Foreign Policy

[zelezo vlk]

The Caliphates were also opposed to Christendom, to varying degrees. I'm not sure there will be another Lepanto. I fear a unified, angry, and aggressive Islamic State more than terrorism.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The Caliphates were also opposed to Christendom, to varying degrees. I'm not sure there will be another Lepanto. I fear a unified, angry, and aggressive Islamic State more than terrorism.

That's a legitimate concern, but an increasingly unstable MENA doesn't just threaten the West with terrorism; there's also the refugee crisis, the delegitimization of the nation state, etc. We need to be looking for radically new ways to promote stability in the region, because the status quo is a dumpster fire. Plus, a united MENA still wouldn't be able to hold a candle to the combined might of the modern West.

As I alluded to above, I'm not married to the idea of a unified caliphate; and it's not like it'd be easy to achieve either. But the world's 1.6 billion Muslims aren't going anywhere, and mass conversions to Christianity or secular liberalism are incredibly unlikely. So where do we go from here? I'd much rather see a stable, secure and culturally flourishing caliphate than the mess we've got now.

And FWIW, the author above argues that such a caliphate would look nothing like ISIS or AQAP. Maybe he's wrong, but the acme of Islamic civilization during the middle ages certainly didn't look like that.

 

[wizards8507]

That's a legitimate concern, but an increasingly unstable MENA doesn't just threaten the West with terrorism; there's also the refugee crisis, the delegitimization of the nation state, etc. We need to be looking for radically new ways to promote stability in the region, because the status quo is a dumpster fire. Plus, a united MENA still wouldn't be able to hold a candle to the combined might of the modern West.

As I alluded to above, I'm not married to the idea of a unified caliphate; and it's not like it'd be easy to achieve either. But the world's 1.6 billion Muslims aren't going anywhere, and mass conversions to Christianity or secular liberalism are incredibly unlikely. So where do we go from here? I'd much rather see a stable, secure and culturally flourishing caliphate than the mess we've got now.

And FWIW, the author above argues that such a caliphate would look nothing like ISIS or AQAP. Maybe he's wrong, but the acme of Islamic civilization during the middle ages certainly didn't look like that.

That's a contradiction in terms if you support anything resembling basic human rights for women.

ETA: Or if you believe in the sovereignty of Israel.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That's a contradiction in terms if you support anything resembling basic human rights for women.

That's a Christian concept, and our efforts to Christianize MENA haven't worked out so well, have they? The region's culture definitely flourished during the Islamic golden age. We should continue to evangelize the Muslim world, but arguing for the status quo because an explicitly Islamic solution wouldn't be sufficiently Christian in certain areas is insane and callous.

ETA: Or if you believe in the sovereignty of Israel.

(1) It's been surrounded by Muslims since its founding; and (2) we have a pretty good track record of guaranteeing the security of states in such positions (S. Korea, Taiwan, etc.)

 

[wizards8507]

That's a Christian concept, and our efforts to Christianize MENA haven't worked out so well, have they? The region's culture definitely flourished during the Islamic golden age. We should continue to evangelize the Muslim world, but arguing for the status quo because an explicitly Islamic solution wouldn't be sufficiently Christian in certain areas is insane and callous.

That's awfully relativistic of you.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That's awfully relativistic of you.

How is it relativistic to argue that the stable and (relatively) tolerant caliphates of the Middle Ages were preferable to the anarchy and violence that plagues the region today?

 

[pkt77242]

The Caliphates were also opposed to Christendom, to varying degrees. I'm not sure there will be another Lepanto. I fear a unified, angry, and aggressive Islamic State more than terrorism.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I think it would have to be at 2 "Islamic States" as the Shiites and the Sunnis can't seem to govern together too well.

 

[RDU Irish]

The Caliphates were also opposed to Christendom, to varying degrees. I'm not sure there will be another Lepanto. I fear a unified, angry, and aggressive Islamic State more than terrorism.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

No doubt - while that may be the best way for them to prosper I am pretty sure it would not bode well for our continued prosperity.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

No doubt - while that may be the best way for them to prosper I am pretty sure it would not bode well for our continued prosperity.

So what's the alternative? If we continue stoking division within the region, the blowback will likely end up even worse than terrorism and a refugee crisis.

 

[phgreek]

makes sense to me to help Islam be the Islam that hates us from afar. The discussion of the incompatibility issues is fascinating...I think it is clear a unified, and assured existence would probably stem terrorism in a generation...and those who come here, but then find they can't abide by our laws can have somewhere stable to go...as well, from a international politics perspective...that brings Islam into a place where it has a border, and eventually some form of nationalism?, and thus something to lose collectively...so as a united people, with a culture and some borders, they are easier to point the big stick at....which actually makes us all safer.

...if the point to terrorism is that we should let them beat their women and children so that they leave us alone...point taken. Look, its pretty easy to me...if someone is willing to blow me and my family up so that he can be a serial abuser...bu bye. Sorry Islam women and children. The final thought for me is...refugees...I can see us screwing it up because we can't say no for our own greater good. So the same people lobbying for a supported caliphate will be undermining our credibility as a non-threat to the caliphate by taking in refugees from it.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Whiskey - Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the golden age defeated in part, by the elimination of free thought? That is, the region moved towards a political structure that was a stricter interpretation of the Qur'an?

Where this is relevant is that it would take a liberal Muslim leader / government / association to produce modern day outputs that would be equivalent to those in the past. Given the diabolical opposition to liberalism, I cannot see a situation where that would be possible (at least in the short term).

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskey - Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the golden age defeated in part, by the elimination of free thought? That is, the region moved towards a political structure that was a stricter interpretation of the Qur'an?

Where this is relevant is that it would take a liberal Muslim leader / government / association to produce modern day outputs that would be equivalent to those in the past. Given the diabolical opposition to liberalism, I cannot see a situation where that would be possible (at least in the short term).

I think the argument is this:

1. Islam is inherently political, so devout Muslims require a theocratic civilization to call home;
2. When Islam enjoys stable and unified political expression, it gains the confidence to tolerate a certain amount of intellectual diversity, as exemplified by the Islamic golden age;
3. Islamic civilization has, for a variety of reasons, been unable to coalesce into a stable and unified political expression in the 19th century;
4. Therefore those interested in promoting peace and stability in MENA ought to support a renewed caliphate.

Again, I'm not married to this idea, and I appreciate those here who have been willing to talk this out with me. But the argument above strikes me as plausible, and since no one seems to have any idea of how to fix MENA these days, I think it's at least worth exploring.

 

[wizards8507]

I think the argument is this:

1. Islam is inherently political, so devout Muslims require a theocratic civilization to call home;
2. When Islam enjoys stable and unified political expression, it gains the confidence to tolerate a certain amount of intellectual diversity, as exemplified by the Islamic golden age;
3. Islamic civilization has, for a variety of reasons, been unable to coalesce into a stable and unified political expression in the 19th century;
4. Therefore those interested in promoting peace and stability in MENA ought to support a renewed caliphate.

Again, I'm not married to this idea, and I appreciate those here who have been willing to talk this out with me. But the argument above strikes me as plausible, and since no one seems to have any idea of how to fix MENA these days, I think it's at least worth exploring.

"Peace" shows up in your conclusion without having been introduced in one of your premises. I'll assume you intended to include it in Premise 2, which is where I want to push back based on my earlier point.

This only works if "peace" is narrowly defined to be the absence of armed conflict. I don't believe that the societal treatment of women in a theocratic Islamic regime can be defined as "peaceful," no matter how you stretch it.

1. Islam is inherently political, so devout Muslims require a theocratic civilization to call home;
2. Women cannot live in peace under a theocratic Islamic civilization;
3. Therefore devout Muslims cannot have a truly peaceful civilization.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

"Peace" shows up in your conclusion without having been introduced in one of your premises. I'll assume you intended to include it in Premise 2, which is where I want to push back based on my earlier point.

This only works if "peace" is narrowly defined to be the absence of armed conflict. I don't believe that the societal treatment of women in a theocratic Islamic regime can be defined as "peaceful," no matter how you stretch it.

1. Islam is inherently political, so devout Muslims require a theocratic civilization to call home;
2. Women cannot live in peace under a theocratic Islamic civilization;
3. Therefore devout Muslims cannot have a truly peaceful civilization.

So what's your alternative, wizards? The assumption that under every burqa in the Middle East is a post-Christian feminist yearning for a Western liberator is the same sort of simple-minded hubris that led to the Iraq war.

You're a strong advocate of federalism, so why don't you apply those principles to foreign policy as well? The world's 1.6 billion Muslims aren't going anywhere, nor is mass conversion realistic. So I conclude that MENA will be as peaceful and stable as it possibly can be once its people are allowed to live out the tenets of their faith under a unified theocracy.

Life under such a caliphate will undoubtedly look very different from that in Christendom, which is to be expected, since it's Islamic civilization and not Christianity with turbans.

 

[zelezo vlk]

That's a legitimate concern, but an increasingly unstable MENA doesn't just threaten the West with terrorism; there's also the refugee crisis, the delegitimization of the nation state, etc. We need to be looking for radically new ways to promote stability in the region, because the status quo is a dumpster fire. Plus, a united MENA still wouldn't be able to hold a candle to the combined might of the modern West.

As I alluded to above, I'm not married to the idea of a unified caliphate; and it's not like it'd be easy to achieve either. But the world's 1.6 billion Muslims aren't going anywhere, and mass conversions to Christianity or secular liberalism are incredibly unlikely. So where do we go from here? I'd much rather see a stable, secure and culturally flourishing caliphate than the mess we've got now.

And FWIW, the author above argues that such a caliphate would look nothing like ISIS or AQAP. Maybe he's wrong, but the acme of Islamic civilization during the middle ages certainly didn't look like that.

The fact that the "Golden Age of Islam" coincided with the weakest point in Christendom's history should not be ignored. The caliphs conquered much of the Byzantine Empire, removed nearly every semblance of Christianity from North Africa, and took hold of Spain. If I'm remembering my history correctly, the last single Caliphate was that of the Ottoman Empire, which adroitly played Christian princes against one another and was a significant reason why the Reformation was never able to be contained, leading to the wars of religion.

I see no reason why a single caliph could work in the West's favor in the long term, due to the complete incompatibility of Islam and the West.

I think it would have to be at 2 "Islamic States" as the Shiites and the Sunnis can't seem to govern together too well.

This seems to be an issue as well. Multiple caliphs could theoretically lessen the threat against the West, by allowing the West to play into the normal game of geopolitical chess, but I worry that the threat of war by the sects of Islam would not only limit peace in the region, but also drag Western states into greater conflict.

 

[wizards8507]

So what's your alternative, wizards? The assumption that under every burqa in the Middle East is a post-Christian feminist yearning for a Western liberator is the same sort of simple-minded hubris that led to the Iraq war.

You're a strong advocate of federalism, so why don't you apply those principles to foreign policy as well? The world's 1.6 billion Muslims aren't going anywhere, nor is mass conversion realistic. So I conclude that MENA will be as peaceful and stable as it possibly can be once its people are allowed to live out the tenets of their faith under a unified theocracy.

Life under such a caliphate will undoubtedly look very different from that in Christendom, which is to be expected, since it's Islamic civilization and not Christianity with turbans.

I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm fairly certain this one isn't it.

As you said, this unified caliphate would be fundamentalist or, at the very least, "non-liberal." The jihad is not just for a unified caliphate, but for a global caliphate. I don't know why you have this confidence that the unified theocracy would be content to "live out the tenets of their faith in peace," even if fundamentalism were allowed to reign within their borders. I find it much more likely that they'd be expansionist in their foreign policy. You're probably right that we won't be able to win them over via mass conversion, but they don't share your sentiment. The want the whole world under their banner and their evangelization methods are a bit more explosive than ours.

I think it's also important to note that modern warfare makes the comparison to the Islamic Golden Age a bit disingenuous. They weren't trying to conquer the world in the 13th century because the world could not be conquered. Today, it can be.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm fairly certain this one isn't it.

As you said, this unified caliphate would be fundamentalist or, at the very least, "non-liberal." The jihad is not just for a unified caliphate, but for a global caliphate. I don't know why you have this confidence that the unified theocracy would be content to "live out the tenets of their faith in peace," even if fundamentalism were allowed to reign within their borders. I find it much more likely that they'd be expansionist in their foreign policy. You're probably right that we won't be able to win them over via mass conversion, but they don't share your sentiment. The want the whole world under their banner and their evangelization methods are a bit more explosive than ours.

I think it's also important to note that modern warfare makes the comparison to the Islamic Golden Age a bit disingenuous. They weren't trying to conquer the world in the 13th century because the world could not be conquered. Today, it can be.

We don't have a "Golden Horde" to occupy a unified Islamic state from the East this time around.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

As you said, this unified caliphate would be fundamentalist or, at the very least, "non-liberal."

I didn't say it would be fundamentalist; the caliphates of the middle ages certainly weren't. ISIS and AQAP are fundamentalist. Do you think fundamentalist Christians are good examples of Christianity? If a large portion of Europe or America coalesced into an explicitly theocratic political body, do you think it would be "fundamentalist"? I don't.

But it would definitely be "non-liberal", since liberalism is strain of Christianity and we're talking about Islam here.

What gives you any confidence that means the jihad is not just for a unified caliphate, but for a global caliphate.

I'm not suggesting that we empower ISIS, AQAP, or any other jihadist group. I'm suggesting we might be better off encouraging MENA to coalesce into a stable unified theocracy.

I don't know why you have this confidence that the unified theocracy would be content to "live out the tenets of their faith in peace," even if fundamentalism were allowed to reign within their borders.

I don't think such a caliphate would be fundamentalist; only authentically Islamic. Though you seem to be conflating those two terms. Regardless, the medieval caliphates are a good example.

You're probably right that we won't be able to win them over via mass conversion, but they don't share your sentiment.

Christians have the Great Commission, but we also believe that secular and temporal power should be separated. Muslims also believe they have a duty to convert the world, but since Islam is inherently political, they're OK with "evangelizing" in ways that Christians find abhorrent. That's a great reason for maintaining healthy boundaries with such a caliphate (if one ever forms), but it's not a good reason for continuing to sow discord across MENA, because the status quo poses dangers that aren't so easily contained.

The want the whole world under their banner and their evangelization methods are a bit more explosive than ours.

If you want to look at this strictly from the angle of realpolitik, it would be a lot easier for us to deal with/ contain a unified caliphate through diplomacy, treaties, etc. than it will be to preserve our civil liberties through waves of terrorist attacks and an onslaught of refugees.

 

[jimmymac]

Interesting article with one of my law Professors, Jack Goldsmith, on cyber-crime as it affects foreign policy. Is the DNC hack an act of war, and is Russia responsible?

 

[phgreek]

Interesting article with one of my law Professors, Jack Goldsmith, on cyber-crime as it affects foreign policy. Is the DNC hack an act of war, and is Russia responsible?

I mean if it was state sponsored, then yes, I can't see how anyone would think it was not an act of war.

The issue is, lets say you actually could find some breadcrumbs that lead to Russia....how do you know it was state sponsored...its not like they are going to hack you from the Kremlin. Except for China, hackers seem to be more anarchist, and making the tie to state sponsorship isn't assumed. They are also opportunistic mercenaries, so it isn't impossible, but I think we really don't know, nor will we.

It is more likely nameless "experts" will have unattributed "opinions" so that the DNC can point to a shiny thing and distract folks from the fact that their attitudes and conduct are as bad as those they use to try and brand the RNC. They will continue to try and implicate Trump through any connections he has to Russia....It is pretty clear they'll float shit til they find a claim they don't get laughed at over.

 

[Irish#1]

Jonathan Haidt just published a compelling article in The American Interest titled "When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism":



I don't think it's possible to build a stable political regime on anything other than Pietas-- the natural affection one feels toward his family, his community and his nation. Until Progressives and globalists come to terms with that, the far right will continue to surge.

Whiskey's post just took up 2TB's of disk space!

 

[phgreek]

North Korea drawing red lines....talking more batshit crazy than the normal crazy....

I wonder if we do better when someone else draws the line for us....because god knows we step all over our dicks when we do.

If they launch on our exercise with South Korea....I hope that little fucker gets a .50 right between the running lights.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Just FYI, but we're currently bombing the hell out of (into?) Syria.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We're seeing the biggest battle in Syria in years over the last 48 hours and there's very, very little mainstream coverage</p>— Danny Gold (@DGisSERIOUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/DGisSERIOUS/status/760190785497108480">August 1, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[phgreek]

Just FYI, but we're currently bombing the hell out of (into?) Syria.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We're seeing the biggest battle in Syria in years over the last 48 hours and there's very, very little mainstream coverage</p>— Danny Gold (@DGisSERIOUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/DGisSERIOUS/status/760190785497108480">August 1, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Ben Rhodes says the press is not smart enough to decide for themselves if this is a good or bad thing...for Mrs. Clinton's presidential aspirations. So I'll wait for the next DNC hack to find out why they stood their MSM puppets down. Should be riveting, and likely to happen before Mrs. Clinton actually does a press conference (thanks eddy)

No idea why this would not be covered. Seems like much hangs in the balance for the entire region, alliances, stability...

 

[yankeehater]

Iran Takes Another American Hostage After Obama's $400 Million 'Side Deal' - Breitbart

I guess we owe Iran another $400 million. Or is it $100 million per person. IDK Kinda losing track of these payouts.

 

[phgreek]

Iran Takes Another American Hostage After Obama's $400 Million 'Side Deal' - Breitbart

I guess we owe Iran another $400 million. Or is it $100 million per person. IDK Kinda losing track of these payouts.

Man the kidnappers are brain dead morons...don't they know the money and hostage exchange was a coincidence?

 

[yankeehater]

This story gave me the chills because it brings back a conversation I had with a neighbor. He is a high ranking (guessing by his lifestyle and our neighborhood) official in the military. I ran into him about six months ago and he told me he was set to deploy for Iraq for another 12 month tour. The surprising and troubling comment came next. He said the conditions over there were the worst he will encounter and this will be his fourth tour and he expected most of his men not to return. I was like "what?" I had no idea it was still so bad over there. Now we know why as they were painting a much different picture.

House probe: Central Command reports skewed intel on ISIS fight | Fox News

 

[phgreek]

This story gave me the chills because it brings back a conversation I had with a neighbor. He is a high ranking (guessing by his lifestyle and our neighborhood) official in the military. I ran into him about six months ago and he told me he was set to deploy for Iraq for another 12 month tour. The surprising and troubling comment came next. He said the conditions over there were the worst he will encounter and this will be his fourth tour and he expected most of his men not to return. I was like "what?" I had no idea it was still so bad over there. Now we know why as they were painting a much different picture.

House probe: Central Command reports skewed intel on ISIS fight | Fox News

Sorry for your neighbor...has to be really hard.

But as I am sure he knows...the approval rating is more important than anything.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Iran Takes Another American Hostage After Obama's $400 Million 'Side Deal' - Breitbart

I guess we owe Iran another $400 million. Or is it $100 million per person. IDK Kinda losing track of these payouts.

You do yourself a disservice reading a single word of Breitbart.

Say, without much convincing proof, that Obama paid for previous hostages and then write an article when an Iranian-American is arrest in Iran saying the payment encouraged our enemies. Not exactly responsible journalism.

The whole piece of shit article collapses if they add one more sentence from the quoted article:

Americans have been nabbed and held as pawns in Iran’s internal power struggles from the outset of the Iranian revolution nearly four decades ago.

In other words, par for the course in the land dominated by a rather repressive regime that doesn't take kindly to Iranians who hold American citizenship. I'd watch my ass if I were a Korean-American in North Korea, too. And if/when I get arrested, I wouldn't expect it to be because of something the US recently did.

But hey Breitbart has to build that bubble to suck in the attention of gullible rubes...

 

[yankeehater]

This is the view I wake up to every morning in Southern California. Not bad for a gullible rube!