Military class suspended for view on Islam

[Jersey Dirtbag]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

With that being said, I will absolutely argue emotionally to a man who tells me that the enemy of America is Islam and, by association, Muslims. I will argue this until I die. I have not worked with a 22 year old Afghani special ops. squad leader, who was indeed Muslim, but who believed in the sanctity of his country and the equality that he believed his people should have just to see his face blown off by the real enemy that we continue to fight every day.

I will not allow it. If a man does not get emotional over such things, then I do not know what some of you expect. Perhaps some of you have been out of it for too long, or cannot relate on a personal level to what is going. I will not casually tolerate someone attempting to tell me that that man is the enemy of America simply because of his choice of religion.

The statement that "Islam is a threat to America" does not imply a judgment of every single person who identifies himself as a Muslim. Taken at face value, it simply means that the ideology of Islam and its propagation threatens the continued existence of a distinct Western civilization. It says nothing about the merits or intentions of individual Muslims, to include the squad leader to whom you referred.

This is a very important point. When it comes to foreign policy (to include immigration policy), we cannot bind ourselves to judging every single individual on his or her merits. We have to take a common sense approach to these problems, and this approach will necessarily be based on generalizations about certain populations. Such approaches are taboo because they implicitly reject the popular notion that "fairness" with regard to individuals must be the highest priority. Rather, they are based on the prioritization of maintaining our national security and identity.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Jersey Dirtbag

Such approaches are taboo because they implicitly reject the popular notion that "fairness" with regard to individuals must be the highest priority. Rather, they are based on the prioritization of maintaining our national security and identity.

Yes, I agree with the general premise of the second sentence

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Jersey Dirtbag

When it comes to foreign policy (to include immigration policy), we cannot bind ourselves to judging every single individual on his or her merits. We have to take a common sense approach to these problems, and this approach will necessarily be based on generalizations about certain populations. Such approaches are taboo because they implicitly reject the popular notion that "fairness" with regard to individuals must be the highest priority. Rather, they are based on the prioritization of maintaining our national security and identity.

You are presenting a model of international relations that rejects the Westphalian system, that largely ignores the thrust of American diplomatic history, and that accepts as "common sense" a POV embraced by Western civilization's greatest enemies.

[Jersey Dirtbag]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

You are presenting a model of international relations that rejects the Westphalian system

According to Wikipedia, the principles of Westphalian sovereignty are:

1) The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination
2) The principle of legal equality between states
3) The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state

Which of those principles does my approach reject?

Originally Posted by Sigaba

, that largely ignores the thrust of American diplomatic history,

I don't see how this is valid criticism.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

and that accepts as "common sense" a POV embraced by Western civilization's greatest enemies.

Incidentally, during the Cold War, both the US and Russia recognized the strategic importance of nuclear weapons.

Are they are our enemies because they recognize the value in maintaining their distinct cultural identity?

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

You are presenting a model of international relations that rejects the Westphalian system, that largely ignores the thrust of American diplomatic history, and that accepts as "common sense" a POV embraced by Western civilization's greatest enemies.

Sigaba - Sorry, You're going to have to defend that one. My understanding of the Wesphalian model has plenty of room for a nation state making decisions WRT defending against threats to sovereignty and self-determination - including the use of stereotypes to discriminate against members of a nation/culture whose base philosophy is inimical to the preservation of our own way of life.

As a practical point, respect for "the thrust of American diplomatic history" should not equate to shackling us to a "suicide pact" wherein we adjudge all cultures equally meritorious. Times and threats change; the wise person adapts to meet the new challenges. If that means re-looking previous practices, so be it. I'm confident that route (in today's America) does not lead to National Socialism.

[The Reaper]

I think there are a couple of issues here.

First, can we freely criticize any religion, other than Christianity?

Can we even have a discussion of Islam and its problems, or is the mere fact that we are discussing it insensitive to the delicate sensibilities of Muslims?

Second, we (SF) are the most culturally attuned force in any military, and probably the only one that actually has a curriculum that addresses it. We accept and work with other cultures.

At the same time, a culture that violates certain cultural mores has to be examined without limitations. A religion that accepts and condones pedophilia, slavery, bestiality, genital mutilation, required violence against other cultures and religions, incest, violence against women, religious persecution, both homosexual and homophobic conduct, and genocide must be critically examined.

I have worked with military forces on every continent but Africa and Antarctica. Many of these forces were culturally challenging with issues like corruption, human rights, etc. All of them added together did not represent the assault on our cultural values that Muslims have.

In my personal opinion, a more backward, racist, ethnocentric, violent, misogynistic collection of haters would be difficult to imagine. These people make the Klan look positively open-minded and tolerant.

Having said that, there are 1,600,000,000 of them on this planet, or about five for every American. Ignoring them will not cause them to go away.

The prudent thing to do would seem to me to find a way to work with the more moderate Muslims, seek to benefit them over their more violent, fundamentalist believers, and look for ways to perhaps introduce them to an Islamic reformation and modernization.

At the same time, if they cannot moderate their more violent, racist beliefs, we may have to target those individuals and groups planning against us, and educating people on the threat would not seem to be unrealistic.

The PC aspect of this issue is particularly troubling to me as an SF soldier, and as an American. Denial and failure to evaluate and prepare for likely threats is a sure route to defeat.

IMHO, LTC Dooley is the victim of a witch hunt initiated by those who ultimately would like to see the downfall of the US and its establishment as a part of a global caliphate.

Again, I believe that the moderate Muslims are the extremists, and a large portion of them would love nothing more than to see us fail (or be defeated) as a nation.

The real question is how do we change that.

TR

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Jersey Dirtbag

According to Wikipedia, the principles of Westphalian sovereignty are:

1) The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination
2) The principle of legal equality between states
3) The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state

Which of those principles does my approach reject?

Your own "source" answers your question. You wrote that American foreign policy should take into account the POVs of populations i.e. nations. The points from your "source" emphasize states. (Have noticed that Wikipedia is rarely used as a source on this BB?)

Originally Posted by Jersey Dirtbag

I don't see how this is valid criticism.

Then I respectfully suggest that you might profit from expanding your study of history.

American foreign policy is driven by a shifting calibration of ideology and interests. While American statesmen have generally held to the notion of universal notions of freedom and, at times, they have directed their efforts and comments to foreign populations, the policies they've crafted are, in the main, directed at states (i.e. foreign governments), not nations. This approach has two benefits. First, it places the onus of change on the shoulders of foreign nationals. If, for example, the people of a country suffer from sanctions, they can pressure their government to change its policies, or they can put in place a new government altogether.

Second, it allows the United States to make peace as well as war rather than to be caught in a cycle of endless conflict. An example that is immediately relevant to this thread is Bush the Younger's approach to GWOT. While he affirmed the belief that freedom is a normative desire of human beings across the world, he was even more firm in stating that states, not nations, are the legitimate entities for international relations. By contrast, the "enemy" resorts to terrorism as a strategy (and not just a tactic, regardless of what the Democratic Party says) because it seeks to engulf the world in a war that will overthrow the Westphalian system.

That is, Bush's grand strategy for GWOT focused on the behavior of states rather than the beliefs of populations. (His comment "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." was directed at foreign governments that would harbor terrorists or facilitate the proliferation of WMDs.)

Your formulation would turn this sensibility on its head. Even if rogue states were to disavow terrorism, give international arms inspectors full access to nuclear facilities, control the migration of their citizens, and to start on the path to becoming solid citizens in international politics, America would still be compelled to act as if they posed an existential threat to our way of life because of their beliefs or other intrinsic traits/characteristics.

By my reading of American diplomatic history, three states took this path during the twentieth century. America participated in a global war against two of them and a "Cold War" against a third. In each case, America prevailed because it was flexible enough to use its beliefs as a guide, and not to allow ideology to become a loadstone.

Originally Posted by Jersey Dirtbag

Incidentally, during the Cold War, both the US and Russia recognized the strategic importance of nuclear weapons.

Thank you very much for this observation. I was--up until you brought it to my attention--completely unaware of the role nuclear nuclear weapons played in the Cold War at any level.

Originally Posted by Jersey Dirtbag

Are they are our enemies because they recognize the value in maintaining their distinct cultural identity?

To the extent I can make sense of this question, you are contradicting yourself. The Communists defined the world in terms of the intrinsic nature of population through the lens of class. While some Americans sought to define the Soviets in equally stark terms (i.e. a communist is a communist is a communist), American statesmen took a much more nuanced approach and kept the Cold War as a contest between states in which interests and ideology were considered in tandem.

[Jersey Dirtbag]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Your own "source" answers your question. You wrote that American foreign policy should take into account the POVs of populations i.e. nations. The points from your "source" emphasize states. (Have noticed that Wikipedia is rarely used as a source on this BB?)

No. I wrote nothing about the "POVs of populations;" I said that the characteristics of populations should be taken into account when formulating foreign and immigration policy. What does this have to do with any of the three principles in the link I provided? Specifically, which ones does it violate?

As an aside, no, I have not noticed anything with regard to the frequency at which wikipedia is cited on PS.com. How is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

Your formulation would turn this sensibility on its head. Even if rogue states were to disavow terrorism, give international arms inspectors full access to nuclear facilities, control the migration of their citizens, and to start on the path to becoming solid citizens in international politics, America would still be compelled to act as if they posed an existential threat to our way of life because of their beliefs or other intrinsic traits/characteristics.

I have no idea where this is coming from. I said nothing that would suggest we are "compelled" to do anything, least of all treat cooperative nations in any particular way. There is a difference between me saying that we must declare holy war on all Muslim nations, and me saying that there are intractable cultural incompatibilities between Islam and the West. It is completely possible for us to recognize the aforementioned cultural differences while simultaneously maintaining friendly diplomatic relations; we've been doing it for a long time. That doesn't mean we need to allow completely unfettered immigration from those countries.

To the extent I can make sense of this question, you are contradicting yourself. The Communists defined the world in terms of the intrinsic nature of population through the lens of class. While some Americans sought to define the Soviets in equally stark terms (i.e. a communist is a communist is a communist), American statesmen took a much more nuanced approach and kept the Cold War as a contest between states in which interests and ideology were considered in tandem.

This does not answer my question. I asked you if the reason they were our enemies was the fact that they enacted the policies I suggested (assuming that they did, indeed, enact those policies). I was implying (as I was with my sarcastic nuclear weapons comment) that just because an enemy does one particular thing does not mean it is an irrational policy or that our adoption of it would compromise any of our principles.

In response to all three of my questions you replied with a straw man argument. You (very obviously) transformed statements that I made into highly polarized positions that were easy for you to counter or obfuscate with references to irrelevant details. You are obviously very well read and intelligent, but this sort of behavior is insulting and unproductive. If this is the disposition you always take while debating others, then I'm not willing to carry on this conversation with you any further.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Sigaba - Sorry, You're going to have to defend that one. My understanding of the Wesphalian model has plenty of room for a nation state making decisions WRT defending against threats to sovereignty and self-determination - including the use of stereotypes to discriminate against members of a nation/culture whose base philosophy is inimical to the preservation of our own way of life.

As a practical point, respect for "the thrust of American diplomatic history" should not equate to shackling us to a "suicide pact" wherein we adjudge all cultures equally meritorious. Times and threats change; the wise person adapts to meet the new challenges. If that means re-looking previous practices, so be it. I'm confident that route (in today's America) does not lead to National Socialism.

Peregrino--

My perception of the Westphalian model is much like my understanding of the "original intent' of the founders. That is, affairs of the state are best conducted by disinterested parties. To be clear, I am not arguing that the dividing point of elite and mass is determined by socio-economic factors, political ideology, gender identity, or cultural practices. I am suggesting that those who seek to participate in this discourse should strive towards a sensibility in which passion tempers knowledge but emotions do not overwhelm the ability to think about the consequences of one's choices. In short, I am arguing that in matters of peace and of war, Athena should, at all times, trump Ares.

IRT your observation of American diplomatic history and the present day, I offer the following comments as IMO/MOO/YMMV.

Our own history is filled with examples in which America's interests have led to statesmen picking stability over opportunities to empower populations to achieve the freedoms we espouse--both at home and abroad. IMO "revisionist" diplomatic historians go way overboard in turning these arguments into a broader indictment of American civilization. However, I think they've marshaled enough historical evidence to show that American foreign policy has worked at cross purposes with both our most cherished values and the very interests we sought to protect in the first place.

Similarly, on those occasions when our ideological views have overshadowed our perceptions of self interest, we've also put into place policies that ultimately worked against our long term interests. Two examples from U.S.-Soviet relations illustrate this point. America's participation in the allied intervention in the Russian civil war stemmed in part from President Wilson's hostility towards communism and his belief that Russians weren't civilized enough for democracy. The failed intervention helped Bolsheviks to argue that the capitalist world was permanently committed to preventing any and all aspects of the Marxist political agenda from coming to fruition. In turn, this position emboldened subsequent purges (executions) of those Communists who argued for some form of accommodation with the west and an ensuing climate of political terror that limited the USSR's range of acceptable options until the 1980s.

During the 1980s, Republican rhetoric about Islamic freedom fighters as allies in a global struggle against Communism undermined unintentionally serious discussions among naval strategists about the link between Islamic radicalism and terrorism. Notwithstanding this concern, Mahanian navalists were not going to allow nuance get in the way of any chance to build bigger ships designed for warfare in the open ocean even though there were articulate calls for ships to handle the lower end of the spectrum of conflict.

These two examples are not merely reflections of the hindsight of history. Both choices reflected decisions that were debated contemporaneously. While these debates did not forecast decades' long struggles against vastly different ideologies, they did provide opportunities to develop alternatives that went unexplored.

Consequently, I believe that the United States is better off when it takes an approach to foreign relations that balances a "reasoned" approach to its geostrategic interests and its ideas. To me, a crucial component of this unending quest for balance is that we consistently put forth our best effort to avoid frames of mind that reflect rage ("Kill them all") or despair ("Fortress America") or misguided paternalistic sympathy ("They're simply victims of Western industrialization and colonialism").

In some cases, the approach that I have in mind is going to result in questions that are difficult to understand, much less answer. As TR points out, there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If, as some suggest, only a small percentage (say 10%) of this total accepts uncritically a literal interpretation of the Koran, that's still 160 million people to worry about.

Finally, IRT your evaluation of contemporary America not being at risk for plunging into darkness in a way similar to Germany, I hope you're right.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Jersey Dirtbag

Entire post.

You are saying that I've made a mistake by assuming that you're articulate enough to say what you mean. How about that. Well, this is what you said.

Originally Posted by Jersey Dirtbag

When it comes to foreign policy (to include immigration policy), we cannot bind ourselves to judging every single individual on his or her merits. We have to take a common sense approach to these problems, and this approach will necessarily be based on generalizations about certain populations. Such approaches are taboo because they implicitly reject the popular notion that "fairness" with regard to individuals must be the highest priority. Rather, they are based on the prioritization of maintaining our national security and identity.

First, by discounting "popular notions" of "fairness", you are advocating an approach to foreign policy that privileges security over America's core values.

And before you attempt to go there. The difference between your position and mine is I express a preference for an elite discourse that reflects a certain way of thinking. You would impose ("we have to") your POV on your fellow citizens.

Second, your approach is "necessarily" based upon "generalizations about certain populations." Going by what you wrote--or does quoting you directly constitute a twisting of your words--you do not mention states, you don't mention governments, you don't mention polities, you mention "populations." Moreover, make a distinction about "certain" populations--as opposed to all population groups.

That is, you're willing to generalize--strike that--you're insisting on generalizing about populations that practice one religion, but those who practice other religions get evaluated by a different standard. So, if it is okay to apply different standards to different groups when it comes to a category like religion, when/where does it stop? Muslims today--who tomorrow? Or will the steadying hand of you and like minded American citizens, firmly guided by the construct of constructs ("common sense") be able to impose a revised set of generalizations before the "popular notion" of "fairness" comes into play? (And before you go there and align yourself with the POVs of other members of this BB, there's a monumental difference between a concern over the impact of "political correctness" upon the topic under discussion and a position that insists upon what "we have to" do and what "necessarily" must follow. If you don't agree, I refer you to my last point in this post.)

Third, by linking national security with "identity" you would thrust America towards a totalizing war of all against all. If, for example, it was decided (by you and like minded citizens guided by the magnetic north of "common sense") that "we have to" adopt a national identity that embraces a specific vision (rather than our current identity that embraces pluralism, diversity, and tolerance), every other identity--at home and abroad-- that challenges our self image is a potential threat to our "national security." But then I'm probably overstating a marginal concern--such a thing has never happened before in history.

Fourth, IRT my point about Wikipedia, <<LINK>>.

[Mr Furious]

Originally Posted by T-Rock

It appears CAIR has infiltrated the highest levels of the White House and the Pentagon

In all the back and forth on the merits and demerits of Islam, I’m not sure if everyone caught the above post. Thanks T-Rock. In case you didn’t read the letter it’s attached.

Originally Posted by The Reaper

IMHO, LTC Dooley is the victim of a witch hunt initiated by those who ultimately would like to see the downfall of the US and its establishment as a part of a global caliphate.

TR, I couldn’t agree more.

I think many are quick to forget that a progressive PAC called “votevets.org” combined with efforts from CAIR were successful in stopping LTG(R) Boykin from speaking at West Point’s National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year. http://bit.ly/PQNnj5


Let’s not forget this CAIR Executive Director taking aim at Rep. Allen West only to get called on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CVK4c2qu3M

Not sure, but there might be a common denominator or central organization here? We’ll keep looking till we figure this mystery out.

[Jersey Dirtbag]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

First, by discounting "popular notions" of "fairness", you are advocating an approach to foreign policy that privileges security over America's core values.

No. I am advocating an approach to foreign policy that privileges security over, possibly, your core values.

And before you attempt to go there. The difference between your position and mine is I express a preference for an elite discourse that reflects a certain way of thinking. You would impose ("we have to") your POV on your fellow citizens.

That sounds great, but it's not clear how your "elite discourse" differs from my approach. I have my opinion and you have yours. Giving yours an empowering label and mine a degrading one doesn't change the nature of this conversation.

Second, your approach is "necessarily" based upon "generalizations about certain populations." Going by what you wrote--or does quoting you directly constitute a twisting of your words--you do not mention states, you don't mention governments, you don't mention polities, you mention "populations." Moreover, make a distinction about "certain" populations--as opposed to all population groups.

Allow me to generalize. What I meant was that we should recognize trends in a general sense; that is, regardless of which variable (nationality, religion, etc) they correlate most strongly with. If that wasn't clear, I apologize.

That is, you're willing to generalize--strike that--you're insisting on generalizing about populations that practice one religion, but those who practice other religions get evaluated by a different standard. So, if it is okay to apply different standards to different groups when it comes to a category like religion, when/where does it stop? Muslims today--who tomorrow? Or will the steadying hand of you and like minded American citizens, firmly guided by the construct of constructs ("common sense") be able to impose a revised set of generalizations before the "popular notion" of "fairness" comes into play? (And before you go there and align yourself with the POVs of other members of this BB, there's a monumental difference between a concern over the impact of "political correctness" upon the topic under discussion and a position that insists upon what "we have to" do and what "necessarily" must follow. If you don't agree, I refer you to my last point in this post.)

See above; I'm not limiting this approach to just Islam. If a trend exists, it should be considered from a foreign policy and immigration standpoint.

I am not attempting to align myself with anyone.

Third, by linking national security with "identity" you would thrust America towards a totalizing war of all against all. If, for example, it was decided (by you and like minded citizens guided by the magnetic north of "common sense") that "we have to" adopt a national identity that embraces a specific vision (rather than our current identity that embraces pluralism, diversity, and tolerance), every other identity--at home and abroad-- that challenges our self image is a potential threat to our "national security." But then I'm probably overstating a marginal concern--such a thing has never happened before in history.

Actually, I didn't really intend to link them (nor I do I believe I did). But they are both potentially put at risk by some of the same threats.

Also, terms like "diversity" and "tolerance" are so politically charged and have so many implications associated with them that to say our national identity is based on them is, well...somewhat nebulous. Furthermore, to suggest that "pluralism, diversity, and tolerance" encompass the totality of our national identity is preposterous.

Fourth, IRT my point about Wikipedia, <<LINK>>.

I'm aware of the search feature and use it regularly. The relevance of how frequently Wikipedia is cited on PS.com is still unclear to me.

[BKKMAN]

Originally Posted by Jersey Dirtbag

...I'm aware of the search feature and use it regularly. The relevance of how frequently Wikipedia is cited on PS.com is still unclear to me.

Documents on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, thus calling into question the accuracy, veracity, and credibility of the entries contained there.

Although one might use Wikipedia for general information, a peer reviewed journal, primary source, etc. would be far more trustworthy and authoritative when searching for or providing data/evidence/facts to support one's arguments.

[Jersey Dirtbag]

Originally Posted by BKKMAN

Documents on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, thus calling into question the accuracy, veracity, and credibility of the entries contained there.

Although one might use Wikipedia for quick, general information, a peer reviewed journal, primary source, etc. would be far more trustworthy and authoritative when searching for data/evidence/facts to support one's arguments.

Roger that. On most of the boards I frequent, "major"/established Wikipedia documents are typically considered valid. Since that's not the convention here I'll utilize other sources in the future.

[Peregrino]

Sigaba – Reading through your recent responses it occurred to me that I had confused the classical Westphalian state oriented premise of your position with the post-Westphalian national/cultural aspects of the current international realities in the more “tempestuous” regions. Our DOS pretends that “states” have control of the “nations” that comprise them despite the fact that the “nations”, particularly in poorly governed regions, neither recognize the states nominally over them, nor their respective borders. (Facts that are particularly useful to practitioners of unconventional warfare and equally troublesome to people who insist that the world fit in their little boxes.)

I think I probably need to move Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire a little further up on my list of reading requirements. Though I wonder what a current revision might look like given that it’s 12 years old. Unfortunately US Foreign Policy is a minefield of lost/wasted opportunities; IMHO largely because the State Department is neither Ares nor Athena (NTM - your statement appears to overlook Athena’s dual nature). Their policies have been heavily weighted for stability and against change from the beginning (stagnant). Very “striped pants“/Westphalian in their approach to international relations. To borrow your phrase “a preference for an elite discourse”. I much favor an approach that encourages native populations to seek self-determination; a far messier and uncertain course yet one with the potential of reaping commensurately greater rewards (provided we stay the course, support the right people, and don’t piss away opportunities like Libya and Syria). DOS has always been too willing to negotiate, treating it as if it were a game and its only purpose the negotiations themselves. Everything is negotiable seems to me self-defeating and not a little immoral.

Unfortunately, I don’t foresee a balanced/reasoned approach to US foreign policy without a change of administration and fresh blood at every level in DOS. Current policy is an abject failure; the “anointed one” (with what I perceive to be a Marxist, anti-colonialist agenda) has demonstrated impotence, confusion, and a lack of vision/leadership while Madame Secretary has nothing to show for her tenure but passport stamps.

As TR pointed out 1.6B is a lot; as you reinforced, 160M hostiles is worrisome. What DN and other “can’t we all just get along” people fail to understand is that your 160M are “fish in the sea” of the 1.6B. They don’t survive/thrive or even exist without the support they receive from the greater population. That makes it really hard for me to accept that America’s core values should be applied equally to all groups. Islam has declared jihad on non-Islamics. To the best of my knowledge, no other religion/culture/whatever has done anything similar in recent history. I’m not willing to extend wholesale tolerance to a polity that demands the subjugation/destruction of everything I believe in. Supporting America’s “core values” doesn’t have to include “embracing the viper to your breast“. I don’t believe in suicide pacts and I’m not interested in “submitting” (Islam = to submit). It’s time to stop treating Islam as a religion and recognize that it is a polity. Were it anything other than a religion, we would have already acted to end the threat it represents.

I hope I’m right too. Personally, I think the fact that we can have a lively discourse and agree or not without repercussions speaks positively for the future.