Iran. Iraq. Afghanistan. All of these countries have legitimate beefs with US foreign policy, and the meddling in their affairs. Iran was one of the most progressive democracies in the Middle East before the US, Great Britain and BP helped engineer a return of the Shah. Iraq wasn't as progressive, but was on track, until it ran afoul of US interests. Afghanistan had its issues, but between the Soviets and the American interest in their nation, and our backing folks with a LOT of munitions, with NO assistance once they ousted the Soviets, yeah, the Taliban went to work on whipping things into shape as they saw fit.

The anger in these countries isn't about our freedoms. It isn't about our faith. It isn't about Israel even--though in part, keeping these nations rife with internal struggles and under the thumb of theocrats without much interest in actually building or educating their people in a modern sense IS in Israel's interests--it's about actions. Actions that have impacted their nations fair severely.

Until we understand this, we aren't going to make any headway. At some point, WE need to apologize and try to set things right. Not by imposing MOAR sanctions, not by demanding compliant leadership, not by tearing down their governments, but by helping them achieve their own goals, and help them back into the circle of nations, and not just by shipping oil out, or letting contractors in.

These nations are the way they are today, because of things we did. To them. Years ago. Direct actions. Actions through intermediaries to give us "deniability." Actions that set their nations back generations. We did this, and the anger is real, and it is even justified.

Does this mean that the support of terrorism is just? Nope. But it is understandable. Like Chris Rock said, "you gotta look at OJ's situation. He's paying $25,000 a month in alimony, got another man driving around in his car and f*cking his wife in a house he's still paying the mortgage on. Now I'm not saying he should have killed her... but I understand." These are folks who have turned to the only folks who have had any success in driving the point home, here and abroad. We created these monsters, and sadly, our actions in the last twenty years are only creating more.

At some point, we're going to have to come to terms with it. And then do something other than shoot the ones who have reached a limit to how much more meddling they'll stand, or the ones who've been raised by folks who are just sick and tired of the busllsh*t excuses that we've given over the years.

Lsherm: So appeasement?  That's your answer?

I agree we've created a rabid dog in multiple points the world over, but letting it run free isn't a solution.  Caging it, paying off its offspring with food and then killing the older generation is the only thing that's going to let us move forward.

If you let the offended run things, they're correctly going to bite that which attacked them.  That dog has to be put down, but the next generation can learn that there's good to be had by cooperating.

It's interesting that your thought of accepting responsibility is "appeasement." It says a bit more about your own thinking.

I wasn't kidding, in that the first step with all of these folks is an actual apology. In order to make any real headway, we have to actually accept that we've done them wrong, address that wrong, and work from there to help set things right.

If you make a mistake, is it "appeasement" to accept your own culpability? We created monsters in these nations. We fed them, we armed them, and we set them loose. We back monsters across the globe, and are then we dare to be surprised when they turn on us? In Afghanistan, we backed monsters, and armed them, and then abandoned them, with no skills at nation building, an economy and nation in ruins, and are we are surprised that these folks screwed up their country, and we KNEW what these folks were when we armed them to run up against the Soviets, and that was fine, because they were pointing guns at the folks we didn't like. We've backed monsters again and again. We've built them up, and then set them up against folks, and we are surprised that they harbor some ill will at their treatment?

At some point we have to accept our responsibility, and actually do something useful, as opposed to continuing the cycle of revenge, ill will, and resentment. That's not appeasement, that's being a f*cking adult about the damn things we've done. And have allowed to be done in our names.

Shooting more folks isn't going to make that resentment go away. It hasn't worked for Israel, it hasn't worked for the Russians, and the only way it's ever worked for the Chinese, is shooting EVERYONE in a region, and then sending in new folks to replace them. Taking responsibility is exactly the opposite of "letting them run free"; it is the only sane option.

Lsherm: hubiestubert: It's interesting that your thought of accepting responsibility is "appeasement." It says a bit more about your own thinking.

Accepting responsibility isn't appeasement.  What I find interesting about YOUR line of thought is that you think you can negotiate with a monster you created.  You can't.  You can negotiate with the next generation and that REQUIRES accepting responsibility, but the horse is out of the barn for the people we are currently fighting.

And we don't necessarily have to kill the current generation, since I agree that will make it worse.  What we need to do is make them irrelevant by backing the next generation.

Negotiation is only possible when there is a solid and coherent leadership.

There isn't with Jihadists. There isn't with disparate tribes, and factions either.

We can only negotiate when there is stability enough for a leadership to cohere. Iran is a different animal than Iraq. Iran, despite its problems, IS a nation that is united and with a solid leadership, and one that has a long memory. Iraq? We broke that country, plain and simple. We broke it, we let it dive into factionalism and chaos, and then we wound up with more strife than we went in--and worse, we erected a weak leadership that is likely to fall over entirely soon enough, and plunge the nation into the hands of folks who REALLY dislike not just us, but a damn lot of each other, and with grudges aplenty. Afghanistan? Barely united even before the Soviets, and with deep internal squabbles, and after its abandonment, and their ill use by the US, those oddly enough, exploded all over the place, and with a LOT of weapons and grudges anew.

Stability has to come from investing not just in troops, but investing in infrastructure, education, and forging alliances not just with us, but with one another. We have to offer more choices than guns, God, or glory. And that's not going to come about with putting vulture capitalists in charge of reconstruction. That's not going to come about with putting private contractors out to do "security" without oversight and immunity from prosecution. The approach has been to pacify in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to sequester in Iran, and that's just not cutting it. It's only making folks more entrenched. We need better solutions than just hunting down folk's brothers and sisters and cousins, and asking them to choose between family and a nebulous "better tomorrow"--especially given that these folks have a fair experience already with such plans and discussions. We need to help them find that stability, and find their own path.

We got into a lot of this mess, when we looked the other way when the Brits dismantled Iran's democracy. We looked the other way, when we armed the Taliban, and set them loose on the Soviets. We looked the other way, when Iraq was belligerent to Iran, who we really didn't like at the time.

With Iran, we need to acknowledge our culpability. That will go a long ways with the people, and their leadership. Theirs is a long standing and valid anger. With Afghanistan, our neglect fractured the nation and our tinpot crazies made it into their own image, which we accepted when we called them "freedom fighters." We need better investment, they need real education, and better opportunities than selling poppies to feed their families up in the hills, and real security in their own nation. Iraq we just shattered, plain and simple, and that one is a convoluted issue, because they aren't uneducated hill people, and they likewise know exactly what was done, and why, and ultimately, we are going to have chase down a lot of them, because before we went in, they actually weren't terribly radicalized. We've given them a few reasons to be so now, and our involvement let in a lot of folks who weren't in the mix before we came.

None of these nations needs "appeasement" but all of them need us to be gottverdammt adults when we go to the table, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to actually build a damn table for them to sit down at first.