AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Disoriented America? Part I
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I deemed these next few posts I am going to put on here worthy of this board. Mr. Meglommatis is a Greek citizen of Turkish origin, living in Cairo and specializing in numerous fields. A google search on him will bring up alot of hits you might find interesting.

At any rate - this gentleman posted this in another forum (of which he is a member of) I frequent and I will share it with you, as well as some of the responses that he answers (link to responses and answers below the article, please read them as well).

It comes in three segments and I though I would start out with this one as he did. I think it might bring up some stirring debate. S2

Call it positive and constructive criticism (he, as I have read from other posts he has made, is definately NOT anti-war).

Quote:Disoriented America loses control in the Middle East – Part I

By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis


In a recent article published in the Washington Post, Jim Hoagland described America’s attitude to global issues as a result of “fearful, at times almost panicky, reactions to the migration of power away from national leaders and its fragmentation at national levels”. The “Global power plays” was the title. The article presented a dreadful image of power evasion, since “President Bush and Vice President Cheney fight an inexorable tide that pushes their goal of restoring presidential and national power farther away even as they accelerate their efforts to reach it”. It does not take much for anyone to make the link between this interpretation and the breaking news from Iraq, where peace seems to be out of reach.

While it makes sense to assess several recent positive developments (elections, a Kurd President for Iraq, a Shia majority in the new government, Iraqi national police forces initiative, etc), it is urgent to make clear that there is no magic, inexorable tide that pushes the American administration’s goal in Iraq farther away. There are mistakes. Serious, grave and lethal mistakes! The present series of articles is an alarming warning for Apprentice Magicians.

America has crossed the point of no return in Iraq. Either the present administration will change its overall approach to the “Iraq” affair now or soon the Middle East and the entire World will be engulfed in an unprecedented disaster.

This article will not focus on the successive stages of Middle Eastern deterioration that will cause a greater, global upheaval. It will rather offer an enumeration and brief analysis of the basic mistakes made by the American administration.

America’s mistake no 1: over-reliance on high-tech

America does not face today the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. There is not much at stake with regard to an arms race that was a key issue in the 40s and in the 80s. Certainly there is a competition between the States, Japan, and the top European countries, and to lesser extent with Russia and China. But the enemies America faces in Iraq are not involved in this competition, and the outcome of the war on terrorism does not hinge necessarily on high tech, but on human brain, faith, historical and socio=psychological knowledge and understanding. America’s undisputed high tech advantage did not prevent September 11th, and it will not help much against several bogus-Muslim sheikhs who want to destroy this world. Terrorists can certainly get necessary insight and come up with petty nuclear devices that they will use, not necessarily to destroy Chicago but to generate a seismic – volcanic shock. The fact that the Egyptian newspaper Al Osboa attempted to attribute the 26/12/2004 Sumatra tsunami to Indian – Israeli nuclear experiment shows very well where the mind of terrorists can be driven to. How can one prevent this?

America’s mistake no 2: erroneous perception of its enemies

This is the epicenter of the problem. America failed to identify its enemies, to locate them and to successfully reprimand (let alone exterminate) them. In the aftermath of the terrible events of September 11th, Prof. Bernard Lewis, the famous Western Islamologist, led the Search for the Answer to the questions “why do they hate us?” or “what went wrong?”. If a real connoisseur goes through the accumulated bibliography, he will find it meager, unclear and absolutely deriding.

The West, or to put it very clearly America, failed to know
1. why the extremists and terrorists hate the West
2. what differentiates the terrorists from the rest
3. what is historical Islam, and what differentiates it from the terrorists
4. what is historical Islam, and what makes it different from criminal, hypocritical politicians and bogus-kings who pretend they are different than the terrorists (but they are not)
5. how they have been deceived by numerous pretentiously peaceful politicians who are the best in preparing the ground for the terrorists
6. what the man of the street of Algiers, Cairo, Amman, Riyadh and Karachi (not the hypocritical diplomat of the Arab League) knows and believes about Islam, the West and the forthcoming war between Islam and the West (the majority believe that such a war will definitely occur)
7. why the aforementioned man of the street is driven to believe all this trashy, bogus Islam (and by whom) and the inhuman concepts that are related to it
8. what is the real public political discourse in the countries of fanaticism and hatred (Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia) – and here we have to identify this discourse with the really un-Islamic and purely terrorist ‘khutbas’ – the Friday prayer’s sermons that are devoid of any religious and metaphysical contents, having turned out to be burning political – ideological speeches of anti-Western and antihuman hatred and hysteria
9. what brainwash takes place throughout these countries where ‘khutbas’ are registered in cassettes that average people are obliged to listen to whenever in taxis and minibuses
10. what false things the fanaticized and ignorant masses of these countries believe about the West
11. how ignorant these fanaticized and ignorant masses are with regard to historical Islam
12. what were the historical developments that created this situation, and the role of the European Colonial powers in this regard.


If America perceives correctly its enemies, the US administration will be shocked because of its past erroneous assessments of tyrants and bogus-kings as ‘friends’. And the total number of terrorists exceeds some hundreds of millions, which is also unknown to America. Terrorist is anyone sharing the terrorists’ vision of the world, an absolutely inhuman vision indeed.
It would be a good starting point for the US to send 1000 American sociologists to learn Arabic, Urdu and Bahasa, to live for a year or two in the favelhas of Algiers, Cairo, Amman, Riyadh, Karachi and Jakarta, and to compile a huge multilingual encyclopedia “The world according to the fanatic Muslims” for the use of average Western public.

Only then the West will finally realize what the real tsunami is and from where it comes.

(to be continued)

Comments and Response
I agree wholly with the points, especially the shameful under-estimating of human potential, except for the fact that all foreigners who hate America and/or cheer on al-Qaeda should be classified as terrorists
If you harbor terrorism or support it, it would damn well make you an accomplice if not a full-blown terrorist. We are engaged in conflict with terrorists AND their supporters.
But sympathizing with terrorism is not the same as supporting them. I agree these people are scum. But most Muslims(in the U.S. and out of it) who like al-Qaeda are too lazy or weak to actually give money or santuary to al-Qaeda soldiers.
Naah... I think I'll take the opposite P.O.V.

Washington Post's Jim Hoagland described America’s attitude to global issues as a result of “fearful, at times almost panicky, reactions to the migration of power away from national leaders and its fragmentation at national levels.” This is an awkward definition of Judicial tyranny, and a misleading take on the propensity of liberal politicians to take unpopular agenda items that can't be legislated to a like-minded jurist who will enact interpretations of law that don't exist. Otherwise, the so-called "migration of power away from national leaders" doesn't really exist. After The Kennedy Assassination, Johnson 36 and then Nixon 37 brought the powers of the Presidency to a new high, and it was the media, acting as a political entity, that reduced it to today's level. Ford 38 and Carter 39 were stripped of traditional privilege after Watergate, but Reagan 40 and Bush 41 regained much ground. Clinton 42 dissipated great power without actually losing it. In his case, he appointed bureaucrats and adversarial advocacy leaders to key departments, i.e. Hazel R. O'Leary, a truly terrible person to control the Energy Department. Under her, The PRC leapt ahead two generations in technology because of her willingness to trade technology for fundraising dollars. Our Intel agencies were bereft of adequate management and whipped like a mangy cur. No - the inability of leaders to get things done is not because of lack of power, but stupid decisions.

As for Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis and his incorrect idea that America’s mistake no 1 was over-reliance on high-tech...
he Wrote:But the enemies America faces in Iraq are not involved in this competition, and the outcome of the war on terrorism does not hinge necessarily on high tech, but on human brain, faith, historical and socio-psychological knowledge and understanding. America’s undisputed high tech advantage did not prevent September 11th, and it will not help much against several bogus-Muslim sheikhs who want to destroy this world.
There is nothing wrong with using one's greatest assets. To claim otherwise is just stupid. Of course we also use other fields of knowledge, but this is not a zero-sum game. The only "over" reliance we've put on high-tech is in the knowledge that we are smarter and badder than our international neighbors. We'll use every method at our disposal to oppose Terrorism, and there is nobody on Earth, including the terrorists, who really expects otherwise.

His second assumption is his greatest miss: America’s mistake no 2: erroneous perception of its enemies
He Wrote:This is the epicenter of the problem. America failed to identify its enemies, to locate them and to successfully reprimand (let alone exterminate) them.
He's evidently fallen for the media belief of our "stoopidity." The problem is the money that backs the Terrorists - and that battle is going on under the radar.

Our greatest mistake is in allowing the "Useful idiots" in our own country to believe the unbelievable. They are the true targets of the Terrorists, because the Terrorists understand they can never win militarily. Even in guerrilla actions against civilians, everything is geared to cause our own counter culture to do what happened in Vietnam. They want America to fight itself - but that old bird won't fly anymore.

He goes on to claim we don't understand "10. what false things the fanaticized and ignorant masses of these countries believe about the West."
he Wrote:If America perceives correctly its enemies, the US administration will be shocked because of its past erroneous assessments of tyrants and bogus-kings as ‘friends’. And the total number of terrorists exceeds some hundreds of millions, which is also unknown to America. Terrorist is anyone sharing the terrorists’ vision of the world, an absolutely inhuman vision indeed.

It would be a good starting point for the US to send 1000 American sociologists to learn Arabic, Urdu and Bahasa, to live for a year or two in the favelhas of Algiers, Cairo, Amman, Riyadh, Karachi and Jakarta, and to compile a huge multilingual encyclopedia “The world according to the fanatic Muslims” for the use of average Western public.
This proves how off-base he is, because we've always known exactly what the drawbacks were with our friendly "tyrants and bogus kings." At every stage we did exactly the right thing and took the side of the best available. Sometimes the side got worse, but we never stopped trying to better the arrangement and strive for the eventual enfranchisement of the people under those "tyrants and bogus kings."
I think he is fairly accurate on "not properly knowing our enemy" myself.

IF in the US government security apparatus there was 1 MAN or WOMAN who truly understood the Islamic world,we would have been plenty forewarned about this coming storm years ago.

Not only did we ignore the attacks running through the 1990s,we had not 1 person of repute inside our government that had a clue how and why radical Islam would desire to attack the USA,which after all had been an apparent ally of Islam against the USSR,Pakistan against India,Muslims against Serbs,Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia against anyone,Kuwaitis against Iraqis.

Where is the 1 voice that was warning us?

Nowhere to be heard in our government.

To this day,Bush utters silly comments indicating to me he clearly does not have a clue what the enemy is about. Do they hate us? Probably,like we hated Germans or Japanese,but that is NOT why we warred on them or Muslims war on us.

They war on us for strategic gain,until we figure out their goals,we're naive idiots groping in the darkness. As grand and impossible as it sounds,they have goals to achieve,to date they believe they can achieve them and they are NO less than equalling, then surpassing the global power WE currently exercise. A new Empire.
No!

They do not war on us for strategic gain. There is no hope of the Islamic culture revivifying itself and ruling the world. It is little tribal leaders who rule a hundred or a thousand who use the U.S as a bugaboo to maintain their place at the head of a generally uncivilized and barbaric tribe.

These little rulers learned from history that to keep people who you do not take proper care of following you, you must point all their failures and frustrations at some outside cause. The problem is, that the world is getting smaller. Even third-world ghetto-dwellers have access to radio, television, and the internet. A few backward media groups like al Jazeera try to use the same bugaboo to soften the humiliation of their cultural failures, but it just won't hold up for long. The tribal leaders blame the greatest and fairest and most honorable culture on Earth for their troubles, but the people see their own culture's inability to compete and they will reject the lie.

The inevitable will happen. It may take longer than many people are willing to accept, but it will happen.

Muslims may follow the Qu'ran because they are ordered to, and their religion forbids them from questioning it - but they will question it as time moves on and their culture sinks farther and farther into disrepute.

Now there are also con men: the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons, and Jim Bakkers of the world. They exist off the blackmail of others. When Jesse Jackson gets low on cash, he picks a large corporation to threaten with a boycott or other unspecified actions unless they cough up protection payments to his Rainbow Coalition. Many jihadists survive the same way.

Our job now is only a short-term goal, to prevent petty acts of terrorism that have no long-term goal. Time is on our side. There may well be horrendous acts of terrorism, but they will just hasten the end of the movement.
William,

You seem to think these fanatics dream the same dreams a sheep herding bedouin does. Wrong,they truly believe they whipped the USSR and destroyed the USSR and soon America will collapse as well and Allah will reward their courage and fidelity with a return to the glory days of Islam.

Is it a pipedream? Yea,do religious fanatics live in reality? Nope.
I dunno, Palladin, but I rather think the fanatics believe they defeated the USSR with the help of the US, and now think if they are clever and conniving enough, they can do the same thing to the US - but...

to do this they need to replace the sugardaddy US who gave them the shoulder-fired anti-tank/anti-helicopter weapons that held the USSR military at bay. Without us they would have been rolled over by the USSR who would have outlawed their religion, forced an anti-Islamic educational system on the citizenry to cause the religion to disappear after the next generation. They know how close they came, and how they only brought a portion of the resistance needed. We supplied the truly necessary part. To stop their current fanatical agenda against us, we target the money flow, and stop the terrorists from getting that help. That is the primary reason that Saddam is gone and the Saudis have been courted.

A compelling aspect that can't be denied, is that this terrorist movement is a short-lived thing. The world is pressing in on the cultures that breed the fanatics, and as the people become enfranchised, the fanatics lose ground. Talk is cheap, and the last thing a person hears usually is what sticks. The Imams and fanatics may spew hatred, but it won't last when the TV set gets turned on.

Even with a victory or two, like the terrorist rail bombings in Spain that affected the election, the terrorists won't sustain momentum. They can't because their weapon of choice runs contrary to the religion they are fostering. How can a person who uses suicide bombings against innocents ever prosper, when the religion, itself, that they are representing, prohibits suicide? Only the totally insular can maintain belief in their faith über alles. As they make contact in the pursuit of their terrorism, they will lose their reason for fighting in the first place. Their current actions are doomed. The only way for them to win is to become their enemies.
WmLambert Wrote:who would have outlawed their religion, forced an anti-Islamic educational system on the citizenry to cause the religion to disappear after the next generation.
I do not think that such outcome would be a bad one. And I wish we do something along these lines. It is still possible that we will... if present nonsense will continue for a few more years.
William,

I think an objective, neutral reader here will agree with my view,you are thinking like a rational human and associating the FANATIC'S mentality with your own,just substitute that they happen to be Islamic instead of Christian.

I contend the fanatic does not think like this,he does not view the USA assistance as anything more or less than what ALLAH caused to occur,the collapse of the USSR was due to the pressure ALLAH generated via his faithful mujahadeen and it was ALLAH that forced us to arm the mujahadeen.

ALLAH might just as easily either destroy the United States or at the least enhance the Islamic world's power to rival the USA's under the leadership of the great Imam and Sheik,OBL.

This is the mindset of fanatics with power lust.

Sure,he hates us,but no more than he hates Indian Hindus or half assed Muslims that agree with us,IMO.
Palladin, I agree to a point. The fanatics attribute their humiliation worldwide to Allah punishing them for not being faithful enough. They also see Allah as allowing the West to prosper, but as a goad to their own culture. The problem is, that to prosper themselves, as Allah promises (as the only true proof of their religion) then they must become their enemies. Their culture doesn't work. Period. They can attack us and wreak terrorism wherever other nations outshine them, but in the end, where are their own shining lights?

The use of Allah as a scapegoat is not an image that will sit well with the Islamic faithful over time. Competition is instinctive, and the world of Islam must compete and win a few times to endure. So far all they've done is alienate the entire world against them and fall farther into barbarism.