Jumping To Conclusions

You're talking past Krugman's point. He explicitly is talking about moderate Muslims, not the fanatics. You don't mollify fanatics - and don't set up a left-wing straw man by arguing that's what we're suggesting. And saying "half of the Islamic world cheered for Osama Bin Laden, and the other half denied that he had anything to do with 9/11" is just dumb. 1.3 billion people are not all in denial or consumed by hatred. We are in a political struggle to convince moderate Muslims - who I believe are the vast majority - that we are as "good" as we claim to be. Bush's people are spinning Boykin's comments so they can simply resist taking action in response to criticism - standard procedure for this administration, but in this case, very detrimental to American national interest.

Which moderate Muslims?

As others, including, inter alia, Donald Luskin, have pointed out, Mahathir has been saying this stuff for years. Before Gulf War II, before 9/11, before Bush, even in the mid-90s while the Oslo process was in full swing.

Excuse me Mithras, but what is dumb is your statement that "We are in a political struggle to convince moderate Muslims - who I believe are the vast majority - that we are as "good" as we claim to be. " It was the extremists who attacked us, and want to destroy the West. It really doesn't matter what the so-called moderate Muslins believe (assuming they exist). They do not control what the extremists do. Whether are not these “moderates” like us, there will still be Muslims going around blowing up women and children so that they can go off to Paradise.

Are you oblivious to the fact that in most Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc), it is the clerics who are the fanatics. During worship they incite the population to hate the US and Israel. Just how many times can they call on Allah to destroy us before you understand that they are the enemy? When you appease your enemy the only thing that you get is more attacks because they perceive that you are weak. But of course the “good” Leftists like you are too naïve to understand that.

"It really doesn't matter what the so-called moderate Muslins believe (assuming they exist). They do not control what the extremists do."

Richard - with all due respect, do you know what you're talking about? Do you have any experience with or exposure to the politics of the Middle East?

It makes an enormous difference whether moderate Muslims like or don't like us. They are the sea in which the terrorists swim. If they think the terrorists are doing a good thing, then they will support them financially and politically. If they don't, they won't. To take a micro example, do you think more or fewer American soldiers would be killed in Iraq if the populace there likes us? And if they dislike us? Why do you think the governments of the nations you listed allow radicals to preach? Because, in part, their people demand it. You can't threaten to invade them all. We can't even keep the lid on in the places we've invaded already.

We need to fight this war with military means, but we can't win it without convincing people we're right, not just strong. Convincing them we're right begins with showing them that we don't think they're all our enemies. Otherwise, they will think, "The Americans hate me, so I hate them. My government, my money, and my sons and daughters should be devoted to fighting them." That is such a basic point, I am constantly amazed people don't grasp it instinctively. Can't you put yourself in their shoes?

I think I understand why people want a purely military solution. Our house has been attacked, members of our family killed. We want to go out and kill the bastards who did it and kill their families and their ten best friends. Pure vengance. The anger is good, acting on it is not.

Ask yourself this: what was bin Laden's strategic goal in launching the 9/11 attacks? One answer that I think makes sense is that he wished to make the United States lash out at the Muslim world. Essentially, he wanted to prove that we were Islam's enemy. By doing so, he could count on governments and people becoming radicalized against us. More radicals, more support for bin Laden and his goals. Radicalize enough of them in the countries "friendly" to the U.S., and perhaps he could overthrow or take over the governments there. He'd lose Afghanistan - but perhaps gain Pakistan (with nukes) or Saudi Arabia. Why play into his hands?

We all want to win this fight. We all acknowledge that military action plays a large role in it. But we can't kill our way to peace. That's not a pacifist sentiment, that's a political reality. You want to win? They do what it takes to win, even if it means not doing what feels good.

Boykin should be fired from his political Pentagon job exactly because his statements conflict explicitly with what the President has been saying. Bush made that clear yesterday in his press conference.

If he keeps his job, Muslims around the world will read his words and think they are presentative of what Americans think. That's a very bad choice.

Alternatively, if the story of his firing circulates, that sends another explicit message that is quite desirable: the US will not tolerate that sort of anti-Muslin speech in political positions.

Do David and Richard actually think that the settlements do no harm? They have been criticized by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council repeatedly. The world pays attention and the US cannot pretend to have a balanced position on the Middle East peace question if it refuses to say to both sides that they have to follow certain ground rules.

I presume you have no problem with Bush telling the Palestinians that they cannot expect to pursue terrorism and negotiations at the same time?

Thank you so much for pointing out the error in my post. You are so right. If General Boykin had not made those statements in the privacy of a Church, then the moderate Muslims would have prevented the 9/11 terrorists from blowing up the World Trade Center.

Unfortunately, you seem to have problems with understanding cause and effect. First you say that your mythical moderate Muslims (M3) support the radical Muslims because they see us as the enemy. If that is the case, then why didn’t the M3 rise up and denounce bin Laden when we were attacked? Not only did that not occur in the Middle East, but it also did not occur in the US. Why didn’t we see demonstrations denouncing radical Islam by the Muslim leadership in the US? The answer is simple. It is because the Muslim leadership in the US, as well as in the Middle East, supports the radicals.

Why do you think the governments of the nations you listed allow radicals to preach? Because, in part, their people demand it.

You made my point, exactly! These sermons are not new. They did not just occur after we attacked Iraq. They have been going on for the last 50 years and more. Radical Islam hates our culture and our democracy. They see a clash of civilizations. The only way we can appease them is by ceasing to exist.

Oh, by the way, what I really loved about your post was your patronizing comments.

“Oh, yes I understand that you want to lash out at those bad people who attacked you, but you must understand that is acting from emotion. We on the Left are intellectuals. We are so much smarter than you. Unlike, you Neanderthals on the Right we can control our emotions.”

In case you are wondering, your statements do sound that condescending.

Rodger,

Do David and Richard actually think that the settlements do no harm?

Yes you are right. It is the settlements that are the problem. You know, the ones in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Please don’t give me that garbage about settlements. The only thing that will satisfy the Palestinians is an Israel that is Judenfrei.

Radical Islam hates our culture and our democracy. They see a clash of civilizations.

Then why not push for the ultimate solution? Why not advocate the extermination of the Islamic religion and the genocide of the Arab race? That'd solve everything.

Except you don't, because you've also make the distinction between radical and moderate Muslims -- you just don't care about the moderate Muslim. What makes you think killing more Muslims is going to de-radicalize anyone (other than, I suppose, the Muslim you kill)?

The only way we can appease them is by ceasing to exist.

Then I guess we'll just have to kill them all.

To finally get to responding to my various critics: if I were in charge of everything that happens in the US, I wouldn't recommend that Boykin say what he said. For that matter, if I were in charge of everything that happens in Israel, I might not build towns in the disputed territories. But notwithstanding those two points, it's the height of absurdity to suggest that they have anything to do with the feelings of those in the Middle East towards the United States.

For one thing, Mahathir's comments weren't directed towards the United States. If Mahathir had denounced the American Great Satan, you could blame it in part on Boykin. But how could Boykin's comments cause Mahathir to hate _Jews_? (Boykin, needless to say, isn't Jewish.) Krugman is suggesting that if Bush fires Boykin, the so-called "moderate" Muslims will be less anti-Semitic. Does that make any sense?

For another, these feelings long predate any speeches by Boykin. They long predate Ariel Sharon's tenure as PM of Israel. And yet, attempts to appease "moderate" Muslims have been ongoing. If hundreds of reassuring speeches by American leaders pre-Boykin didn't convince "moderate" Muslims that we're not anti-Islam, then how can one claim that firing Boykin will do so?

So, David, is your position that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim?

s/

Not at all, Sam. My position is that, contra Krugman, there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim.

And a moderate Muslim, by definition, is moderate. Hence, he doesn't go off on an anti-Semitic rant because of a speech by an obscure figure in the United States, nor does he get excited when another person goes off an anti-Semitic rant.

So the defining characteristic of a moderate Muslim is his or her "moderation?" Is there a notable difference between a "moderate Muslim" and a "moderate Christian?"

s/

And a moderate Muslim, by definition, is moderate. Hence, he doesn't go off on an anti-Semitic rant because of a speech by an obscure figure in the United States, nor does he get excited when another person goes off an anti-Semitic rant.

But that not how it plays in the Middle East. Boykin's comments are being played up as an example of the American administration's "true" motives, that the occupation of Iraq is a 21st century Christian crusade. Note also that a "moderate Muslim" may not be moderate in the sense that we understand it to be. In a cuture where religion plays a far greater role shaping world views, I can see how comments such as the ones Boykin made would be seen as evidence that Administration's motives are not so altruistic.

Michael:

1) Do you think that people who believe that Boykin's comments show Bush's "true" motives are people who believed in Bush's good intentions before Boykin spoke? Remember Krugman's thesis here: his hypothesis is not that the failure to fire Boykin riled up zealots, but that it turned moderate people into zealots.

2) With regard to point #1: what does it have to do with Jews? Remember, Krugman's thesis is that Boykin's comments prompted Mahathir's anti-JEWISH rants, not anti-American rants.

1) Do you think that people who believe that Boykin's comments show Bush's "true" motives are people who believed in Bush's good intentions before Boykin spoke?

No. I believe that those who are on the fence about it would be swayed, though. It also puts a significant dent into Muslim pro-American arguments -- I'm a pro-war American, and if *I* think that Boykin's comments were, to a certain extent, representative of Bush's own beliefs, imagine what my counterpart in the Middle East must be thinking.

2) With regard to point #1: what does it have to do with Jews?

Nothing. I hadn't addressed Krugman's article, just the subsequent comments here.

Personally, I think Krugman, like pretty much every other pundit, overstate their position, whether it be conservative or liberal. Hell, it's practically become a job requirement to say something controversial at least twice a week.