globe, by contrast, takes the view that the math shows that Europe will be more and more dominated by Muslims so that the parties need to reach an accomodation.

N. Friedman - 7/29/2005

Typo corrected:

Peter,

Note: the Boston Globe, this last Sunday (or the one before, perhaps), noted that it is a fact of nature that Europe will, within the next few decades, be dominated by Muslims. Nials Fergusson has said the same thing repeatedly (including recently in the London Telegraph). The issue, for anyone with a brain, is whether they will use their dominance as assimilated citizens or as non-assimilated citizens. And, as for the polling, check out the London Telegraph. It reports what I said about the lack of assimilation.

So, frankly, it is you, who needs to open up a few books and the paper. And, to note: the big issue in Europe will almost surely be whether, in fact, they succeed in assimilating the immigrants sufficiently that they become Europeanized such that they do not wish to destroy European society - as is the view, according to polling, of a rather hefty percentage -. The alternative is for Europe to become considerably more like Pakistan and Morroco and Algeria, etc., etc, both internally and as they relate to the world. And that is not to say that those countries are all the same. But none of them is a bastion of peace and tranquility, especially for non-believers and none of them has whatever virtues you and I may find in Europe.

N. Friedman - 7/29/2005

Peter,

Note: the Boston Globe, this last Sunday (or the one before, perhaps), noted that it is a fact of nature that Europe will, within the next few decades, be dominated by Muslims. Nials Fergusson has said the same thing repeatedly (including recently in the London Telegraph). The issue, for anyone with a brain, is whether they will use their dominance as assimilated citizens of as non-assimilated citizens. And, as for the polling, check out the London Telegraph. It reports what I said about the lack of assimilation.

So, frankly, it is you, who needs to open up a few books and the paper. And, to note: the big issue in Europe will almost surely be whether, in fact, they succeed in assimilating the immigrants sufficiently that they become Europeanized such that they do not wish to destroy European society - as is the view, according to polling, of a rather hefty percentage -. The alternative is for Europe to become considerably more like Pakistan and Morroco and Algeria, etc., etc, both internally and as they relate to the world. And that is not to say that those countries are all the same. But none of them is a bastion of peace and tranquility, especially for non-believers and none of them has whatever virtues you and I may find in Europe.

N. Friedman - 7/29/2005

Peter,

I am saying that the migration of people on condition that they not be assimilated is suicide. I did not saying that immigration is suicide. In fact, I favor immigration.

Note: The issue with the Muslim immigrants to Europe is that they are neither being assilimated - which requires a policy directed to that goal, not a policy directed intentionally to prevent that from occurring - nor are they, on their own accord, assimilating in sufficient numbers. Which is how, in polling, a large percentage of even second and third generation Muslim immigrants do not view themselves as, for example, British or French or German. Such immigrants do not consider themselves even what, in the US, we call hyphen-people, as in hyphen British, hyphen French, as in Irish-American or Jewish-American or Greek-American. Instead, very large numbers of such people view themselves merely as Muslims and part of the ummah, not part of British or French or German society, societies they claim to despise.

My contention is that such is, in part, by design. Which is to say, the EU committed its member states to not assimilate such people. This is because the EU entered into agreements with the Arab League to maintain the connection of such immigrants with their places of origin.

And, frankly, I am not paranoid. I am merely noting a trend which can be traced, in part, to certain disasterous policies adopted by the EU.

N. Friedman - 7/29/2005

Peter,

I am saying that the migration of people on condition that they not be assimilated is suicide. I did not saying that immigration is suicide. In fact, I favor immigration.

Note: The issue with the Muslim immigrants to Europe is that they are neither being assilimated - which requires a policy directed to that goal, not a policy directed intentionally to prevent that from occurring - nor are they, on their own accord, assimilating in sufficient numbers. Which is how, in polling, a large percentage of even second and third generation Muslim immigrants do not view themselves as, for example, British or French or German. Such immigrants do not consider themselves even what, in the US, we call hyphen-people, as in hyphen British, hyphen French, as in Irish-American or Jewish-American or Greek-American. Instead, very large numbers of such people view themselves merely as Muslims and part of the ummah, not part of British or French or German society, societies they claim to despise.

My contention is that such is, in part, by design. Which is to say, the EU committed its member states to not assimilate such people. This is because the EU entered into agreements with the Arab League to maintain the connection of such immigrants with their places of origin.

And, frankly, I am not paranoid. I am merely noting a trend which can be traced, in part, to certain disasterous policies adopted by the EU.

N. Friedman - 7/28/2005

Correction"

Threepenny

N. Friedman - 7/28/2005

Arnold,

"First Feed the Face, then Talk Right and Wrong..."
From The Three Penny Opera by Bertolt Brecht.

I certainly want the US to be admired. On the other hand, given the choice between being admired and being alive, I shall choose being alive. As bad as Bush is, our friends in Europe are worse. They have chosen the path of suicide.

So, if the French and Germans and the rest of the Europeans hate us, se la vie.

At least we are admired in India and Israel - two countries which actually know something about Jihadis.

Arnold Shcherban - 7/28/2005

Mr Siegler,

Your premise about the myth of widespread admiration for the US before Bush II administration is correct, but unfortunately, but apparently deductive logic and you are strangers, and that leads your to wrong conclusion of the type: this country does not need all that respect (and even less - admiration), it's powerful enough to impose its own will (always infallably directed) on any other country in the world, and if the rest of the world does not like it, hell with the rest of the world, since it cannot hurt us much (in striking difference with the opposite capability.)
Instead of looking for major reasons that created such attitude to this country within the domain of historically formed premises of the mainstream American intellectual thought, and reflected in the US foreign policy you displace the blame on evil regimes, the general ingratitude of people, their natural inability to copy the Great American Way in their own countries, and
other anecdotal vices of the rest of mankind.

You just refuse to see that your logical thread is just continuation of the same old fallacy that being applied practically led this country to the lack of the respect and admiration, otherwise (in view of all its economic, democratic, and other advantages) fully deserved.

N. Friedman - 7/28/2005

Peter,

I suggest you consider that I refer to France and the EU. The EU is an actual thing. Capiche!!!

Edward Siegler - 7/28/2005

What I think you're hinting at, N, is that it is in fact the increase in Western European hostility towards the US that Americans find disturbing, not anti-Americanism in general. This hostility comes not only from Europe's making its bed with the Arabs but economic competition; a desire by Europe to form a common identity (which is aided by finding a common enemy); and the end of the cold war, which greatly decreased Europe's dependence on American military aid. When the only thing standing between 300 Soviet divisions and Paris was the US military Europe's feelings towards America were a little different.

But were they really that different? Reagan was just about as widely despised as Bush is now. He was considered a warmonger and a "cowboy" and it was quite fashionable to blame the world's problems on America. I know this because I lived there and can admit to engaging in this sort of foolishness myself at the time.

As far as the rest of the world goes let's take a brief look. Despite Peter's John F. Kennedy stamp, Latin America has never had a particular love for the Yankee. If anything relations are better now because so many Latin Americans live in the US. Mexico is getting along just fine with the US as long as we keep a de facto open border. Bush shows no sign of wanting to inforce a sensible immigration policy so if anything he's increasing US popularity there. Relations with India are better now than ever, and Peking hasn't been stirring up nearly as much anti-American sentiment as in the past. These two nations account for more than 2 billion people. In the meantime American realtions with other Asian nations such as Vietnam, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Phillipines, Australia and Japan are as good or better than ever. They fear Chinese power and are moving closer with the US as a result. Relations with Russia are certainly better now than they were during the Soviet days. And since when have the Arabs liked us? Or the Iranians for that matter - pre 1979?

I'll say it again: The lost era of widespread America-love is a myth. The pre-Iraq War world was hardly awash in "Lafyette we are here" moments. To pretend otherwise is ahistorical and likely a rhetorical device used to attack Bush and the invasion of Iraq.

N. Friedman - 7/28/2005

Peter,

The issue with multilateralism is that countries must have agreed upon goals. The lack of agreement on goals, more than the personalities of those involved, is what prevents multilateralism at this time. As troubling as the Bush administration's manner of politics is, their errors pale in comparison to those made by the Europeans.

The Europeans, you will recall, have been, over the course of the last several years, engaged in a process of unification. The issue, for them, is the policy vehicle which brings them together. And, as France saw things, opposition to the Iraq war was the path not only to unification but to unification of Europe under French (and, to some extent German tutelage). Which is to say, rather than merely disagreeing with US policy, France and Germany made opposition to US policy state policy and, in their dreams, the means of unifying Europe as above described.

French policy, apart from that, is dedicated to the goal of restoring French power. And that includes restoring France's political influence in the Arab regions. As a result, France has been the main advocate and, in fact, convinced much of Europe to adopt a EU policy that was friendly to the Arabs - such that Europe would have uniterrupted access to oil but, more imporantly, would have markets to sell arms and technology.

The war against Iraq placed all of that at risk. And such occured after the EU itself had enterred into a whole series of agreements committing the continent to France's pro-Arab policy for purposes of restoring French power and influence in the Arab regions.

Aside from that, Europe Union advocates (and others), in order to pursue the policy, created a myth of intercultural harmony between the three faiths (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) that had no connection with reality. Such balm eased concerns regarding doing business with tyrranical governments and movements (e.g. France's connection with the Ayatollah and the Islamists). Such balm also eased the fears of taking in Arab Muslim populations which, to judge from the polling, have no use for their new countries.

As a result, Europe is a continent which has been in denial and unsure, in part, whether it interests were the US or with the Arabs so, in the face of a policy which placed their relations with the Arabs at some risk, many European states opted toward the view that their bed was made on the Arab side.

The Europeans are now getting a taste of the down-side of their policy of confronting the US rather than making helpful suggestions or alternatives - other than to dump on other allies such as Israel in order to appease the Arabs -.

Now, whether or not the Iraq war was a good idea - and my views are well known on this subject, namely, it is a dumb idea - that is not the end of the story. Among other things: France and Germany, among others, did not oppose the Iraq war because of Bush or because it was a bad policy. They objected to the war because they had made their bed with the Arabs.

At this point, with the EU project in a shambles, with a complete failure - continent wide - to integrate their Muslim populations and, even worse, the adoption of a policy intended to keep - continent wide - such Muslim immigrants oriented toward their homelands (which is the result of actual written agreements made by the EU with the Arab League), the member states of the EU, now that people are dying in Europe, are showing minor signs of waking up. But, frankly, it is too little too late.

Edward Siegler - 7/28/2005

What's extreme is the fantasy that anti-Americanism wasn't widespread before the invasion of Iraq. The coalition that backed the failed Gulf War came together out of a common desire not to allow Kuwaiti oil fields to be controlled by a dangerous dictator, not any admiration of America or its foreign policy. The mission of removing Saddam from Kuwait (and stupidly restoring Kuwait's repressive autocracy) was accomplished very well. America won the war and then promptly lost the peace. Bush Sr. moronically encouraged Iraq's Shiites to rise up while not only refusing to enter Iraq but allowing Saddam to keep some of his best army units and continue flying his helcopters. The US military shamefully sat on its behind while the Shiites were massacred. In the days before the cease-fire Saddam was sure that the US would head for Baghdad and throw him out of power. In his panic his moral compass became clearer than anyone else's at the time. In fact Bush decided that since the UN didn't explicitly authorize him to remove Saddam, the Arabs might not like it, and the reconstruction of Iraq would likely be difficult the best course would be to declare victory and head home. America erupted into an orgy of self-congratulation just as a future war with Iraq had been insured. This was the real "colossal, blunder-ridden failure". A 10 year-old Cold War with Iraq resulting in large scale suffering for the Iraqi people with no end in sight was the status quo when Bush jr. took over. The removal of Saddam would have been infinitely easer in 1991. I don't think I need to remind you that Bush Sr. fully supported the invasion in '03.

You'll have to do a little better than glorify the Gulf War if you want to refute my contention that anti-Americanism was widespread and powerful well before '03. Your hatred of Bush has led you off on a tangent again.

Edward Siegler - 7/27/2005

When was this golden age when America was widely respected around the world? During the few short years after 400,000 Americans lost their lives in the sucessful fight against totalitarianism known as World War II? When has Latin America said anything other than "yankee go home"? When did communist China, North Korea, Vietnam or the Soviet Union love us? Anti-Americanism is nothing new. The lost world of widespread admiration for America is a mythical one.

John Chapman - 7/25/2005

It is doubtful if the world, and especially the people running the United States today, will ever pay real attention to the differences between the Wind and the Sun. A recent poll in the U.S. showed a majority of Americans are resigned to the fact a WWIII of sorts is inevitable and may have already begun with the Iraq invasion. Re-quoting a quote from another Polk article "Peoples and governments," Hegel wrote, "never have learned anything from history or acted on principles deduced from it." And so soldiers are dying because of the desires and ambitions of a few powerful men whose visions they believe are just and true (maybe they will turn out to be as nuts as the Dominionists whose mission, they declare, is to eventually control the world). And because of these just men new laws have been made to curb some of our civil rights and freedoms we’ve taken for granted will never, never be reinstated, once they are gone they are gone - so the terrorists, in a sense have already won, from the way the American government has so far responded - instead of taking the high road we’ve become like them, them against us, creating greater justification for endless war. So much of American culture with its values and priorities based on Christian religious concepts leave them with only one way to respond - Christian militarism (the turn-the-other-cheek-philosophy is passe - all attention to Revelations where it is according to the a certain breed of Christian, arguably, justified) - so the obvious response by many Muslims as time goes on will also become more violent. This, partly thanks to the New Thinking by some, that the past is irrelevant, that new centers of information and ideas today, connected globally, will create a Globalism (mostly of and for the corporate entity type), that will make either make life on the planet better or turn them into complete slaves. America and the world is not better off than it was a couple elections ago. Better and saner foreign policy goals need to get into gear but it won’t happen with this administration.