Two further thoughts

Two further thoughts on this issue of Islamic terrorism:

1. Despite Washington's  tendency to see this as a military conflict, this not primarily a military conflict, even though military force may have occasional uses in special circumstances.  This is primarily a clash of ideas, and that is the arena in which we ought to be fighting it if we want to be effective. We have killed innumerable militant leaders and all that happens is that new ones spring up to take their place. We have killed innumerable jihadist fighters and all that happens is that yet more get recruited to take their place.

2. With respect to (1) above, a favorite saying comes to mind: "You can always get to people through religion. Their religion, not yours!"

More on Islamism and the Left

In the previous post I noted that several writers have speculated on the Left's "blindness" to the place of Islam in today's Middle East terrorism. One of the better articles is by Michael Walzer in the winter issue of Dissent: Islamism and the Left.  Also worth reading is Pewter Berkowitz's article Why the Left Casts a Blind Eye of Radical Islam in RealkClearPolitics.

Islamic terrorists and the American Left

There has been more than a little of Alice in Wonderland from the administration lately on the issue of exactly how the religion of Islam is related to the current wave of Middle Eastern terrorists. The administration’s recent public denial that the Taliban was a terrorist organization, and President Obama’s recent comments about the Crusades (which showed, among other things, that he really doesn’t understand history very well), all seem to reflect the American Left’s real difficulty coming to terms with what the rest of us can see clearly – Islamic terrorism is indeed obviously and directly related to the religion of Islam.  And just about any terrorist on a grisly YouTube video can be seen to be emphatically asserting that very fact. Apparently the Left’s fear of being politically incorrect is so great that they simply cannot bring themselves to face the facts.

Certainly the majority of Muslims in the world are content just to go about their business in peace, and the majority of Muslim clerics do not espouse or preach terror or violence against unbelievers. Nonetheless, one cannot deny that there is a virulent cadre of Muslim clerics preaching hate and intolerance and terror in some of the madrassas (religious schools) of the Middle East, and that they support these calls with direct references to verses in the Qur’an, nor can one deny that verses exist in the Qur’an that can be interpreted to support killing of infidels and unbelievers (for example 2:191-193 "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (disbelief)] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and worship is for Allah alone”, or 8:12 “"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them", or 9:123 "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.").

It is equally true that the Christian Bible has some verses that can be used to justify violence, and indeed have been used in the past to justify things like the Crusades. And when present day Christian extremists justify violence with those verses we recognize that their extremism is indeed religiously motivated, however much we may think they have distorted the meaning of the verses they quote.  Just so, Islamic militants are clearly and obviously driven and motivated and instructed by the religion of Islam, whether or not we think they have interpreted the religion correctly.

Several writers recently have wondered whether this blindness on the Left is because philosophically the Left doesn’t understand religion, and seriously underestimates religion’s power in the world. It is the liberal Left, after all, that widely espouses the Enlightenment view that religion is a vestige of other, less rational times, and that it will inevitably wither away in the face of the advance of science and rationality. It is a compelling theory, but the evidence to date doesn’t support it. Religions are alive and well throughout the world, and have a profound influence on the cultures they inhabit.

It’s hard to see how we can effectively counter the current wave of Islamic militancy if we cannot bring ourselves to even see it for what it really is.

Obama and Iran

There is a pervasive restlessness these days, not only in Congress but in the nation as a whole, at what appears to be a fumbling indecisiveness in the White House about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Michael Doran has a provocative essay in Mosaic, Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy, which is worth reading and thinking about. Of course Mosaic sees the world from a Jewish point of view, and in that point of view Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a clear existential threat, not least because the current Iranian leadership has repeatedly and publically promised to “wipe Israel off the map”. Nevertheless, Doran’s narrative and interpretation of events rings true.

It seems to me clear that President Obama harbors a liberal vision of somehow converting autocrats like President Putin of Russia and ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran by sweet reason and diplomacy. We all know how the much-ballyhooed “Russian Reset” went.  Clearly President Obama’s naïve vision there was at odds with the reality on the ground in Putin’s Russia.

So the question now is how realistic is President Obama’s vision of achieving a deal with Iran that really eliminates the chances of a nuclear “breakout” for the foreseeable future. He clearly thinks it is possible. Many others, including a lot of very experienced foreign policy experts, think he must be smoking something if he really believes that. More than that, a lot of people are worried that he will accept a one-sided deal just to seal his “legacy” and be able to claim that he achieved something in this area, even if it is illusionary.  Certainly he has in the past made a lot of claims and taken a lot of credit for things that, in fact, were really fairly disastrous (think of all the claims about Obamacare or about the rate of US economic recovery.

Only time will tell whether his vision of what is possible is farsighted or simply naïve. But my own inclination, based on his record and actions (or lack of actions) to date, is to think he really doesn’t understand the cultural and political forces at work in the world today, and moreover that he appears unwilling to listen to advisers that don’t see things his way.  If true, this does not bode well for our foreign policy over the next decade or so, because if he fumbles the ball here the uncomfortable consequences will be with us long after he has left office.

Obama’s Budget Proposal

As I have said in previous posts, “It’s the economy, stupid!”.  My primary criticism of the Obama administration is that when it first came into office it focused too much attention and political capital on the ideologically-driven health care issue at the expense of reviving the economy, with the result that we have had a very, very slow and uneven recovery. Everything flows from the strength of the economy. Better social services, a stronger military, a more prosperous electorate, more “soft power” in the world, better education, etc, etc – all these goals, liberal and conservative alike, come only from a strong economy.

Now the administration is about to propose its new budget, the keystone concept being to tax corporation more (especially on their foreign and retained earnings) and use that money to upgrade the nation’s crumbling infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc). As is so often the case in Washington, this is a good idea coupled with a lousy idea.  The good idea is to spend government money improving the nation’s poorly-maintained infrastructure, something that has a direct effect on the economy.

The lousy idea is to tax corporation more. Yes, it sounds great, and will no doubt be very popular as a political talking point. But it shows an amazing level of naiveté on the part of administration policy makers.  The corporations that matter – the ones with lots of earnings one could tax – are almost always global in scope.  Make US tax laws too onerous and they will simply relocate elsewhere to a more tax-friendly nation.

Yes, there is a real problem with corporations moving US-earned profits offshore to evade taxes, just as there is a problem with corporations having bought endless other loopholes from compliant members of Congress. The result is that some huge corporations pay almost no taxes, and that certainly is unfair.

But the real solution is to revise the tax laws – reduce the corporate tax level to something competitive in the world market, but also eliminate almost all the corporate loopholes, tax credits and subsidies that have accumulated over decades so that corporations actually pay those reduced taxes. Obama’s proposed tax just piles yet another layer on top of an already Byzantine tax law (73,954 pages long, as of 2013). And as I pointed out, given enough incentive corporations can always relocate their headquarters, and many of their factories and facilities, to a more tax-friendly environment.

But then, most likely Obama never intended to propose something workable, but rather just something that can be used as a political talking point in the next election. Having spent 6 years with a “my way or the highway” approach to bipartisan governing, he now seems more intent on scoring political points for the next election than in actually achieving anything.

It always amazes me that the liberals who bash business and want a lot of government spending on social programs never seem to make the ( I would have thought obvious) connection that the only place to get the money to support their social programs is from the very businesses they are bashing – unless, of course they just want to keep borrowing it from their children’s generation.

Recommended: Good Hunting: An American Spymaster’s Story

Jack Devine had a 30-year career in the CIA, rising to the position of acting deputy director of operations. He is, of course, committed to the CIA, but this book tells the recent history of the CIA (or as much as can be told), warts and all.  He gives both credit and criticism where it is due.

The book is a fascinating insight into how the CIA really operates, as opposed to the dramatized Hollywood view or the hysterical anti-CIA “cowboy” image.  If anything, he thinks the CIA has at times not been bold enough (especially in standing up to White House pressure to slant intelligence the way they want). I found the entire book enlightening, but would call special attention to the last chapter, chapter 14, in which he discusses his assessment of the current world situation (through 2014) and of the role covert operations and the CIA ought properly to play in managing the nation’s security.

It should be perfectly clear to all but perhaps the most left-leaning conspiracy buffs that a nation like ours needs a robust intelligence service, and the ability and capability at times to mount covert operations when overt military action would be counterproductive.  Afghanistan is perhaps the textbook example – our covert operations there have achieved results that our massive overt military presence has not. It does appear, in the wake of the Snowden revelations, that some parts of the intelligence world have overstepped their bounds and ought to be reined in.  But we would be foolish to let this hamper the essential national security role of intelligence collection – we still have plenty of enemies out there trying to do us harm.

Gross stupidity!!

Our foreign policy is in shambles as militant thugs from the Ukraine to Syria to Iraq to Yemen loot and kill. The climate continues to warm. US infrastructure continues to decay. The US middle class struggles economically, and income inequality continues to grow. We have unresolved issues from immigration to tax policy.

And so what do the newly-empowered Republicans take up first, as the single most important, most pressing national issue?  Abortion!  And with a bill they know probably couldn’t pass the Senate, let alone withstand a presidential veto.

The stupidity of this Republican party astounds me. Even measured against the gross incompetence of the Democrats over the past six years, this is about the stupidest maneuver I could imagine!

I fear for the future of the nation with people like this in charge in Washington.