I find it interesting that people from the same countries that invented the terms “colonization” and “genocide” are now willing to side themselves with murderers, dictators and thugs so long as it hinders the United States of America. It is funny that they cannot see the hypocrisy in that.

Or perhaps they are projecting the attitudes and intentions of their ancestors back when the Europeans were serious players. I mean, IIRC, there were three basic models of Imperialism. The Spanish was conquer and pillage for the home colony. Spreading Catholicism was all fine and dandy, but in the end it was all about the bullion Spanish explorers and conquerors brought home. The Portuguese, Belgians (after Napoleon, of course – prior to that there were no Belgians as such) and Dutch emulated this model to one extent or the other.

The French model varied from place to place. In North America, after they lost the race to colonize to Great Britain, they focused on establishing trading posts and bartering for furs and other products with natives. In other parts of the world, however, such as South America and the French colonies in Africa, they were every bit as ruthless and repressive as the Spanish model.

The final model was the British model. The British wanted their colonies to benefit the mother country as much as the next guys; however, the British took the time to develop the administrative and governmental structures that would eventually form the basis for colonial self-rule. Examples of this style are the British colonies in North America, Bermuda, India, etc.

This is not to say the British were culturally sensitive to the natives, or that the British did not ruthlessly suppress dissent. The British did, however, pick up what was termed the “white man’s burden” of bringing the benefits of civilization to the savage natives. Some examples:

In India, there was a cultural tradition amongst some sects that, when the husband died, the wife should be burned alive to join him. The British put a stop to that. When a native leader informed the British governor in charge of the area that such burnings were the local tradition, the Brit coldly informed the leader that the British had traditions, too, and that one British tradition was to execute people who set other human beings on fire.

The British put a stop to death cults in their colonies (most notably the Thuggee cult in India, though other existed). The British also attempted to at least bring the gifts of literacy (though far from universal) and the rule of law to their colonies.

The new model the United States seeks to establish is different from these previous attempts. The United States will help the new nation develop the societal necessities to become a self-governing democracy, then the US will leave. We won’t loot the locals. We won’t ruthlessly execute all who oppose our presence (though those that wish to engage our military will find it is quite capable of weeding out violent enemies). We have no desire to run the country ourselves – heck, we have enough problems running our country. Why would we want to run someone else’s?

In fact, we wouldn’t even be over there had the bad guys not attacked us first – in Lebanon in 1983, in other areas throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and finally on our own soil in 2001. We will not allow that to happen again.

We could simply declare war against the entire Middle East and engage in a bloodbath the likes of which the world has never before seen. Every Islamofascist government, indeed, whole Islamic populations could be put to the sword. It would be bloody, exhausting, and ultimately demoralizing (I’ve heard many of the pilots attacking the ‘Highway of Death’ in February 1991 became sickened by the slaughter), but we would do it if we had no other choice.

We would do it because we are determined not to have another terrorist attack of the 2001 magnitude on our soil.

Our strategy is, however, to get the cultural and societal changes the Middle East needs in order to stop being a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists. To do that, we must create the conditions for the local societies to become something they currently are not: successful.

Poverty is not the root cause of why they attack us. There are lots of impoverished people around the world. Most of them do not bomb Americans.

Religion is not the sole cause of why they attack us, though they use religion as a vehicle to gain recruits and to justify their attacks.

The reason they attack us is that their societies are abject failures in every measurable sense of the word. They stagnated culturally and socially around 600-700 years ago. They like our modern conveniences – but they are no more modern in their culture, society, or even their way of thinking than, say, a circa 1800 Sioux Indian would be if you gave him an M-16, ammunition, and night-vision goggles. The technology only provides them conveniences. It does not help shape the way they think about the world.

This is where their religion hurts them. To them, Islam is the ultimate, final, and perfect word of God. All previous versions are flawed. This is one reason why it is permissible for Muslims to proselytize Christians, but the reverse is not only unthinkable, but sanctionable (generally by execution).

Allah tells them that they will triumph over the unbelievers (i.e., all non-Muslims). But they are not stupid – they recognize their own impotence and global irrelevance. They know that were it not for the accident (or Allah’s gift) of mineral wealth, they would be ignored by the world at large.

This creates a problem for Muslims. If Allah says they will triumph over the unbelievers, and yet they are losing the battles, then (since Allah is perfect) the only explanation must be that they have somehow offended Allah (else he would not let them lose, right) OR that they have failed to live up to their duty as Muslims to conquer the enemy.

That is a source of personal as well as cultural and societal humiliation and frustration. They take it out on us.

Why do they engage in suicide attacks? In part because they have no other method of attacking (they know taking us on in a head to head military confrontation is suicidal) and in part because, for the individual suicide attacker, he is guaranteed entry into heaven and thus may appropriately pay penance for his individual responsibility for the failure of Islam to triumph over it’s perceived enemies.

It is an alien way of thinking, but one we must understand in order to make ourselves safe.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 00:10