War of Ideas, Part 2

New York Times ^ | 1/11/04 | Thomas Friedman

[okie01]

"If that fails, we should offer to bring Turkey into Nafta, even though it would be very complicated."

Why?

They could replace Canada...

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
32	Kansas	258.00	7	36.86	159	1.62	90.00	5

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[RunningJoke]

"Kemal Attaturk knew that Islam is incompatible with modernization. He deliberately tried to uproot Islam by laicizing everyday life and banishing Arab influences. He persecuted Islam with a personal passion.
Has he succeeded? Today... Islam is gaining ground in Turkey. It is apparently easier to de-Christianize than to de-Islamize. Islam's rapid and total de-Christianization of the Middle East and North Africa contrasts with the ineffectuality of Christian proselytizing in Islamic lands. Islam caters to basic human needs and is without inner contradictions and tensions. It legitimizes an easygoing, even indolent life. I doubt whether any Islamic country can be durably modernized."

[jolie560]

..."we should offer to bring Turkey into Nafta"...

Yes--that is a great back-up plan.

A future generation, or two, that is strong enough to combine the knowledge, technology, and science of all religious beliefs will be "the strong horse".

We (the USA) can help make it happen.

[Restorer]

Mr. Friedman is being an idiot. Again.

What is clear is that Osama bin Laden achieved his aim: 9/11 sparked real tensions between the Judeo-Christian West and the Muslim East. Preachers on both sides now openly denounce each other's faith.

The tension and anger was fully there long before 9/11, on the Muslim side. Islamists have been at war with the US for at least 15 years.

On 9/11 we finally noticed. That's the only real difference.

BTW, it must be really embarassing to be at war with someone for well over a decade before they even notice!

[RJCogburn]

Pretty good essay.

[Ranger]

An essay with hope for a better future. I like it.

[68skylark]

On the Muslim side. Islamists have been at war with the US for at least 15 years.

I think your point is well made, except that I'd say it goes back further. I don't know enough history to say when the war began. I know that as soon as our country won freedom from Europe in 1783, we started having trouble at once. What we now call 'terrorism' used to be called 'piracy,' and it started right away with ships being hijacked and their crews often held for ransom if not tortured or killed. As I understand it, this was one of the main reasons the states came together, and our armed forces (especially the Navy) were re-formed. We've been fighting this war a long time.

[Restorer]

Islamists, in the present commonly-used sense of the term, haven't been around for centuries. They are really a fairly recent reaction to the obvious failure of nationalism, socialism and pan-Arabism in Arab society.

The Barbary pirates, OTOH, weren't really motivated much by Islam. You would, for instance, have found it very difficult to recruit suicide bombers from among them. The most successful ones were renegade Christians, and they were all pretty exclusively motivated by the old-fashioned value of greed.

[Restorer]

I know that as soon as our country won freedom from Europe in 1783, we started having trouble at once. What we now call 'terrorism' used to be called 'piracy,' and it started right away with ships being hijacked and their crews often held for ransom if not tortured or killed.

We had trouble before then, too, but it was a problem for the British government, not for the colonial ones.

The Brits, French and others had paid "tribute" money to the pirates for decades, not because their navies weren't capable of defeating the pirates, but because paying "tribute" was cheaper than sending the Navy.

Which, of course, just encouraged the pirates.

[68skylark]

The Barbary pirates, OTOH, weren't really motivated much by Islam.

Yeah, I think I see how someone could make that argument. On the other hand, I'm one of those people who believes that cultures don't really change all that much over the years -- even over centuries.

Seems to me that the problems with piracy in the past partly came from failed, cruel, corrupt, dirt poor societies who would lash out at better and more vibrant cultures for sport and/or profit. And in many ways, much the same thing is going on today. These societies are always ripe for some carismatic or cruel leader who wants to hurt the west. And while the motivations may change on the surface (from profit to Islam), the motivations that are under the surface stay the same.

[68skylark]

We had trouble before [independence], too, but it was a problem for the British.

Yeah, I've read the same thing. I don't know how long the British were dealing with the problem, but if I had to guess I'd say they were probably dealing with it from about the time the first British merchant ship entered the Mediterranean.

Like you, I've also read the European powers would sometimes give warships to the pirates in tribute, with the hope they'd use those ships on rival countries. The U. S. did the same a couple of times. It's a shameful practice -- appeasement of evil is usually shameful. I've read that the British finally got tired of this and wiped out the problem -- good for them.

[Restorer]

I've read that the British finally got tired of this and wiped out the problem -- good for them.

Actually, it was mostly the French. :)

An action to put down piracy led step by step to their acquiring Algeria.

[68skylark]

That is very interesting. I had no idea the French made this happen. Now that you mention it, I never really heard how so much of North Africa came to be French colonies -- it suppose it makes sense that the supression of piracy in this area could have had something to do with that. That's what I love about the FreeRepublic -- you learn something new all the time!

(On a related topic I've recently been reading An Army at Dawn, about the allied battles in North Africa early in WWII. Until I read the book, I had no idea that French troops caused thousands of allied dead and wounded at the start of our operations there -- goddamn French.)

[Restorer]

(On a related topic I've recently been reading An Army at Dawn, about the allied battles in North Africa early in WWII. Until I read the book, I had no idea that French troops caused thousands of allied dead and wounded at the start of our operations there -- goddamn French.)

Well, we did attack them. And, if I remember correctly, without a declaration of war.

How dare they shoot back!

[68skylark]

Well, we did attack them. And, if I remember correctly, without a declaration of war.

I guess I'll assume you're being sarcastic. The French had no good cause to shoot at anyone on our side. They should be very ashamed at killing soldiers who were bringing freedom for France and all of the civilized world.

[Restorer]

Let me draw you a diagram. The French government of the time was allied with Germany, although I believe theoretically neutral vs. the US. The French soldiers and sailors in North Africa worked for the French government.

When armed forces began moving ashore and they were ordered to resist by their government, it is not surprising that they obeyed. A little unfair to expect them to rebel against their own government while under attack by enemy forces.

[68skylark]

Well we might have to agree to disagree about the French behavior in this case. If you feel the French behaved reasonably then I probably won't be able to convince you otherwise.

I understand that a number of French forces didn't fight the allied troops -- that makes the ones who did fight look worse. NO ONE could be so stupid as to think that the U. S. and British troops were going to harm French interest -- they were bringing liberty and everyone knew it. It's roughly the same as if someone's house was under criminal attack, and they start shooting at the cops who arrive to help out. It's wrong and stupid and evil. Thanks goodness they stopped after a few days. (Yes, I know the Vichy government wasn't under imminent attack during the period when we moved into N. Africa. I still think the analogy is valid overall -- France as a whole had been under attack from the worst kind of criminals, and we were arriving as quickly as we could to fight on their side to help make things right.)

While some French troops were willing to fight the allies, I notice also that no French troops fought any German units when THEY arrived on the scene.

The French are lucky that history has been so kind to them -- there are some dark chapters in their WWII history about working with the Nazis, and these stories aren't often told.

[Restorer]

I notice also that no French troops fought any German units when THEY arrived on the scene.

Au contraire.

There were Free French units present throughout the North Africa campaigns, if I remember correctly in both Eisenhower's and Montgomery's forces.

That most French were wussies in WWII doesn't mean that they ALL were.

Although it was generally agreed among the Allies that ALL the French were a pain in the a**.