Its not Cause and Effect, Its Complex
7.22.2005
There is a growing crescendo of criticism;rightly I happen to believe, for the equivalence of
the Iraqi occupation with the upshot in terror attacksin Europe. It is simply put and more eloquently than Ican deliver I fear, by Brownie at Harry’s place. There are no laws of physics at work here, the offering of simple solutionsto an issue such as this (like the removal of troops=no more attacks), is a logical fallacy. I believe that there is little that can be done to fundamentally and totally destroy this ideology outside of allowing history to unfold.
In the short and medium term though, promises of complete solutions by fundamentalists on both sides are disingenuous and can lead to dangerous actions that undermine our liberty and freedom while securing little in return.
Elsewhere the Times article by Gerard Baker is being cited by disillusioned lefty as a rather decent point against current tides of ‘cretino-left’ (to borrow a phrase) opinion. While I think parts are slightly excessive, I agree that fundamentally we must communicate and integrate Iraqis and Muslims alike in combating insurgents and terrorists. The use of attacks by both sides to justify staying or going regarding Iraq is the sadly political point scoring and vastly irrelevant to our current dilemma of theology which promotes the destruction of and clash with civilisations. There are strains of this attitude in all religions, not least Zionism and Christian Fundamentalism.
The strategy from here is to see that religion's capacity to pervert human values and divide societies occurs readily in certain conditions. As the piece on Disillusioned lefty pointed out; “This isn't about revenge. Brainwashed Muslim teenagers don't blow themselves up for shits and giggles. It's a war, and war involves strategies and tactics. They bombed London to achieve a definite goal. Probably something to do with British withdrawal from Iraq. But that is just one battle on the way to 'victory'. Their war is to re-establish the Caliphate, and not even George Galloway can support that - I hope.”
To lose sight of our problem is to condemn us eternally to never finding mitigating solutions. On all sides the argument is being perverted and diluted into Iraq and its focal point. Withdrawal from Iraq should be predicated on a best case scenario for Iraqis we don’t leave until it’s in their interests which are determined by them. Staying or going is not a function of tube attacks. Our democracy is a function of tube attacks and our response must outline the democratic framework through which we aim to respond to extremist views and the manner in which we must face up to the alienation in our societies.
Western societies can no longer point to stats and say we are diverse and integrated, we must challenge division and disintegration, promote equal opportunity and education. It’s not to combat the poverty trap but to prove that in democracy we value every single citizen and encourage them to grow and succeed. To achieve such a solution requires the acceptance that we have not attained the panacea of liberal democracy, that our system is not perfect and still excludes, that we must work constantly to revitalise and reinvigorate our representation of minorities and society as a whole. The process we must embark on now is a return to the real existence of every day life.
An attempt to break cultural barriers and show that we stand united against attempts to enforce dictatorship of any kind at home or abroad. If we are to pull troops out of Iraq it must not be under the pretence that we will no longer be bombed or scared. It must be for a positive impact on Iraqi welfare. That is the debate and it cannot be allowed to blur into one on terrorism. The war has a radicalising effect but as brownie pointed out it is not a case of cause and effect, no scientific
solutions nor any scientific certainty. As soon as we see that there are no sure-fire prescriptions and no serious hope of ridding us entirely of extremism we can observe how genuine democratic responses and liberation movements can lift the duality of views from moderates in the East, Middle-East and West.
RR
I understand where you're coming from, however the following is an excerpt from an article about a new report on suicide bombers which is relevant:
"The mere presence of foreign troops is the instigation for the attacks, so lengthy stays to secure democracy actually make attacks more probable and help boost recruitment."
This would seem to be in disagreement with your view that the 'removal of troops=no more attacks' is a logical fallacy.
Perhaps it's worth a try after all...
perhaps its not logical fallacy but the view you posted is an uncertain an outcome as the view i hold. The main point however is withdrawal should be a function and result of the timing and result being of benefit to iraqis.
Understandably they prefer the US gone as soon as possible to allow them to run their own country. But whose message should we listen to when deciding to pull out? Sunni insurgents or the will of the people.
Leaving is certainly not a function of attacks in the UK and should not become a hostage to local fortunes. Going in was mistakenly carried out and perhaps even mistaken itself. Lets not make as big a mess of leaving.
RR
Leave your response