Michael J. Totten writing at TCS, EFL:The European Commission recently approved membership talks between the European Union and Turkey. It was a top-down decision. E.U. citizens overwhelmingly oppose the idea of Turkey joining their union. They fear Princeton historian Bernard Lewis may be right when he says that based on demographic trends Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century.
But there's something else, too. Something that's left unsaid, perhaps even unformed in thought, but there like a chill up your spine when you think you feel someone's eyes on the back of your neck. Turkey is outside the E.U.'s post-modern End-of-History paradise. Its absorption would push the border of the European Union beyond the continent of Europe itself and deep inside the unofficial "nation" of Kurdistan. Europe wouldn't begin at the former front line of the Cold War. It would begin at the active front line of the Terror War right next to two states, Syria and Iraq, that are not only mired in History but also in Baath Party totalitarianism and Islamist jihad.
Robert Kagan's groundbreaking book Of Paradise and Power brilliantly contrasts the different views of power held by Europeans and Americans. The United States and Europe, he says, have sharply diverging ideas about the role of diplomacy and the use of military force due to the stark differences in historical experience accumulated over the past century.
Europe has never had it so good. After the meat-grinding horror of World War I and the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, the United States provided a protective security umbrella over Western Europe, under NATO auspices, permitting Europeans to build multilateralist institutions and lavish welfare states. And now, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire on the West's eastern border, Europeans feel they have entered a settled post-historic era where nations can settle differences through diplomacy and the merger of formerly separate bureaucracies. War is seen as an anachronism from Europe's monarchical, imperial, and machtpolitik past.
We Americans, on the other hand, have never felt more threatened. The attack on September 11, 2001, was the worst ever on our own soil. History is far from over for us. Neither Nazi Germany nor the Soviet Union ever struck such a blow against us at home. And because we are militarily powerful we are far more willing to use force than Europeans. Kagan quotes one European critic of America's policy who says "When you have a hammer, all problems start to look like nails." This is certainly true. Kagan's response: "When you don't have a hammer, you don't want anything to look like a nail."
From Europe's perspective, that's the problem with Turkey. It's a nail.
Posted by: Steve ||
10/25/2004 3:41:25 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If I had a hammer
I'd hammer in the morning
I'd hammer in the evening ... all over Euristan,
I'd hammer out danger
I'd hammer out a warning
I'd hammer out Islam from all my brothers and my sisters
All over this land.
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
10/25/2004 18:04 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Turkey became a non-European country in the 16th century and developed thereafter a history of oppressing non-Moslems (e.g. Christians) and trying to invade the Balkans and the rest of Europe. Further, it has strictly no connection to the Enlightenment.
Why would they be welcome in the European Union? what is it that makes Europe distinct from Africa and Asia, apart from geographical boundaries?
The Turkish problem is that there are millions of Turks in Germany and the European elites don't know how to either get rid of them or make them adopt local, European customs (meaning principally to get them to give up Islam).
#1
Can't be printed here. Even a trash-mouthed lout, such as myself, knows that submitting a comment worthy of Patton would mean *instant* sink-trap. No fucking way.
#2
Of course, VDH is right in this article. The only war that succeeds is total war. American are, indeed, restless stimulation addicts. We should do the job - and that includes stopping the destabilization efforts coming from Syria and Iran. And, of course, Iran rates special consideration since it must be de-nuked, period. We can, if our intel services haven't been completely turned to shit by 8 yrs of Clinton, do that in conjunction with the natives - and ovethrow the Mad Mullahs permanently, or we can just try to defang them now - and come back in 6 months, a year, 2 years, to do what should be done now. Regardless, the nukes and missiles must be neutralized - and only an overthrow of the current regime will allow that to be done with any confidence that it won't be back to bite us sooner, rather than later.
Georgie rocked - but he had the misfortune to be among the first American leaders to fall victim to the idiocy of PC-think - to the extreme detriment of all of Eastern Europe and untold wealth expended over the next 50 years trying to undo the disastrous post-WWII decisions that created the Iron Curtain and Cold War. Patton deserved much better than Ike and Bradley - fuck the revisionists and gutless PC types.
VDH kicks ass in his own way... just as Patton did in his.
#5
For anyone interested, I recommend the book "The Patton Principles" by Porter B. Williamson. Best book I've ever read on warrior leadership based on the author's experiences with the Master himself. To the unlearned eye, Patton seems like a theatrical blowhard, but he was on the contrary the most pragmatic and visionary military commander we've ever had.
...This is not to say that Islam abhors modernization and the adoption of advance social and scientific developments.
"No, no! Certainly not!"
On the contrary, Islam encourages furtherance of knowledge and scholastic achievement.
"That's why the Islamic states are the most prosperous and technologically advanced in the world!"
However, Islam does have a distinctive outlook on how to channel such a knowledge and how to control the negative connotations that could spoil the ability of the down to earth Moslem families to keep vice and social corruption out of the family and eventually out of the community.
"Nope. Nope. Don't need none o' that vice and social corruption!"
This does not necessarily entail an unbreakable attachment to crude or medieval practices, which regrettably many westerners seek to portray in the way Moslems view the right social conduct for themselves.
"I mean, it's not like we're unbreakably attached to violence against furriners and each other! It's a sentimental thing..."
However, it is partially due to the misrepresentations by Moslems themselves of the social norms that their faith really teaches. This misrepresentation was further expanded by the rise of the radical elements that sought to fill the vacuum of religious codes withered away by years of oppressive colonial and later home rule that sought to keep traditional organized religious activity under tight control for fear that it could incite rebellion or insurrection.
"Tut tut. And tut. Mere misrepresentation. Nothing to it!"
Surely, it is impossible to disassociate politics from Islam, because Islam actually rose as a rebellion against all forms of repression and transgressions.
"... and foreigners. And infidels. And heretics. And apostates..."
In modern political philosophy what this really meant was Islam is indeed a force of liberation, that most Moslems view the only hope for reestablishing their rights and reaffirming their dignity.
"You can clearly see that in every country that's ruled by shariah law..."
Yet, the so called modern fundamentalists have also failed to take note of the strong politicizing influence of Islam and went on to rely themselves on their own methods of suppression.
"Orf wif their 'eads! An' hands! And... and.. elblows!"
Their strict adherence to ceremonial religious practices and their rejection of different sectarian interpretations was also another factor of their alienation from serving the hopes and aspirations of most grass roots Moslems and thus one will see little mass appeal to these radical renditions.
So why do you think the rubes are really lining up for jihad?
Their access to funds has been the major source of their strength, but even that has little effect in convincing large masses of the Moslem constituencies where they have managed to operate freely.
It convinces them long enough to get shariah implemented, and all the kiddies into madrassahs — the boy kiddies, anyway. After that, it doesn't matter.
In the next issue we will continue this discussion and see what Moslems need to do at the country, regional and international level to reassert themselves as a dynamic modern social force to be reckoned with.
Start with hanging a few imams.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/25/2004 8:49:50 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Normally it is Washington that worries about stability in Arab countries. These days, however, there is much official nail biting in Arab capitals over the threat of instability in the United States. "What we are witnessing in the United States is their second civil war," says an Arab diplomat posted to Washington. "The difference is that this war is waged in the media, in churches, on the hustings, and inside many American homes."
That next week's presidential election is the closest in US history seems certain. What is causing concern in Arab and other capitals is that the intense passions unleashed by both sides could provoke instability and violence regardless of who wins. Arab diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, claim that the Democrats, many of whom believe their party was robbed of victory in 2000, are determined to fight hard to dislodge President George W. Bush from the White House.
Fears that the "American street" might explode, in the fashion often attributed to the "Arab street," may well be exaggerated. But the possibility of US government becoming paralyzed for weeks, if not months, as a result of disputes over election results cannot be discounted. Both President Bush and his Democrat challenger Sen. John Kerry start from a solid support base of around 40 percent of the electorate each. The remaining 20 percent consists of undecided or floating voters whose decision could affect the outcome in 12states still up for grabs. In the 2000 presidential election the closeness of the results in the state of Florida provoked a legal duel that was ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court. This time the experience of Florida could be repeated in many other states.
Both Republicans and Democrats have already set up legal headquarters in Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia and New Hampshire. Most polls show the two candidates neck-and-neck in those states. That means the outcome could be decided by a few dozen or a few hundred votes. Some of the states have laws under which if the margin of victory is less than half of one percent a recount is automatically conducted. Others have no such laws, forcing the loser to take the matter to court on other grounds such as possible fraud. The Florida fight in 2000 dragged on for more than a month. Similar fights in a dozen or more states could last longer. And that could put American decision-making on autopilot, so to speak. "The prospect of the US being unable to take urgent decisions for months cannot be taken lightly," suggests an Arab diplomat. "Such paralysis could be dangerous in our region where the situation remains volatile. The war in Iraq, the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the UN fight with Syria over Lebanon, and the Israeli plan to withdraw from Gaza cannot be put on the backburner for months."
The calendar of events for the three months ahead is unusually full in the region.
Three weeks after the American election Egypt will host an international conference, in Sharm al-Sheikh on the future of Iraq. A lame-duck US administration bogged down in domestic electoral disputes would lack the clout and he credibility to provide leadership.
A few days after that the International Atomic Energy Agency will have to decide whether to refer Iran to the United Nationsâ⬠Security Council for an allegedly illegal nuclear program.
Also in November Hamed Karzai is scheduled to be sworn in as the first directly elected president of Afghanistan, and to form a new Cabinet. Again, the US is required to play a central role in bringing the rival factions together to ensure a smooth transition to a pluralist system in Kabul.
Early in December UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is scheduled to report on Syria's compliance with resolution 1559 that requires the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon. Political paralysis in Washington could render action impossible, thus deepening the crisis in Lebanon.
In January, Iraq is scheduled to hold elections for a Constituent Assembly to approve the draft of a new constitution for submission to popular vote in a referendum. The perception that the US is too pre-occupied with domestic electoral disputes to focus on Iraqi elections could encourage the forces that are fighting to disrupt the process of democratization in Baghdad.
In February, Israel is expected to start withdrawing troops from Gaza. This would require American leadership in forming an international peacekeeping force.
If Bush wins the Democrats are certain to do all they can to delay the finalization of the results through litigation. But even if Kerry wins, the transition might not be as smooth as in 2000 . The Republicans are likely to retain control of the Senate; and that would give them the possibility of delaying the formation of a Kerry administration by vetoing his nominees for key posts. "It may be exaggerated that we are biting our nails in worry," says an Arab official. "But we need contingency plans to cope with a situation in which the US is busy with its domestic fights."
Posted by: tipper ||
10/25/2004 1:39:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If there is any problems beyond the lawyers getting fiesty post 11-3 it will IMO most likely come from the Democratic side of the electorate or farther afield from the fringe elements we saw in Seattle. If Kerry wins and the Pubs retasin the Senate I really don't see them being as tight assed about appointments as the Dims have been. Yes they'll fight over any potential SC nomminee but then that is to be expected ever since Bork
#2
What nonsense! After the election, the sitting president remains in full control until he hands over the reins on January 20th when the electee is sworn in by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. If Kerry wins, perhaps Bush won't start any new initiatives that would obligate the new president to continue, but there is certainly no issue with him continuing ongoing activities, or making decisions on his day-to-day responsibilities.
Looking at the article's list of concerns, the only ones where American involvement is necessary are: Afghanistan, Iraq and Democrats fighting finalization of results here at home. All the rest should be handled by the responsible parties.
#3
If it totally looks like an election by grand theft expect to see trouble.
I will not go peacefully into the night of John Kerry;s patroit act goons come calling. We are talking about a man that gave aid and comfort in a time of war here. He and the folk around him are never to be trusted.
#4
In February, Israel is expected to start withdrawing troops from Gaza. This would require American leadership in forming an international peacekeeping force.
WTF! Since when is the US the police force for the PLO? You mean Yasshole can't keep his own folks in line?
#5
Even if the Pubs loose the Senate, they will block Dhimmicrat judicial appointees - probably at all levels. That is the problem with the Dhim's program: they burn down the house to regain power. There are probably many folks who agree with SPoD.
#6
SPOD, you aren't going to do anything to anyone because no goons are goind to come caling on you unless you go Padilla.
Whoever wins, it looks to be close and there will be lots of charges and wrangling, but power will be transferred peacefully. Focusing on our divisions may provide the Arabs a lot of vicarious pleasure anticipating a civil war but ultimately it will serve mainly to give their people a lesson in how a constitutional republic works even when there are deep divisions in a society.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/25/2004 8:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I predict that no matter how bad the post election fiasco gets we don't see tanks in the streets or mechete wielding madmen attacking people at the polls because their guy is losing.
#8
Lol - that's cuz the UN doesn't have any tanks - yet. It could borrow the machetes, however, from its Hutu buddies in Rwanda. Used, but still servicable.
#11
If it totally looks like an election by grand theft expect to see trouble. I will not go peacefully into the night of John Kerry;s patroit act goons come calling.
No one's coming for anyone in the event of a socialist win in November. Far, far more important is to ensure our war fighters are safe from leftist engineering of the military, than any goon coming for anyone. I would be more scared of what the left does when Dubya does win.
Oh and did I tell you? It will be Bush by a super landslide. You heard it here first. As a matter of fact this is the umpteenth time you've heard it here; But ya gotta show up at the polls in November.
Me, I am preparing for the worst and praying that I am just being a silly goose.
I find it interesting that even the rag heads can see there is something very wrong here. And I do agree their their terming it as a 2nd civil war. I've been thinking that for a long time, but was afraid to say it hoping that if I did not say it it would not be true. But is is.
Posted by: Michael ||
10/25/2004 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Suppose the election came down to one vote in one state and that vote was fraudulent. Would people follow the fanatics afraid of Bushâs totalitarian state or those angry with Kerry and lead the US into civil strife?
If the election is so close that a few thousand votes from a couple hundred million voters determines the result, then there is no clear mandate from the people. The winner depends on chance and the losers should accept that fact.
Our country can survive four years of Kerry or four more years of Bush. I believe the country can even survive civil disorder promoted by fanatics unwilling to accept election results.
However, such disorder would greatly hurt the US in its WoT.
Iâm hoping for a clear winner with a clear mandate.
#14
Michael-
Understand what you're saying, but keep this in mind - if this situation were transferred whole to an Arab nation, it would be a civil war.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
10/25/2004 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Agree with 5032, we survived 1777, 1814, 1863, 1868, 1968 and Disco.
#16
Want some real tinfoil hat material - ever hear of John Titor? He was supposedly a "time traveler" from 2036. He posted on the internet back in 2000 about a civil war starting around this election.
SPOOOOOKY I tell ya!
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
10/25/2004 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#17
MK,
You are so right because any Arab leader getting less than 99% of the popular vote cannot possibly claim a mandate.
#18
I meant American tanks to shut down the election. you know coup, or civil war. We don't work that way, even when we're freaking out over idiot Floridians who can't vote properly we sit it out patiently and let the system work.
Yes I hope we don't have to go through that again this time. If it's not close, they can't cheat.
#19
I think large scale violence is a distinct possibility, far-left agitators have been pushing for it for years and this is their chance. At the same time, I do not think that violence would seriously delay the result, let alone change it, but legal wrangling might. In the worst case, Dubya's term expires on January 20, hell or high water, and Dennis Hastert becomes President.
We will go on regardless of what the barbarian hordes do, here or abroad. The net result would be the media-culture left's climactic grab for power and their final extinction.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/25/2004 15:28 Comments ||
Top||
#22
LOL Mrs D. I gotta get me one of dem dictionaries. LOL first link on my home page dictionary is dot com.
I don't see any tanks in the street kind of civil war. I see left vs right. With the left trying to round up all the "wrong thinking right" and inter them as a "danger to the state." We are talking about John Kerry here. I may have my tin foil hat on too tight but I am keeping my powder very dry. When I see the frothey hate coming out of these folks it's just plain scary.
#23
Lefties know how to burn paper mache effigies but do they know how to shoot guns?
Posted by: V is for Victory ||
10/25/2004 17:23 Comments ||
Top||
#24
What we have here is the failure to understand what's truly at stake for the left.
Most of these lefties we are talking about are 45-60 years of age. They idolize Bill Clinton. They have come to the realization that like the calendar they are entering the autumn of their years. They have dumped/been dumped by their spouse. They recall that the only time they could get reliably laid, outside marriage, was at anti-war protests and rock concerts. Recent experience has led them to believe they need to seek out such venues to "get satisfaction."
So they are turning this election into a rerun of the Days of Rage in the hope that they can "get some". But don't look for any actual action on the streets. There won't be any there either. This will not go down in history as the erection election.
However, next summer in Woodstock...
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/25/2004 17:54 Comments ||
Top||
#30
"That next week's presidential election is the closest in US history seems certain."
Folks, the A-rabs don't need to fret. It ain't gonna be that close. Bush will win over 300 electoral votes and there ain't gonna be no Floridas, no dimpled or hangin chads. The Democrats ain't gonna take to the streets, and and we'll have to wash the dishes again on Wednesday.
#31
Sorry your feelings are hurt Flert, but that was the straw for me of people asking questions to which the answers are readily available on this miracle called the internet.
Generally, when a dictionary doesn't have a word, it means the word does not exist or it has a different suffix. Dicitionary.com provided you a list of 20 alternative spellings from which to select. Being a poor speller, myself, and having spent at least half my youth paging through the dead tree dictionary looking up implausible English spellings, I found this list to be a Godsend. Only 45 years late. In that list I found hustings and learned that it is plural only. Thanks for helping to erode at least that little bit of my immence ignorance.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/25/2004 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
#32
"husting" isn't, but "hustings" is. Generally, a platform or stump for speeches.
#33
Arabs Worried About the Impact of 'Second US Civil War'
Personally, I'm amazed how no one has realized as of yet that all this is merely a case of projection and naught else. Please do not confuse some other barbaric culture's problem solving methods with our own.
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.
