A debate on the integration of Muslims is raging in Germany. But the middle ground is missing from the discussion. It's time to stop throwing verbal darts and take a realistic look at the country's Turkish minority. Germans are good at this sort of thing. Make a controversial statement, and then sit back and watch as the newspapers, television stations, radio, intelligentsia and politicians whirl themselves into semi-hysterical fits, each attempting to one-up the other. And once the debate -- and the related violence -- in Holland about the (non) integration of its Muslim population got going with the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh three weeks ago, it was clear that Germany would fall all over itself to scrutinize its own 3.2 million-strong Muslim population.
And it has. Computer keyboards across the country are smoking as editorialists pontificate on the pros and cons of multiculturalism. Over the weekend, 20,000 Muslim Germans -- mostly Turkish -- took to the streets of Cologne in an anti-terrorism demonstration. Politicians of all stripes this week are offering up platitudes, demands and warnings and a general consensus is slowly emerging that integration of Muslims in Germany just isn't working.
But this current discussion isn't just a measured exchange of opinions among politicians and between Germany's Christians and Muslims. It is heated, bordering on unhelpful, and on the verge of becoming poisoned. On top of that, a word has been reintroduced into the debate that says volumes about how far along Germany is in integrating its mostly-Turkish Muslim population: "Leitkultur," a word that made headlines five years ago and means "dominant" or "guiding" culture.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
11/24/2004 2:52:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's ultimately not a problem of culture but of economics. Where the state stifles small business formation, it stifles the development of an ownership stake for relgious minority groups in the larger society and the development of business networks that reward productive activity. This in turn encourages the growth of an unproductive "resenter" population who have no attachment to the larger society. The Euros simply don't get it.
Remember the rantburg article a while back which showed 40% (I think that was the figure) of Turkish women accepted their husbands hitting them? That doesn't actually account for how many Turkish men think it's ok, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's about the same (40%).Some of those 40% would show up in Germany, wouldn't you agree?
How do you think German women are going to react to physical abuse of husbands? How about putting up with Turkish employees who go insubordinate because they can't bear having a woman boss or won't work with Jewish fellow enployees?
#3
But you solve the cultural problem when you solve the economic one. I'm willing to bet any sum that at least 90% of successful muslim professionals and businessmen in the US do not tolerate wife-beating. People who are building businesses and careers take good care of their families and also their communities. When you have a real stake in the larger society, a lot of cultural idiocy vanishes from your mind.
#5
You're wrong Lex, completely wrong. Violence towards women even in West spans from the poor to the rich. There is more violence in poor but it's not a shattering diference. Besides for muslims you just need to look to Saudis, the cultural sexism is not much diferent than racism
and the weight of you're wallet doesnt saves you.
Seldom in my memory has there been such intense controversy about the CIA. This fellow is very young or he does not remember the Church Committee.
Seldom has so much of what is said been so distorted and misinformed. Seldom has so much of what it said and repeated come from Langley soto voce.
Seldom has there been so little concern about the potential impact on the agency's ability to perform its mission and the consequences that holds for national security. The time has come to turn down the temperature of the debate, to take a deep breath, and to get some balance and thoughtfulness into the discussion. Or the time has come for Langley to shut up, butt out of politics, and do its job
Let's start by dispelling the myth that the CIA has become a "dysfunctional" and "rogue" agency. Like any organization of human beings, the CIA is far from perfect and has made mistakes -- mistakes we have recognized and Porter Goss is are working to remedy. But dismissing the agency as "dysfunctional" is way out of line. OK, we missed the fall of the Soviet Union, the Kuwait attack, the 9/11 attack, nukes in India, Pakistan, and Libya. We're only human. And from the finest Ivy League schools, too This is an organization that, during the six months of seemingly deadlocked debate over "intelligence reform," has worked with its intelligence-community and foreign partners to take down about a dozen important terrorists who were plotting against our country and its allies. Despite waves of harsh criticism, the agency has never once lost its focus or its drive to protect the U.S. homeland and American interests abroad. Two dozen! And in the same time how many were bagged by the Army and Marines? If you never lost your focus on the drive to protect the U. S. homeland, why did a Department of Homeland Security have to be formed?
This is the same agency that, through its operators and analysts, was in large part responsible for many of the victories against terrorists and weapons proliferators cited during the recent election campaign -- the penetration and destruction of the illicit A.Q. Khan nuclear supply network, the closely related surrender of Libya's weapons of mass destruction, the capture of many of the key perpetrators of Sept. 11 attacks, to mention just a few. This should go in the dictionary as the definition of chutzpah.
Americans need to start thinking of these officers as our troops without uniforms, for that is what they are. Trying to pick up some of that military credibility, eh? The military worked damn hard in the '70's and '80's to rebuild itself. What was the CIA doing then? Hiring Scheuer and firing Ames.
Put another way, is there real tolerance for things that go awry in carefully planned operations that must be carried out in circumstances not completely under anyone's control? There should be, because there is often as much "fog" in clandestine intelligence work as there is in wars. Wrapping yourselves in the military again. Very interesting.
Beyond all this, it is alleged that the CIA was leaking material before the election to damage the president. There were leaks to be sure, but the truth is that no one, other than those who leaked and those who reported, knows where they were actually coming from. Provide Links!
What I do know beyond a doubt is that the CIA was not institutionally plotting against the president, as some allege. I've checked all the minutes from the staff meetings and the Director never told us to.
The accusation is absurd. CIA officers are career professionals who work for the president. Tell Congress.
They see this as a solemn duty, regardless of which party holds the White House. Has everyone ruled out the possibility that the intelligence community during this period was simply doing its job -- calling things as it saw them -- and that people with a wide array of motives found it advantageous to put out this material when the CIA's views seemed at odds with the administration's? Many people have called for a return to civility in Washington. To me, civility means thoughtful and well-informed debate. Nowhere is this more needed than in the debate over intelligence. Like the U.S. military, Wrapping the CIA in the military again.
our nation's intelligence officers face daunting challenges now and for years to come. Constructive criticism can help. Tirades and hyperbole will not. The writer is deputy director of central intelligence.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 9:10:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The writer is deputy director of central intelligence.
He should be "ex-deputy director".
I wonder if this guy thought up sending Wilson, or just signed off on the idea.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/24/2004 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Does Mr. McLaughlin know Mr. Anonymous?
Never in my memory? How about during the 1970s and the Frank Church commission? In its final report, (The Church commission) issued in April 1976, the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities concluded: âDomestic intelligence activity has threatened and undermined the Constitutional rights of Americans to free speech, association and privacy. It has done so primarily because the Constitutional system for checking abuse of power has not been applied.â
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/24/2004 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Damn Damn Damn.
This has me biting my tongue.
All I can say is: this person is obviously still in his box, not thinking outside it. Typical "protect the empire" stuff instead of "protect the nation".
#4
Come on, OS. If Scheuer can get away with it, so can you. I promise not to call Langley asking for an interview.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#5
just one thing. While I have lots of problems with Langley, and very much doubt the denial of deliberate leaks campaign, the links to the military thing is not bogus - a very considerable number of CIA operatives are killed in the line of duty. Their job is not easy, and they are heroic, whatever shenanigans happen at HQ.
#6
LH, No doubt about that. But they aren't the problem and I hope no one have ever thought they were.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/24/2004 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Damn Damn Damn.
This has me biting my tongue.
All I can say is: this person is obviously still in his box, not thinking outside it. Typical "protect the empire" stuff instead of "protect the nation".
All I can say is: this person is obviously still in his box, not thinking outside it. Typical "protect the empire" stuff instead of "protect the nation".
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
