No apology required, friend. I afford you every right every right to call me dense, naive, or whatever else suits your fancy. I guess we can postpone the conversation until other people can handle it.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-after-the-temple/

This is a wonderful OP. It rivals my favorite recent "In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism" for naive, knuckleheaded hubris. If we, the US that is, wants to deal with jihadism, here are the simple steps:

Stop supporting Israel
Get US military out of the Middle East
Stop supporting repressive Islamic regimes
Mind our own business
Stop supporting Israel — T Clark

British, French, American (et al) activities in the Middle East have triggered reactions among various ethnic and religious groups--not least among them founding the state of Israel. This has been discussed extensively and I don't have anything new to add to the topic. - In my opinion, extreme political / religious behavior, whether Islamic, Christian, Hindu, or what have you is NOT compatible with secular societies (which, of course, can contain actively religious citizens). Recognizing it as incompatible, however, doesn't tell us what to do about it, at home or abroad. — BC

Jihadism is a very broad term.

I think we should talk more specifically about Sunni-extremism that followed Sayyid Qutb's ideas and came to be popular with Al Qaeda and later with ISIS/Islamic State. Very different from Shiite islamic revolutionaries from Iran, even if both have similarities.

First and foremost, the objective has been to create Islamic revolution in the Muslim population itself, the Ummah, and to overthrow the secular governments (at least in the view of the radicals themselves) now controlling the Muslim states and pave way for the righteous Caliphate. A way to get to this is to attack the West. This should be obvious from the Al Qaeda of the 1990's. Osama bin Laden declared back then that the US was the enemy and that it was OK killing American civilians, something that goes quite against the idea of jihad being a personal religious struggle and a defensive war to protect Islam. This actually is something similar to what the Iranian islamic revolution has and why Iran has been opposing so much Israel, a country with the former Imperial Iran had lukewarm relations. Declaring to be against Israel has been the way for Iran to spread it's revolution and vitaly to the effort, because otherwise the idea of having a war with a country so far away simply doesn't make sense. But it works wonders for the zealots of the revolution, just as was taking the US Embassy workers prisoners. Because the US was the Great Satan, after all, remember the ouster of Mossadegh and Operation Ajax?



The idea to attack the West, the US or European countries has an old idea in terrorism behind it: that the response of the West to these attacks would show the "true colors" of the West and hence create the environment for the Caliphate to emerge. This is similar to the thinking that for example the Red Army Fraction had in Germany: they were the fraction of the incoming "Red Army" emerging from the German "proletariat" that would rise in the future. By their attacks the Nazi state that West Germany was (according to them), would show it's true colors and unleash a wave of counter-terrorism, that would awake the masses. Well, West Germany responded by the matter being dealt by the police and the Bundeswehr wasn't involved in anything in the fight against the RAF (Rote Armee Fraction). No actual "Rote Armee" emerged in West Germany.

But not so with the financier Osama bin Laden and the fringe group Al Qaeda. Perhaps the US didn't bomb the Holy Sites of Mecca, but they did go after him by occupying a country where OBL was. And in the end killed him in Pakistan, were he was kept as a chess piece by the Pakistanis. The idea didn't die with OBL.

The whole thing did achieve a short term success briefly. We did have a former Al Qaeda member (that had broken with Al Qaeda) declaring himself the Caliph and the IS gaining control of territory. The franchising of the idea has been also successful, so successful that an retired US veteran drove into people in New Orleans with an ISIS flag waving from the vehicle.

(Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declaring all is good in the Caliphate in 2014)


Yet the focus should be in the Muslim states themselves here and how they view this debacle. Well, if there was indeed support after 9/11 and Palestinian crowd did praise the attack, the brutal ways of Al Qaeda and ISIS have really changed that in the Middle East. It's extremely telling just what happened in Syria, where the victorious HTS group and it's leader Ahmed al-Sharaa had been fighting alongside Al Qaeda, had been imprisoned in Iraq by the US, and then had a rift with IS and it's Caliphate. And now is deemed as an apostate by the remnants of ISIS/IS still lurking in the country.

(Ahmed al-Sharaa, on the right, and not wanting a Caliphate in 2025)


Now many actually in the Arab street think that ISIS was invented by the Americans and Israel, in the way that perhaps one Iron Man movie with the "Mandalorian" as the villain was portrayed. The conspiracy theory is similar to the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy theories. Just like in the civil war in Algeria, the radicalism of the jihadist themselves turned on themselves. And likely was used by the Algerian junta, just as Assad tried to use them in Syria. But in the end, the extremism of jihadism kills the revolution itself, just like we have seen from many different historical revolutions where the extremists have gained control.

But the focus isn't on the Muslim states or the Middle East. The terrorist attacks happen in the West that we are afraid of. Jihadism and the response to jihadism is now part of our "culture war" rhetoric. The next mass murdering lunatic that wants publicity can happily get from the net the IS regalia and have the franchise continue. And Islamophobia is alive and kicking and will remain so.

So what to do with jihadism (and thank for reading so far, if you have)?

First thing is what to do in the Middle East. Then is what to do in our own countries. The two are totally different issues and need totally different policies. To blanket them with one response will lead to failure. How do we improve the situation in Middle Eastern countries that Messianic extremist groups cannot emerge and be prominent actors? This is both a political and counter-terrorism/military issue and has to be done helping the muslim countries themselves. Blaming ourselves for past actions doesn't get us anywhere, it's what we do now what counts.

Then the home front. How do we get estranged people willing to commit mass murder? How do we manage relationships with muslim minorities and stop radicalization among them? That's another issue. Jihadism will work as the lightning rod for migration policies and here also there needs to be a broad response with policies that at first don't seem to be related.

Usually the most effective policies seem too bland, far too long to explain and too lousy, actions of whimps, for those who want to ride with the scare of Islamophobia. And usually the simple tweets and comments given by our politicians backfire. Just like George W Bush declaring that the US is on a Crusade against jihadists. Or islamofascists or whatever.

Stay tuned to the next event and the next response to it.

Really interesting. Thanks for the context.

I wasn't clear to me from what you wrote, do you disagree with the steps I described, think they don't go far enough, or something else? Keep in mind that the goal I've set is not to solve the problem of jihadism but just to make it no longer the US's problem..

I'll try to give a thorough response to you here.

Stop supporting Israel — T Clark

Well, years ago when Ron Paul was campaigning for the Republican candidacy in 2008, I thought his simple line getting all the troops had a lot of merit. Wouldn't it be great that the US simply didn't mess around so much? It's a nice idea, but then we have to understand that not everything the US has done has been wrong. Above all, not everything bad that happens is because of US actions. US inaction can have a worse outcome. Usually when the US has been able to gather a large alliance and especially when it has gotten an UN permission, the military actions have been just, understandable and needed. When it has NOT been so, when the US hasn't been able to gather a broad coalition, when it has operated by itself, the outcome has been usually a disaster.

Was it right to defend South Korea against a Russian sponsored North Korean attack? I think yes, personally I like K-pop and stuff that comes out of the country. And the country finally has been a democracy and the South Koreans are far more better off than their Northern counterparts.

Was it right to create a large coalition and drive out Saddam Hussein from Kuwait? I think yes. That was the second aggressive war that Saddam had started toward it's neighbors, even if Kuwait had backed it in the war against Iran. Back then the US followed the advice of it's Arab allies and didn't go into Iraq. Unfortunately this success lead to neocons going later berserk.

Jihadism isn't the reason why the US is in Middle East. Actually there are countries that are OK with the US and do want it to be around. So what would happen if the US left? Well, that creates a vacuum, which is filled by some way.

We can already see what happens when the US has lost interest: other regional actors take it's place. Just look at how active in Africa have the Gulf States have become (in Libya and Sudan). Look at the actions of Turkey. Or how Saudi-Arabia went to war with Yemen and nearly went to war with a GCC member, Qatar.

So I think there is a role for the US to play in the Middle East, but more of leadership role than unitary actions. Unfortunately especially the Trump administration doesn't care a shit about creating alliances and bringing states together.

Stop supporting repressive Islamic regimes — T Clark

Which regimes you define to be repressive Islamic regimes? Do note that Islam is far closer to the state as Mohammed himself was the first leader of the Muslim state. Hence it's no wonder that Arab states, especially those which are monarchies, do have state religion. Do you put into this category Saudi-Arabia? How about the UAE or Egypt? What about Jordan? And how about the wavering states of Lebanon and Syria?

Stop supporting Israel — T Clark

Well, this has a thread of it's own where I've voiced my opinion about this. In short, this has far more to do with domestic politics in the US than is about foreign policy and not because of the Jewish American voters, but because of the millions of Christian Evangelists who see supporting Israel as a religious matter. And as I've said in that thread, France was earlier the supporter of Israel, not so the US. And the Cold War era thinking doesn't have anything anymore to do with the US-Israeli relationship as it did earlier.

(Bibi talking to his American base)

No apology required, friend. I afford you every right every right to call me dense, naive, or whatever else suits your fancy. I guess we can postpone the conversation until other people can handle it. — NOS4A2

Yeah, I'm sure you do, but having a right to do something doesn't make it a good thing to do. Thus, I apologized.

Wouldn't it be great that the US simply didn't mess around so much? It's a nice idea, but then we have to understand that not everything the US has done has been wrong. — ssu

Yes, my reaction to the idea of just getting out was a positive one. It seemed that, as Randy Newman put it...

No one likes us
I don't know why
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try
But all around
Even our old friends put us down. — Randy Newman - Political Science

It also seems like many of our expeditions end badly, damage our national security, or both. I worry especially about how we have put ourselves at risk - right now I'm particularly concerned about Taiwan and Israel and maybe Ukraine. You and I recently discussed how some people around the world see US's role as a positive one. That and other world events have made me moderate my attitude some. If only we would stop tripping over our own feet so much.

Problem is, there are still a lot of people here who want us to keep taking on the "superpower" role. You see a lot of this here on the forum - people willing to risk world war for little potential gain beyond their own jingoistic pleasure. You see the same attitude from many American politicians. They want us to invade Iran or Cuba (or Greenland and Panama).

First and foremost, the objective has been to create Islamic revolution in the Muslim population itself, the Ummah, and to overthrow the secular governments (at least in the view of the radicals themselves) now controlling the Muslim states and pave way for the righteous Caliphate. A way to get to this is to attack the West. — ssu

Are you saying that jihadis would still target the US if we stopped our ineffective meddling in the Muslim world, especially the Middle East? That strikes me as unlikely, but you are more knowledgeable about world affairs than I.

Was it right to defend South Korea against a Russian sponsored North Korean attack? — ssu

I'm not sure, in spite of your affection for K-pop. I think we did it for the same reasons we went into Vietnam - to resist the USSR and China. Whatever would have happened in a unified Korea, I think the world would be a more stable place if we had stayed out. The same with Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Taiwan...

We can already see what happens when the US has lost interest: other regional actors take it's place. Just look at how active in Africa have the Gulf States have become (in Libya and Sudan). Look at the actions of Turkey. Or how Saudi-Arabia went to war with Yemen and nearly went to war with a GCC member, Qatar. — ssu

At least from the US perspective, who cares? It's not our job, shouldn't be our job, to stop all the bad things in the world.

So I think there is a role for the US to play in the Middle East, but more of leadership role than unitary actions. — ssu

Maybe... I'm not sure.

Which regimes you define to be repressive Islamic regimes? Do note that Islam is far closer to the state as Mohammed himself was the first leader of the Muslim state. Hence it's no wonder that Arab states, especially those which are monarchies, do have state religion. Do you put into this category Saudi-Arabia? How about the UAE or Egypt? What about Jordan? And how about the wavering states of Lebanon and Syria? — ssu

Good question. What comes to mind is pre-revolution Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, pre-war Iraq. Tell me I'm wrong. As I said, I think your understanding of conditions is better than mine, although I think your values are different - Europe-centric.

this has far more to do with domestic politics in the US than is about foreign policy and not because of the Jewish American voters, but because of the millions of Christian Evangelists who see supporting Israel as a religious matter. — ssu

I agree and it creeps me out. But I also think there is more to it than that. I think older American's, including Biden and other recent presidents, have a sincere ingrained belief we have a moral and political responsibility to support Israel.