Nice piece.

One comment I have though, is that while terrorist regimes and organizations do rally around fighting "The Great Satan", they do not limit their actions to those hitting America or American interests. They strike against "western" ideals everywhere.

This is, in my opinion, because their ideals are based in Marxism as much as Islam.

Excellent essay!

BTTT

I dont understand - how are their ideals based on Marxism? Don't you mean Communism (I still don't understand but Marxism is different from Communism)

Marxism (according to Merriam-Webster) is "a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society."

Marx derived his thoughts, in part, out of a belief in atheism. He also teached that nationalism was bad. Because of these two facts, people often discount groups as being Marxist in nature if they are religious or if they are nationalist in nature. However, they should not. If you go to Marxists.org, you can find articles that explain why it is not a problem if the people who are rising up in a Marxist revolution believe in religion, just as long as there is no competition between the religion and the state for resources (these articles say right at the top, that they were written to explain how there can be groups that call themselves both Marxist and Islamic). And as for nationalism, you will find that after 1916, Lenin revised conventional Marxist thought to include the idea that nationalism is not only not contradictory to the aims and goals of Marxism, but actually might be needed for it to ever flourish.

If you go and search on FR for the interviews Bin Laden gave to US reporters, you will find that what he is selling is exactly what Marxism is.

As for Communism, M-W defines it as "a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively."

Then there is Socialism, which is "a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."

So there you have it. Marxism is the political theory, that advocates for what it calls an inevitable revolution, moving society from capitalism to communism, transitioning between the two with ever increasing socialism.

Actually my take is that the Arab nations are more inclined to plain old Totalitarianism a la Marcos, Batista, Franco, Sadaam etc. Theoretical Marxism relies on taking care of your citizens being the prime concern rather than the keeping of power. They are in line with Stalin and Mao only in the use of brute force on their citizenry to maintain their power.

Theoretical Marxism

This is the problem with trying too hard to stay true to original definitions. Theoretical Marxism is just that, a theory. Every single application of Marxism in the world has been different, and just like viruses can mutate and form different strains, so has Marxism.

Lots of different flavors, all leading to the same destructive end point. Property owned not by individuals, but by the powers that be, who are the custodians of redistribution for the previously oppressed workers.

"When" ... "governments begin to feel their power slipping from their fingers, they need something to rally support for their government. One way to do this is to create an external enemy. Nothing rallies support for a government, even a despised one, faster than an external enemy."

</sarcasm> I don't for a second think that this could be said of the Klinton regime, as well. </sarcasm>

klinton was an internal enemy to the US....

many commentators have given their views as to why so many in the Middle East hate the US, and wish us harm. They have, in general, laid the blame at the feet of the US, for example, blaming our foreign policy, or, more specifically, our support of Israel.

Israel yes, but don't forget, according to most of these commentators, these fanatics are also very upset with us for Not Signing The Kyoto Accord, Backing Out Of The ABM Treaty, Being "Unilateral", and stuff like that. In other words, these terrorists, deep down they're all Democrats and what they really care about is the advancement of the Democratic Party

( < /sarcasm > )

Why do so many nations of the Middle East promote terrorism? The short answer is to build internal support, among their subjects, for their undemocratic regimes.

This is probably essentially correct. I only hope that those in our government recognize this pattern for what it is. Because, after all, no great nation can sit there and take it as small tin pot dictatorships use them as convenient pinatas to shore up their domestic allegiance. Any government which engages in this sort of activity is a de facto enemy of the US and has implicitly declared war on us, and they ought to be stamped out, period. Under the guise of "liberating the peace-loving people of that nation from their horrible regime", if that helps. Or not. Either way, I'm not picky.

Hence, the war on terrorism, as defined by the Bush administration, is to end this game. The terrorists are the target, and so are the nations who support, and harbor them. They have allowed this unofficial war to start and continue, now they must pay the price. They must end the war or become a casualty.

Couldn't agree more. Let's just hope Bush lives up to his rhetoric. Best,

So these governments have played a dangerous game. On the one hand, they unofficially use the US as an external enemy. On the other hand, they cannot openly go to war against us and win. So what do they do? They engage in an undeclared war, or more precisely, they support an undeclared war, against the US. They support corrupt clerics to pervert Islam into a tool to keep the masses stirred into a frenzy against the Great Satan. Although the clerics are loyal to the government, they provide the government with plausible deniability.

And now, like so much more from the 20th Century, this ends.

he tried to externalize it...