This is the next stage on the GWOT -

http://www.hoa.centcom.mil/hornnews.asp

SD, with all respect, I don't think so. Two facts are at odds with that URL.
First, you CANNOT reason a man out of what he wasn't reasoned into. There is nothing Rational or Logical about our enemies hatred of us. They hate us because their holy book (as interpeted by their specialists) says they must. They will stop hating us when their holy book says they should. NOTHING we say or do will change this fact.
Second, I have challenged many people many times to give me an example of 'winning their hearts and minds' being a war winning strategy. Noone has because it has NEVER worked.
LeMay was correct. Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.

"War consists mainly in one bunch of fired-up young men setting out to kill another bunch of fired-up young men. Wars are won when one side runs out of young men, or out of fire-up. They don't end until then. Our problem in Iraq, basically, it seems to me, is that we have not killed enough fired-up young male Iraqis insistent on killing innocents."
-John Derbyshire

Chester, I think your military 'experts' have not followed their chain of logic to it's bitter conclusion.
I have no doubts that the US will either kill or run out of the Country all the terrs in Iraq.
Then what? Those terrs will just move to Iran or Syria. There they will regoup, rest up, rebuild and return. Smuggling was invented in that part of the world about 5500 years ago. Over the Last 5500 years one fool after another has tried to stop it. Just because the latest fools wear the American flag on their shoulder won't make their efforts any more sucessful. When you hear someone claim that better technology will get the job done, know that you are speaking with a clueless fool, clueless because technology has NOTHING to do with smuggling. The guys with the answers don't even know what the question is.
Benard Fell called it the arrogance of ignorance in another 'little war' ( english for guerrilla) fought out about 35 years ago.
As long as the guerrillas can find sanctuary in Iran or Syria, they CANNOT lose this war. And body counts DO NOT matter. The G's Know they cannot outfight us, so they aren't worried about it. They also know that they can win without outfighting us.
The job of the Muslim cadre is to die. They don't need any training to do that. Show them the trigger and how to put in a new magazine and send them out for their ticket to paradise. After all, there are 1.2 billion or so of them. It's not like working on that number with hand tools will whittle it down much. They are breeding faster then we are killing them.

GEN Hagee's ideas for cultural education hit me like a thunderbolt. The U.S. Army Special Forces have done this for years. It is not a "touchy-feely," hearts and minds thing. It is not sensitivity training. It's real-world, how to get along with a foreign population. It's how to build rapport with people of a different culture. It's how to be less of an occupier, and more of a partner. Contrary to comments above, it's working very well. The population that we want to govern and secure themselves are giving allied forces more and more tips. The Iraqi people are taking sides. Our side.

I have to disagree with Mark Helprin when he wrote, "The instant the Arab world realized that the promised shock and awe had not materialized, the insurgency was born."

Helprin is just reading into events his own disappointment the US didn't pulverize Iraq. It is clear the insurgency was born weeks before the invasion. Saddam & his inner circle knew they couldn't stand & fight the US, so they planned the retreat & guerrilla insurgency which followed.

Teaching language and culture to our warriors has always seemed like a no-brainer to me. Increased and better communication can not be detrimental. Knowing the language and some of the cultural traditions (whether they're icky or not!) garners more respect from civilians.

I've traveled abroad, and even the most feeble attempt at using the language is always appreciated.

Chester-

Is it possible to make a poll here? I would
like like to know:

1) The percentage of readers who believe the US has a superior culture (either democracy, capitalism, Christianity specifically, Judeo-Christian values, or anything else) that needs to be exported

2) The percentage of reader who believe that MOST OF AMERICA believes they have a superior culture (either democracy, capitalism, Christianity specifically, Judeo-Christian values, or anything else) that needs to be exported

3) The percentage of readers who believe that this belief affects America's interactions with the rest of the world (either in exchange of culture, technology, economics, foreign policy, or any other)

Shellie, the poll you suggest is based on some misassumptions of western ethical and political values and standards.

Western ethical and political values, such as freedom, rights and liberties, separation of church and state, and democracy descend not from Christian or religious teachings per se, but are rather based on secular precepts that go back to the Greeks, but more importantly were formulated during the Enlightenment period by people like Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Paine and Jefferson.

The Social Contract of Hobbes and the Categorical Imperative of Kant, which is the basis of modern western civilization has little to do with Christianity. What we understand and practice as Liberal Democracy in the west is secular and a-religious - and in fact rightfully confines religion to the private, personal and spiritual sphere. This has been enshrined as the separation of Church and State. Religion is about man to his god. Religion is not a man to man issue in modern times.

To think that US foreign policy which is to institute democracy, civil society and rule of law in Iraq and by extension to the Middle East is a religious undertaking, is exactly what al-Qaeda is saying that we are engaged in a war of crusades. You are repeating this mistake here.

Yes, liberal democracy is superior to a theocratic dictatorship of a caliphate, or other forms of religious government. But this is not a religious or cultural statement. It is a matter of political science and empirical methodology that the west maintains its political, educational, social, and economic superiority. To reduce the lofty goal of emancipation of others from tyranny and bondage, to that of a religious crusade or a "campaign of cultural superiority" is a total misreading of history, and man's quest for liberation from tyranny.

Unfotunately this poll is designed to pigeon hole the reader into certain categories, and to introduce false assumptions about a clash of civilization.

In any case, its nice to hear your views. I am most interested to know of your personal experience as a Muslim woman, and why you see very basic yearnings of man, such as a desire to be free, and the quiet pursuit of happiness and justice as an issue of culture or religion. I assure you that such yearnings are universal among men and cuts across cultural and religious lines.

I'll bite, Shellie:

1) I believe the US has a superior political system, which translates into culture on many levels. It isn't perfect, but it's fairly transparent, and we have legal recourse to make changes that we believe are needed. I'm not comfortable with the way you've asked the question, do we feel that it "needs to be exported," but to play along, yes--if there is tyranny and abject oppression that results from a lack of freedom to participate and make changes in one's government, I support its "exportation" in an attempt to free others.

2) I believe just about half of America has this sense of having a superior culture/government, with the responsibility to spread it where possible (export it).

3) I believe this sense of having a superior culture sometimes causes us to be arrogant in our interactions internationally.

May I add a 4)?

4) I believe much of the world wants the kind of government, technology, material goods, and freedom that we enjoy here in America, and this belief is supported by the sheer numbers of immigrants we have. I think our protectionist monetary policies and our military strength anger some of them, and hampers their development in some ways. No one wants to be dependent.

I'm not sure where you're going with your poll, but I suspect you want to show us why the world hates us. I think the world does not hate us. I think tyrants and dictators and religious extremists do, because their would-be followers do not hate us.

Soldier's Dad,

I've been keeping half an eyeball on the CJTF Horn of Africa for a while. I think it does provide a pretty good example of one possible way of pursuing our successes. Its strengths are its regional, rather than single-nation focus; its command and control: led by a General and containing a Joint Task Force enabling unit, it can rapidly add forces if needed and the General in charge gives it a degree of freedom that would otherwise be lacking; its multi-agency nature: small wars require diplomacy, police work, military action, economic assistance, and intelligence collection. The Horn of Africa Task Force seems to be incorporating all of these elements from the US government in one way or another.

There are two disadvantages to this organization though, in terms of executing a course of action geared toward cooperative security. First, it is large. Second, it assumes a permissive environment. As a large organization -- and by large I mean more than 150-200 people -- it is more overt and can be perceived as more "imperialistic" than it is intended to be. As far as the environment: would such an organization work in Pakistan? In Indonesia? Militant Islam seems to have already taken too much of a hold in both for such a formation to be effective, or it has at least become more prevalent than in Yemen, Kenya, and Djibouti. It would be interesting to spend some time with HOA and find out how they are affecting change in the region . . . or even know what metrics they are using to measure success.

The poll I have suggested is not to connect Christianity with either democracy or capitalism. Each of these are be a significant aspect of American "culture", and I want to see if people agree with Chester in his claim that America believes that it has a superior culture (whether it is an evangelical who thinks it's his job to convert the world, or if it's an atheist who thinks it's his job to spread capitalism). If so, then I will show in concrete terms why Stehpinkeln and Chester are correct in parts of their argument, while supporting my own. I do not care who beleives what- make it anonymous- I just want to know the percentage.

When did I claim that American believes it has a superior culture?

See one of the last emails....

"But it isn't just a case of conflicting heritages,
Western and Muslim . . . we believe ours offers a
better way of life. Terrorists oppose us. All else
are in the middle and we seek to influence them."

Yes, but that's a far cry from believing in cultural superiority. Poor form on my part for using the word 'heritage'. 'Political systems' is more what I had in mind, and wherever democracy is tried, it seems to be quite the catching thing. Not only do we believe that our political system offers a better way of life, but all those who have tried it, for whatever reason (fall of Berlin Wall, slow democratizing in East Asia or Latin America, or imposition/liberation in the Muslim world) seem to agree that it is better. Is there any clearer dichotomy than that existing between an Islamic caliphate and representative government in the Middle East?

Some aspects of our culture are superior than others, some are inferior.

I believe Western democracy flows from the social & personal ethics of Christianity, in particular Protestant Christianity. The central moral position of Christianity is that each indiviual is responsible for his or her soul and is capable of a direct personal relationship with God. Christians believe we are free agents of our lives. We are encouraged to choose a rightious path, but are free to sin. Contrast this to Islam which asserts the individual must submit himself to Allah, as enforced by the community. Apostasy is forbidden. Free will is constrained by God's will.

Does this interpretation mean that democracy & Islam are incompatible? No, but it does reveal part of the reason why it has been such a long time coming, and why the Islamists are dead set against it. As an Egyptian friend ones said to me, "To Arabs, 'Democracy means my tribe gets everything now'" It will take a reformation in culture, politics & religion to build functioning lasting democracies in the Muslim world. These changes can only come from within. The US can help by supporting those agents of change, but we can't do it for them. Some countries are further along that path than others. Some are moving in the opposite direction.

Kenneth, the concept of individual responsibility and free will, is not an invention of Christianity. This concept was developed, oh about 4 million years ago way before Christianity, with the first homo sapien who thought he could get away with stealing another homo sapien's lambchop, only to be smacked in between the eyes.

hamidreza

Homo sapiens did not exist 4 million years ago, and the small hominids that did exist were not eating lamb chops. But your essential point is correct, Christianity did not invent the concept of free will. Christianity, however, placed free will at the centre of it's theology. The ancient Greeks believed in fate, the Hindus & Buddhists believe in karma, the Muslims in submission Allah's will. It is this belief in self-responsibilty which distinguishes Western civilization from other traditions.

Kenneth - homo sapiens, not entirely in its modern form, but with enough smarts to be considered an intelligent being, started appearing about 4 million years ago. The record of their appearance has been updated in past decade and is a lot more ancient than first believed. Do not confuse them with their hominid ancestors that diverged from primates, which happened about 12 million years ago.

Your point about Christianity is well taken. But I am not convinced that the Greeks and pre-Christian pagans did not understand the concept of free will, responsibility, and punishment.

Islam also emphasizes self-responsibility, such as in the concept of Judgement day which is central to its theology. I think what you are saying is that in Christianity, redemption was identified with progress in society, including material progress.

I am not sure what you mean by submitting free will to Allah's will. If you mean fatalism - yes there is and element of that in Islamic culture. If you mean unquestionable belief in the Prophet M., then that is a matter of faith.

Hamidreza, without diverting this thread into a discussion of paleontology, I really think you are mistaken about the origin of the species homo sapien. This link has a "family tree" http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
On it you can see that homo sapiens (which is a distinct species) appeared at most 200,000 years ago, while some scientists date the emergence of homo sapiens even younger at 90,000 years ago. The hominids that existed prior to that were homo erectus, homo habilis, etc. These were different species. The earliest hominid ancestors of humans are the australopithicus species such as the famous "Lucy" fossil discovered by Leaky in East Africa. She was dated to 3.1 million years ago. As to when the first ideas about "free will" appeared, I would say only after a sufficeintly complex language developed to include abstract concepts. The earliest examples of art, which could be taken as evidence of abstract thought, date to 33,000 year old. But these images are of animals and fertility figures, which indicates a belief in magic and the need to have talismans to be successful in the hunt & in reproducing. This is not indicative of a belief in "free will". Ancient Greek literature is based on the idea of heroes struggling (hubris) against their fate, but Fate always wins. For example, Oedipus Rex.

Now, to return to the subject of the discussion, free will. Clearly, a broad strokes picture covers up much detail. While discussion of the ideas about free will appear in most cultures, I am asserting it is central to Christianity. The early Christians got the ideas from Jewish theology, and also perhaps from Persian traditions. (I assume from your name, my friend, you are Iranian?). The early Christian sect the Manicheans borrowed the idea of the struggle between good & evil from the Zoroastrians. These ideas floated among the various early Christian sects. These currents of thought also influenced early Islam. What I mean about submitting to Allah, is just that. Islam means submission to Allah. This idea has so permeated Muslim culture, any discussion about making plans for the future inevitably includes the statement,"In shahalla", (God willing). So while the idea of personal responsibility for one's conduct, and therefore one's soul, is present in Islam, it is submerged in the obligation of the community to to control the individual's behavior and in the psychological submission to Allah. Perhaps the best hope for an authentic Muslim response to the Islamists' fascism is to place the concept of self-responsibility more centrally in Islamic theology?

In Christianity, redemption is entirely a personal spiritual salvation. It is not based at all upon material progress or society. The down side of free will is the uninhibited licence in Western society. People are also free to make "immoral" choices, which we see in prostitution, drugs, pornography, high crime rates, and at times, some rather tasteless popular culture. Of course, these sins are not unique to the West either.

For anyone confused about the philosophy above:

The orthodox Islamic beliefs go like this: God's knowledge transcends time and space. With this knowledge He knew everything you would CHOOSE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL before you were even created. In the beginning, God created the pen and commanded it to write all that would be. Then He made the creation.

You have complete and total free will so long as God allows your actions, but your fate is sealed in the book since the beginning of the creation. You have free will, but what you will choose and the consequences for those choices have already been recorded. You must actually act out your own choices in this world AS PROOF FOR OR AGAINST YOURSELF on the day of judgement. It's not to prove anything to God; God already knows everything.

That's why you'll always hear sunnis say "The ink is dry". As a Muslim, you trust that you are exactly where you are supposed to be; in age, health, location, and situation. You learn to submit to it and go with the flow, taking advantage and learning from everything because you can never predict what is going to happen next and what experiences from today will help you tomorrow. There is no "Why me?" or "Why now?". There is no "If only I had... then things wouldn't be as they are now". You are here. Now. And that is where you are supposed to be, fatalistically so to speak since it was written before the creation, but still of your own choice.

The shame is in Muslims who believe so much in fatalism that they can justify their own irresponsibility. This is an inbalance in imaan: trusting in your own redemption more than fearing God. However, I blame ignorance more. I mean, how many al-Qaeda operatives carry talismans or visit Shi'ite or Sufi graves? C'mon. They've lost their religion completely yet they carry the banner of Islam. They even believe the end justifies the means! They let "Osama bin Laden" throw out all the rules and make his own- that is shirk (polytheism) right there. Shirk is also arrogance; the two are inseperable. It is natural for the arrogant to believe they are "saved" but others are not, and from there it all goes down hill.

Kenneth, very interesting - its a bit late, will say more later. Same Shellie.

BTW you are aware that there is ample reasons, both deductive and empirical that free will is an illusion. But that is another story.

The whole dunya is an illusion.

Shellie, - Al Qaeda people don't visit graves because they are members of the Salafi sect which considers graves & shrines as a form of idol worship. Same thing for talismans. Far from having lost their religion, they are very deep into their version of Islam. The fatwas issued by pro-AQ clerics derive from sound Koranic & Hadith references. These sources are large, complex & sometimes ambiguous, so it is easy to "cherry pick" the right verses to come up with justifications for the terror & murder of civilians. It equally easy to "cherry-pick" contradictory Sura & Hadith to argue that Osama bin Laden is un-Islamic. The terrible truth is, both interpretations are textually correct. This is the dilemma facing Muslims today. To simply say, "Oh, Al Qaeda aren't true Muslims", is to avoid responsibility for dealing with the problem. Clearly, they believe they are true Muslims, as do millions of their supporters.

Over the past 2 decades, the various Islamist groups have killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims (& thousands of non-Muslims). How do "true" Muslims respond to that? Telling the West to just leave them alone to sort it out is at best naive. If the Islamists achieve their primary goal of installing Islamist governments in Muslim countries (no doubt, at a cost of many thousands more Muslim lives) they will then carry their Jihad on to the Western world. This would bring on a global war, almost certainly nuclear (i.e, Pakistan's arsenal), which would result in hundreds of millions of Muslims dying. What is the Muslim world doing, or what should it do, to address this very real threat to it's existance? Pretending AQ aren't real Muslims and ignoring the problem in hopes it goes away don't sound like realistic solutions.

Hamidreza - The subject of free will is one of the most facinating philosophical debates. I follow Occamm's razor: when considering 2 explanations for the same thing, always choose the simpler. To my mind, free will is the simpler explanation. The arguments for "fate" always remind me of a charletan mind-reader claiming, "I knew you were going to say that!"

Kenneth - sorry for the delay. I wonder if you will see this message. If you do, drop a note here so I can continue with posting my thoughts about the discussion on free will.

RE homo-sapiens, my nomenclature was incorrect. Otherwise I was trying to say exactly the same thing that the SI piece does. In addition, the point of divergence from primates goes back to about 10 - 12 million years TTBOMK.

I will write more after I hear from you. But the point you make about language development resulting in the sense of free will is not right, and is a language-centric view of cognition which is no longer accepted. Your cognitive processes has little to do with language, and is in a form which is dubbed mentalese. Language is simple the acoustic expression of the final process. If we could only think in language, we would not be a tenth as intelligent as we are.

Now note that this language-centric view has a very serious epistemological and political implication which is why I bring this issue up and am not happy with it.

The communal aspect of Islam is well understood and known, and that is what is meant by submission, IMO. But there are also religions which would be individually submissive to the deity, and hence saying Islam is about submission, is not entirely correct. Islam is about submission, not so much to allah, but to the community as instructed by allah, said instructions conveyed by the prophet and interpreted by the clerics. In other words, it is a perfect structure for the organization of society and rulership by a self-selecting caste.

Shellie - you are going too fast for me. Pls. slow down. Lets start from zero. You have made a beautiful structure here. You start with "God's knowledge transcends time and space". Can I ask a simple almost dumb questions first.

Time and space are the first four dimensions of existence. Now String Theory claims that the universe is configured in about 11 dimensions. Does God (or Allah) also transcend the other 7 dimensions or just the first 4? If yes, then can I ask, how do you know?

Shellie since we are talking of knowledge, maybe you can also tell me how do you know there is God? (please no emotional answers like "I can feel it" - thanks).

Good morning Hamidreza,

Interesting points. I agree with you the language-centric definition of intelligence is too limited. There are many ways we know and experience things which are not language based. There are some interesting facts about world languages which tie into biological evolution: all languages have the same level of complexity, ie. nouns, verbs, subjects, objects, & similiar (if not identical) rules of grammar. This suggests the development of language has its origin in our biology, not in our culture. Or in other words, the line between biology & culture is blurred.

About free will - one can observe in animal behavior choices and autonomous behavior. A monkey sniffs and selects ripe fruit, swings from branches, & scrathes himself. To some extent it is responding to instinct (it's hungry), to some extent it is making choices (eating one fruit instead of another). This is free-will for monkeys. The more complex & more intelligent an animal, the greater the scope for free will.

BTY, homo sapiens did not diverge from primates. We still are primates. The hominids from which we decended diverged from the lines which eventually evolved into other modern apes, such as chimpanzies and gorillas about 3.1 to 3.3 million years ago. This is indicated by the fossil record confirmed by mitochondrial DNA analysis of modern apes, including humans.

In human history there have been societies which have favoured, allowed & encouraged free will, and those which have denied it. I would argue that those which favour free will are more successful than those which deny it. Communism collapsed largely because of the suppression of free will.

God & submission. Islam uses the word "submission" to describe a good Muslim's relationship to Allah (& the community as defined by Allah). This differs from Christianity which, as far as I am aware never uses that word. We use "love God", "accept Jesus", "praise the lord", or "follow Christ". These verbs have different meanings than the word "submission". Submission implies a lowering of ones self whereas in Christianity the verbs imply a "lifting up".

Sometimes when I hear the words "submission to Islam", & when I read the violent & hateful propaganda of the Islamofacist groups such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, & Hezbollah, I am reminded of the concept of the Dominant/submissive relationships of sado-masochists. The violent suppression of women, the self-pitying rage, the self-anihilating urge of the suicide bomber, the overweaning sense of persecution, the endless conspiracy theories, the raving Jew-hatred, the rape of women & children as an instrument of war in Darfur, the promise of virgins in paradise, & the shear nihilism of it all: all this is mayhem is supposed to achieve the vision of a so-called perfect society under Allah. All of this has a curious resonance to the psycho-sexual pathology of the sado-masochist. Sometimes a whole society, or a large segment of it, can become sick with a common neurosis or a societal personality disorder, (ie. Nazi Germany, or Pol Pot's Cambodia) and perhaps this is one of those times.

As yet, string theory is just a collection of theories, equations & hypotheses. It remains entirely inaccessable to experiment. There are no known methods, or even hypothetical methods, by which to test the theories. As one physicist remarked, "If you can't test a theory experimentaly then it is really only metaphysics." So to invoke string theory as a test of the existance of God, is to invoke one metaphysical concept as a test of another. Both are inaccessable to experiment. One either takes or rejects them on faith.

Hamidreza-

I am assuming you believe in evolution. Is that true?